Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Resolved: Social networking websites have a predominantly positive effect on the United States. Let's break down the argument to understand why social networking sites are beneficial for our society.

1. **Economic Impact**: Social networking sites offer a platform for businesses to connect with their employees and customers, regardless of geographical location. This promotes business growth and stimulates the economy. For instance, companies can utilize targeted advertisements based on users' interests, enhancing their marketing strategies and boosting sales.

2. **Political Engagement**: During the 2008 U.S. elections, the Democratic National Party leveraged social networking platforms like Facebook and MySpace to engage with younger voters. This resulted in a significant increase in voter turnout among the youth, demonstrating the potential of social media to influence political participation.

3. **Constitutional Rights**: Social networking sites uphold the First Amendment rights by providing a space for free speech, assembly, and petitioning the government. They facilitate the formation of interest groups, enabling citizens to express their views and organize around common causes.

4. **Social Diversity and Connectivity**: Platforms like Facebook suggest potential friends based on mutual connections, broadening users' social circles. Dating websites like eHarmony and Chemistry use compatibility algorithms to match individuals, potentially leading to meaningful relationships.

5. **Global Popularity and Benefits**: According to a study by Indiana University, 88% of respondents use social networking websites, highlighting their widespread appeal and positive impact. These sites are instrumental in enhancing democracy by providing tools for civic engagement and information dissemination.

Addressing Counterarguments:
1. **Privacy Concerns and Reputation Damage**: While the misuse of personal information can have negative consequences, the responsibility lies with the users to manage their online presence wisely. Social networking sites provide guidelines and tools to protect privacy.

2. **Distractions for Students and Employees**: Misuse of social media can indeed be a distraction, but it is not the fault of the platform. Proper usage policies and self-discipline are key to avoiding productivity loss.

3. **Risks of Sexual Predation**: Social networking sites have age restrictions to prevent underage users from accessing them. It is crucial to educate young users about online safety and monitor their activities to mitigate risks.

4. **Cyberbullying**: While cyberbullying is a serious issue, social networking sites have measures in place to report and address such behavior. Education and awareness campaigns can further reduce its incidence.

5. **Malware Threats**: Users should exercise caution when clicking on links and downloading files from social networking sites. Security protocols and

The Internet brings more harm than good as people get bullied almost everyday. Bullying shouldn't affect anyone but some minds are weaker than others. The Internet can also be the cause of rape, suicide and murder. Cyber-bullying has a lower chance of the victim committing suicide, getting raped or murdered because it's not as direct as the murder or rapists talking to them online and then finding their address to kill or rape them. Although the Internet has the ability to make your essays sound better than usual, it is still a dangerous place as anyone and everyone can find out information about you without you even knowing.

"I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace." Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. It is because I agree with: Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, in the position that social contracts lead to well-being, that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution, Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Ought: used to express duty or moral obligation The highest value within today's round is well-being. Well-being is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare. Well-being is most important in today's round because it is a main thing the human race strives for, and it can be achieved with the use of a social contract. The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. - "Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday." ~ http://www.lockergnome.com... There are many who have lost jobs and have gone through unnecessary stress due to inappropriate content they posted on their websites. Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. Social networking sites are no longer private. One must be aware of the risks they take while posting anything negative or displeasing on their website. Everything you do on the internet is cached and it may cost you your job and maybe even worse consequences. Soon, there will be no impunity with what you do. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. The benefits of behaving appropriately: •Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. •Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. •It may make a great first impression. The cons of behaving inappropriately: •Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. •Giving a poor first impression. •People may NOT find you appealing. It is obvious that the benefits supersede. Social networking sites can be used for your social benefit. You will often make good first impressions, and be respected. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. I have shown you that professional behavior on social networking sites may induce well being, but the resolution has a word in there that twists everything a lot for my argument. Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. These also can be replaced with should and removal of the infinitive (to); You should behave properly. You should go to sleep. The resolution doesn't say: "Standards of professional behavior ARE to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites." Ought means you are obliged. It is in your BEST INTEREST to behave that way. Do you absolutely have to? No. People can choose to behave properly. It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites, that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately, and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that well-being should be upheld and that Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.

