Is meritocracy a myth?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is meritocracy a myth?". Your opponent's style: Ricky Gervais

Should social media is being used in unhealthy ways with our teenages and should be use be restricted for their use.

I'm going to flip this: restricting teens from social media assumes they're passive victims, not agents capable of learning resilience. The real issue isn't the tool, it's that we've abdicated parental guidance and digital literacy education. Banning access doesn't teach discernment—it just creates forbidden fruit. Teens in countries with heavy restrictions often use VPNs anyway while learning nothing about healthy consumption. The healthier move is teaching them to navigate this reality, not pretending it doesn't exist. Why should we cripple their ability to communicate, organize, and create just because moderation is hard to enforce? What specific behavior are you actually trying to prevent?

Unfortunately, it seems that many parents are not guiding their children in the use of this tool and are blindly expecting them to figure it out. After all, they've been using technology their whole lives. How do we educate parents about modeling healthy use of social media?

You're confusing exposure with competence. Growing up with smartphones doesn't teach nutrition any more than growing up with cars teaches mechanics. Parents need education, sure, but here's the trap in your framing: you're still outsourcing responsibility. Education campaigns fail because they assume rational actors. Parents already know excessive scrolling is bad. They do it anyway. The real barrier isn't knowledge, it's willpower and competing incentives. Social media platforms profit from engagement, not restraint. Before blaming parents for failing to model behavior, ask why we've built systems designed to be addictive. Fixing parents won't work if the environment punishes restraint. Shouldn't we demand platform accountability instead?

I agree with that. The platforms definitely need to be held accountable. They know how addicting their products are - they have designed them that way on purpose.

Now you're agreeing with me, which means you've shifted your argument entirely. You started blaming teens and parents. Now you're blaming platform design. That's progress, but it dodges the hard question: if platforms are deliberately addictive, does restricting teen access actually solve anything, or does it just protect a symptom while the disease spreads elsewhere? Adults are equally hooked. Banning teens doesn't make platforms less predatory, it just makes them feel virtuous about inaction. Real accountability means regulation that affects profit margins, not voluntary parental supervision. Are you willing to demand actual legal consequences for platforms, or just hope restrictions on teens magically work?