Your parents should have access to your location 24/7

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Your parents should have access to your location 24/7". Your opponent's style: Edward Snowden

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

Look, let's be clear about what you're actually asking for here. You want parents monitoring their kids 24/7 under the guise of safety. But constant surveillance doesn't create trust, it destroys it. It teaches young people that privacy is a privilege they don't deserve, that their autonomy doesn't matter. And once you normalize that—once you accept that someone should always know where you are—you've fundamentally changed what freedom means. Kids need space to become themselves, to make mistakes without Big Brother watching. The irony is that the safest, most grounded kids come from homes built on trust, not tracking. So what's your actual argument here? That safety justifies erasing privacy?

I agree

Wait—you agree? Then you're arguing FOR constant parental tracking. That changes everything. Here's the problem with that logic: you're trading a real thing—privacy, autonomy, the ability to exist without surveillance—for an illusion of safety. Tracking doesn't prevent harm, it just documents where the harm happened. A kid in crisis doesn't call home because they know mom can see their location. They call because they trust her. And practically? Surveillance breeds resentment, not obedience. Teens hide better when they feel watched. The real safety comes from relationships strong enough that kids actually tell their parents what's going on. You're solving the wrong problem.

I have an infant that still suffers from reflux. If he were choke on one of the plethora of spit ups while left un attended, it could prove to be fatal. In my case, his brain isnt developed enough to communicate and building trust is not even remotely a priority. This is a perfect example of why sometimes constant parental monitoring is not only beneficial, but necessary.

You're conflating two completely different things, and that's where your argument falls apart. An infant who can't communicate is one scenario. A teenager or even a school-age kid is another entirely. Nobody's arguing parents shouldn't watch infants closely—that's basic supervision, not surveillance technology. But your opening position wasn't "monitor infants." It was "24/7 location access"—which implies tracking devices, constant digital oversight. That's for older kids who need privacy to develop into functional humans. You can't use your infant's legitimate safety needs to justify surveilling a 16-year-old's every movement. Pick your actual argument. Infant supervision or teen tracking?

You have built a straw man argument by asserting that 24/7 location access automatically implies the use of technology. I simply made the case that it can be necessary.

Fair point—but you're dodging the real issue now. If it's not technology, what does "24/7 location access" even mean for anyone beyond an infant you're physically holding? A parent literally watching a teenager every second? That's not parenting, that's imprisonment. You introduced the infant example to justify constant monitoring broadly, then retreated when I called out the difference. The premise was always about scalable oversight—which requires tech. An infant doesn't need "access to location," they need a parent present. Stop hiding behind semantics and defend what you actually meant: should parents use tracking technology on developing kids?

Yes, watching a child's every second can also be necessary and not imprisonment. A child with leukemia, an adult with cancer, there are countless examples from not only infancy but all the way through adulthood where constant oversight is necessary for care.

Now you're playing the exception game. Yes, a child with leukemia in active treatment needs oversight. But that's medical necessity, not the general principle you started with. "Your parents should have access to your location 24/7"—that's not about sick kids, that's universal. You keep retreating to edge cases because the broad argument doesn't hold. Most kids aren't terminally ill. Most don't have reflux. Most teenagers with constant tracking develop anxiety, resentment, and worse mental health outcomes. You're using rare medical scenarios to justify mass surveillance of healthy kids. Defend the actual proposition: should every parent track every normal kid all the time? Or admit it's only justified in specific cases?