I agree, that banning social networking sites will NOT make common playground problems go away (bullying, suicide, etc.). In fact, as a high school student myself, I've never even seen hard core cyber bullying. The only reason I agree with the banning of social net. sites at school is because students don't get any school work done if they have access to sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. I have been a victim of internet distractions myself, and although my school has not voiced any more complaints about these sites, I can see a YouTube ban in the near future.

The term "Online Social Networks" here refers to -- A web service that uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. For example -- Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, SecondLife etc. Online Social Networks (OSNs) are waste of time for a major percentage of online users; except a few those benefit by advertising their products and spamming everyone else. The information provided by users can be exploited in a multitude of ways; I can elaborate more on those as we proceed through the debate.

This does not exclude all the people without the Internet, unless people who aren't connected are considered to not be part of the world." - Whatever you say, although I did, purposely try to make this more specifically about those who are directly affected by the Internet, who do live world wide. "But whether the charity uses mobiles or the internet it doesn't effect starving people in Africa." - I'm sorry, I thought I already proved this. Yes, it does. The use of the Internet to communicate, especially for the purpose of charity, is highly beneficial as there are many means to communicate your message with many people. Websites, advertisements, even chain e-mails. The message reaches more people, which is what you want when your asking for charitable donations, and therefore it is likely that more people will know what the problem is and donate for it. "You still haven't said why the internet has a positive effect on business." - I have, many times. It has a positive effect not only because it means the ability to buy online, which is easier than other forms of shopping, but also because it allows the cheaper creation of businesses, that is, online businesses, of which there are many. The ability to buy rarer items. Cheaper prices. And while I may have admitted the entertainment point isn't exactly useful, I'm betting you use the Internet as a source of entertainment, or you sure like to have access to entertainment in any form at all. The Internet provides easier access to more entertainment media, even the most diverse of entertainment, according to one's own preferences. "Is the internet creating more relationships and is there any proof they are stronger relationships? If not, then it is not having a positive relationship on relationships! You have also conceded that the entertainment factor is irrelevant." - I don't need proof they are stronger relationships, because they are, simply, relationships. And on relationships as a whole, it does have positive effect. It allows people to create them more easily, and with the people they would most like to have a relationship with. Relationship = happy people. "I will suggest that people learn a subject less thoroughly because of the internet, prior to the internet you would have to read an entire book to learn about a subject, now a simple Wikipedia article tells the basics and people don't go and research further. Furthermore people think knowing the basic outline of a subject is the same as having read primary sources. Therefore through the internet people know very little about a lot." - I disagree with you. You don't have to read an entire book to learn about a subject, only to do so in depth. While the Internet may not, generally, facilitate a deep education on a topic, it still makes it easier to gain information. Most people don't need to access a deep understanding of a topic, that's for educational institutions to instill into someone. Your argument is also somewhat irrelevant. With the Internet, we can find information on diverse topics that are sometimes needed. This is difficult with books. You would be forced to buy expensive textbooks from other parts of the world, otherwise, to find such information, as such information is unlikely to be found in a local library, and even if you did find a book, it would take a long time to find the specific information. The Internet, using search engines, can pinpoint the exact information you need quite easily. "You flippantly say "Of course, the Internet has had some negative effects on people's social lives", as though it is no big deal. You have admitted that it does have a negative effect on people and being social is massively important to society more so than being entertained or buying rare trinkets on ebay." - I admitted to it having some effect, and I would add, if any. I then proceeded, whether you noticed or not, to explain the positive effects, which I believe outweigh the negatives (this is because the negative effects do not occur for everyone who takes to using the Internet to socialise). And of course it is more important - but that doesn't mean access to the last two things don't make life easier for the millions of people who want entertainment and rare trinkets.

