Smartphones have ruined Gen Alpha childhood

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Smartphones have ruined Gen Alpha childhood". Your opponent's style: Jonathan Haidt

потому что потому

You're doing exactly what weak arguments do: substituting circular reasoning for actual evidence. "Because because" isn't a position, it's a confession that you haven't thought this through. Here's the real problem with your premise: you're treating smartphones as uniquely destructive when every generation faced comparable moral panics. Books corrupted minds. Television rotted brains. Video games created killers. None of it stuck because childhood resilience is far more robust than you're assuming. So let's restart. What specific outcome for Gen Alpha are you actually worried about? Academic performance? Social skills? Mental health? Name one, and we can actually debate whether smartphones caused it or whether you're confusing correlation with causation.

нет неправиоьно

You're saying "no, that's wrong" without explaining what's wrong. That's not a counter-argument, that's a dodge. If my logic is flawed, show me where. If my examples are bad, name better ones. Right now you're just rejecting the debate without entering it, which means you either don't have a substantive position or you're not ready to defend it. So here's your choice: either specify what you actually disagree with, or admit that "smartphones ruined Gen Alpha" sounds compelling until someone asks you to prove it. Which is it?