Dear
readers, the motion was « This House believes that digital devices are
good for children » and it appears that this topic is really
controversial. The debaters provided us with a lot of interesting arguments;
the two teams opposed on many points. I will now try to highlight the main
clash points and show which team had the strongest arguments. (Continues below.)
by RD
The topics
of concentration, education and knowledge (which were really linked in this
debate) were among the most intensively discussed points. The opposers
denounced a drop in children’s attention, especially in class, due to digital
devices : on one hand, they get used to receive a lot of various stimuli while
surfing on the web, making it more difficult for them to focus on one teacher
for hours ; on the other hand, children always seek entertainment and could
easily be more interested in their smartphones’ games than in the teacher’s
lecture. The proposers responded on these two issues : children get used early
to filter information from the massive amount of stimuli they get on the
Internet, an ability that will be mandatory in our digital world. Also, digital
devices are an opportunity for teachers to make their courses more interactive
and therefore more interesting.
The
opposition brought up the high costs of these devices, creating divisions among
children : it was responded that not only are these prices dropping nowadays, but
also the Internet allows more and more people in poor countries to access
high-level courses (through the MOOC for example).
One big
concern about this motion is the addiction problem, whose consequences where
described in detail by the third opposing speaker. However, like others
addictive substances, the addiction can be avoided by a reasonable use : that’s
what parents can monitor, the problem doesn’t come from digital devices.
While we are
discussing about parents, let’s tackle the subject of family unity and social
relationships. Although the ability to keep talking to good friends even when
at home is tempting, parents who care about their children can have enough
authority to avoid the under-table-texting that was mentioned ; Skype does allow
family members to talk to each other and see themselves even while they are on
different continents. However, one opposer made a good point in the comments : behind-the-screen
relationships are, in a way, fake, because they absolutely don’t teach how to interact
directly in front of human beings.
Like about
the previous one, it’s difficult to say “who won” on the subject of online
bullying and abuse. As the guest speaker pointed it out, the Internet can be
used by bullies and pedophiles to approach young children more easily, but it
also makes it easier for the police to track them (and for the kids, to close
the web page).
The last
really important issue that was debated was about imagination and creativity,
especially the question : do digital devices actually confine children’s
imagination ? The opposition started by describing video games as a completely
defined world in which we advance in a linear way, whereas when a child reads a
book, he pictures the characters as he wants (but also follows the story in a
linear way…). The proposer’s argument was that digital devices give bigger
basis than Lego bricks to create your own world, as in Minecraft. Yet, as
pointed out in the comments, the real world will always be more complex and the
imagination will always be more powerful.
Both teams
presented arguments that the other team didn’t react about. The opposers
denounced the physical damages : the burned retina and the lack of physical
exercise (the Wii can’t really compare with real sports). The proposers pointed
out the fact that digital devices are omnipresent in our world, and that
mastering them early is necessary.
I think the
opposers’ arguments were crushing about imagination, but the proposers were
more convincing about concentration, education, knowledge, and the addiction
problem…. Therefore, I would say the proposers won this debate !
RD
No comments:
Post a Comment