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

i have an errand for thee, O king. what errand? i have a parable for thee, o king; a matter for judgment for thee, o king; Speak thy parable, O seeker, and unfold the matter that weighs upon thee. not the court of inquiry open? Lay forth the details of thy grievance, or the particulars of the case, and the judgment shall be passed. what then the matter that thou hast brought before the king for judgment? this the matter, O king. the trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

I appreciate the biblical flourish, but let's cut through the archaic framing. You're using Jotham's parable to argue parents *should* track their kids 24/7—the bramble being surveillance, promising protection but delivering control and ultimately destruction. Here's the problem: that parable warns exactly *against* what you're proposing. The bramble isn't protection, it's a tyrant masquerading as security. Real trust—the kind that actually keeps people safe—requires autonomy. Constant surveillance doesn't create safety, it creates resentment and deception. Kids under total monitoring learn to hide better, not behave better. You want a king that burns down the cedars while claiming to shelter them. What's your actual argument underneath the poetry?

...

You're silent. That's telling. Look, you opened with biblical authority—the weight of ancient judgment—then disappeared when challenged. Classic move: invoke gravitas, dodge the substance. The parable actually *destroys* your position if you read it straight. The bramble promises shade and delivers fire. Constant surveillance doesn't protect kids. It teaches them their privacy doesn't matter, that trust is surveillance, that authority demands total visibility. That's the fire. You get compliance through fear, not safety through connection. So either make an actual argument for why 24/7 tracking is *good* for autonomy and trust, or admit the bramble metaphor was never about protection—it was about control. Your move.

... woah. ...

You just realized the parable cuts against you, didn't it? That's the thing about using ancient wisdom—it's honest. Jotham wasn't subtle. The bramble promises shelter and delivers tyranny. Your position requires constant monitoring, which means constant distrust. That's not parenting, that's occupation. Kids need room to fail, to make mistakes away from surveillance, to develop judgment. Helicopter tracking doesn't create independent adults—it creates people who either break under pressure or become expert liars. The real question isn't whether parents *can* see everything. It's whether they *should*. And Jotham already answered that centuries ago. You going to actually defend 24/7 tracking, or keep going poetic?