I admire you for attempting to quit your Internet addiction. For the following reasons the Internet does more good than harm. Contention #1: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation. This is one of the most and logical Philosophies ever. It has yet to be refuted. This basically states a logic that just because the alphabet can be used to write insults, it doesn't make it a bad thing, and doesn't prove anything special. For example, I have a really big head. One of my friends has a really small head. But he is way smarter than I am. So just because I have a bigger head it doesn't mean that I am smarter. This is what this Philosophy is stating. This can be used as a example for this debate as well. The internet is not completely safe. No has and/or ever say it is. So simply just because the Internet, has bad things, it doesn't mean there are insufficient good things to balance it out. In fact there are more good things on the Internet than bad things. I personally have a lot of people around me who's lives evolve around the internet, and yet they are still the same person as they were when hearing someone is using the internet is rare. Bottom Line: The Internet Does More Good Than Harm. Contention #2: Personal Development The Internet has revolutionized the way we look to enhance living environment, and more importantly our entire lives for the better. The Internet has so many wonderful things we can do with it. Because of the Internet we can: Find Jobs Because of the Internet we can: Submit Resumes Because of the Internet we can: Gain Knowledge Because of the Internet we can: Increase Confidence Because of the Internet we can: Connect With Other People Because of the Internet we can: Go To School Etc. So all these (and so many more), are helping our World, Economy, and our selves grow, and become enhanced! Translation: We live better lives because of the internet. So now I ask you: The internet is giving you a better life. Does it do more good than harm? I would say YES. Bottom Line: The Internet is helping our world grow. Contention #3: Our world is working and has eliminated lots of negative aspects of the Internet. 1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is act put in place to reduce the amount of illegal activity on the internet. "It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel" 2. Both Windows, and Macintosh (including iOS) OS' have security features inlace to protect, humans from Harmful and Illegal acts/uses online. These features allow the user to control what websites and/or content the computer will be able to show. This is protecting our selves, and maybe even more importantly the future of our world - our children. So these features are helping us, or you could even say, making us stay away from terrible thing online such as Pornography, Identity Theft, Bad Influences, ETC. Bottom Line: Our world has and is working to eliminate bad things from the Internet. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Before I begin, I am going to reject your definition for value because you have not sourced it and you have not used it correctly. If you want the word value to work in your resolution, then that definition must be replaced. Here is a better definition: Value :to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance - to regard or esteem highly . http://dictionary.reference.com... I must remind my opponent that as instigator and pro, he bears the burden of proof. He must prove his contentions to be true. So far he has just stated them, so I as con and the contender cannot do much to refute them. I will do as much as I can in this round, and that is to attack the credentials of his sources. I am not quite sure how he used this source, or if he didn't, how he plans to use it in the future. I had to search to find your source. Next time, please post a link. When I did find your source, I must admit that I was very confused. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a paper written in 1943 about the basic needs of people. The only thing remotely close to my opponent's resolution is respect. It is the only part where it mentions other people's interaction at all. The paper states that if a person does not get respect, they will have low self esteem. I have yet to see what this has to do with the resolution. I would like to stress when that paper was written. Clearly in 1943, Maslow did not have social networking in mind. I have more to say, but not the time to say it.

Again I think this brings us back to the issue of trust. Children use social media sites as a way of releasing pent up emotions they may be feeling. They might not want to share with their parents how they feel because it may be negative about the parents themselves. Friends seem like the most important people to a child at this point in their lives, and being able to talk to them through social media without having to worry about their parents seeing allows them to freely express themselves to one another. If the child was having an issue, hopefully the child would feel comfortable enough to approach the parents. And if the situation was very serious and the child was not talking to their parents, a good enough friend would step forward and do something. Parents need to trust that their child has picked good friends to surround themselves with.

