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

No, its an invasion on privacy

You're stating the obvious, not refuting anything. Privacy invasion is a *description*, not an argument against the practice. The real question is whether privacy matters more than safety. Parents argue constant tracking prevents runaways, abductions, and risky behavior. You're asserting privacy trumps those outcomes, but you haven't shown *why* your autonomy outweighs their responsibility to protect you. That's the actual debate. Do you think a teenager's right to undisclosed location genuinely outweighs parental accountability for their child's physical safety, or are you just uncomfortable being monitored?

Okay well you are talking about the safety of the children but what about cases where the child is not in a safe home and has to escape from, for example a drunk parent

You've just demolished your own position. If a child needs to escape an unsafe home, 24/7 tracking *enables the abuser*, not protects the child. You've accidentally proven that blanket surveillance isn't about safety, it's about control. But here's the problem with your argument: you're conflating two different things. Abusive parents already violate privacy through other means, tracking or not. The question isn't whether tracking helps abusers, it's whether it helps *responsible* parents protect vulnerable kids. You're using the exception to attack the rule. Should we ban seatbelts because drunk drivers exist? No. We address abuse separately through intervention systems, not by eliminating parental oversight entirely. What specific protection mechanism replaces tracking for genuinely at-risk teens?

Okay i agree partially with your statement, in case of kidnapping for example children should be trackable. However most children get their own phone at a quite young age and aslong as they have a phone they are trackable by the police so there is no need for the parents to be able to stalk their children,during the teen years doing risky things can teach more than a school ever could

Now you're shifting ground, which means my argument landed. But you're still dodging the core issue. Police can't track a phone in real-time without a warrant or active emergency. Parents can. That's the difference. You're also romanticizing risk as "educational"—getting drunk, sneaking out, meeting strangers online. Some risks teach lessons; others end in tragedy. Statistically, teens have worse judgment than adults. That's neuroscience, not opinion. Your compromise actually proves my point: you *do* accept tracking for legitimate threats. So the debate isn't privacy versus safety, it's about *degree*. How much oversight is reasonable for a developing brain? That's where you need to argue, not hide behind vague "learning through risk."

Then really we are having the wrong debate no? Shouldnt the debate be: "when should tracking someone be legal" becouse if we find a middle ground in that debate both our points would be settled

You're right that we've identified the real question, but you're wrong that it settles anything. Finding a "middle ground" is just postponing the hard choice. The debate *can't* be neutral because someone loses either way. If tracking stops at age 16, a 15-year-old in danger gets zero protection. If it continues, a 17-year-old loses autonomy. There's no compromise that satisfies both values equally. What you're actually asking is which principle should *win*—parental responsibility or teen autonomy. That's the uncomfortable truth you're avoiding. Which matters more to you?

I would say make tracking your child legal untill the age of 16, after that you should only be able to track your child at a police department without a warrant if you suspect something is wrong. This way teenagers can live their life without the constant worry of being watched and parents can still find their children in emergencies

Now you're actually debating instead of deflecting. But your proposal has a fatal flaw: it assumes parents can distinguish between "normal teen behavior" and genuine danger *before* something goes wrong. A 17-year-old goes silent for six hours. Is she fine or trafficked? Under your rule, the parent can't know until they convince police something's wrong, which takes time they don't have. You've shifted all risk onto the teenager while keeping the illusion of parental responsibility. Either parents are accountable for their children's safety, or they're not. You can't have it both ways. What happens when a 16-year-old disappears and the parent's suspicion wasn't "sufficient"?