Is chatrooms can destroy our social life and how if we use just an hour a day i think there is no issue, What you say guys

[Before my case is presented, I would like to set the grounds for debate. First round is a reading of cases. The next round is rebuttal and reconstruction, and round 3 is a summary of the case, along with major voting issues, should any be decided by either party. Nearly 110 million unique users log on to social networking sites on a monthly basis, and while there can be many benefits to using these sites, more harm comes from them than good. The resolution states: That, on balance, social networking sites have a positive impact on the United States. Because the negative has the first argument in the round it is the negative's burden to provide necessary definitions for the round, although the only necessary term that needs defining would be the phrase "on balance" which the negative chooses to define as "all things considered and weighed equally". This definition was comprised of multiple sources' definitions to provide a clearer definition for the reader. When we weigh and consider all of the pros and cons of social networking, we can see that the cons outweigh the pros, therefore, social networking cannot have a positive impact on the United States. C1. [Social networking sites hurt employment by becoming a haunting reflection of a teenager's past that can deter employers from getting a job in later life.] Employment is the first major reason that social networking cannot have a positive impact. While it can be good for employers to check web profiles of possible employees before hiring them, it can backfire as well. Anders Albrechtslund, in his article "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance," quotes Ivan Tribble as saying that "When youngsters lead a life in mediated publics, the fear is that their adolescent thoughts, musings and immature actions might become a millstone around their neck, since the information will be embarrassingly accessible later on. One such speculation has to do with getting a job in adult life." Albrechtslund then himself states that Tribble "is convinced that past online social networking will be damaging to an applicant's chances for employment." Qualified workers may be turned down because of their personal life, which should be separate from their business life. An example of this is when a 21 year-old major in public relations at Baylor University had her name surface on a social networking site called JuicyCampus and was called the "biggest slut on campus." She said she was trying "to get a job in business," and the last thing she wanted was "maliciousness and lies" about her all over the Internet. C2. [Social networking sites are nearly impossible to regulate or control by outside sources, and current moderation is inadequate.] Another reason that social networking is a problem stems from the fact that we cannot regulate it or control it, seeing as it is an ever-evolving media. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Elisabeth Hirschhorn Donahue conclude in their article "Introducing the Issue" that "government rulemaking that regulates some, but not all, types of media" makes it "difficult to enact laws...that keep pace with rapidly changing technology, much of which is outside the purview of government control... and as technological convergence becomes the norm, regulating a specific media form, such as requiring V-chips in televisions, becomes somewhat meaningless." There is also little legal consequence for social networking sites' content. The aforementioned JuicyCampus that nearly ruined a college student's chance for a job, is completely legal. Richard Morgan says in his article "A Crash Course in Online Gossip" that it is "immune, no matter what it runs on its site from users, just like AOL is not responsible for ...content in their chat rooms.... JuicyCampus is not encouraging people to be themselves, it's encouraging them to be the worst version of themselves." And since these sites are protected by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, they are also immune to bigotry, hatred and other insulting comments. Therefore we have no one to blame but the owners of the social networking companies alone for not keeping a firmer grip on the actions of its members. C3. [Social networking sites' amount of harassment and bullying can drive teens to depression and suicide, and human lives are being morally valued under online lives.] While social networking can be a problem for the older crowd and employment, it becomes an even bigger problem because of harassment and bullying on these social networking sites. THe complete openness and legality of these sites makes it easy for harassing messages and cyberbullying to occur without recourse. Kaveri Subrahmanyam and Patricia Greenfield did a study in 2005 showing 9 percent of young Internet users reporting being harassed online in the previous year. Since then, with the coming of more sites, advancing technology, and more ways to bully online, that number jumped dramatically to 43 percent in the next year, in a study done by Harris Interactive. While this often brings feelings of anger and depression in teens, sometimes this harassment drives teens to suicide, such as in the case of Megan Meier, who was reportedly being harassed via the social networking site Myspace. The next day, she had hung herself in her own bedroom. Now while those who support social networking say that we are allowing kids to communicate, and also adding to the economy through supporting these social networking companies, they are ignoring the most important aspect of all: the value of a human life. We cannot put a list of internet friends or the growth of a company or the popularity of a person ofer a human life. Recently in Wales, according to Switched.com, 17 suicides in a single networking were linked to social networking sites alone. Things like this are happening worldwide and we cannot let it happen here again (such as in Megan Meier's case) by promoting social networking anymore. When we see that social networking causes problems not only when we put a person's personal lives over their business lives, but when we put their online lives over their human lives. The cons of situations like these outweigh the pros dramatically, and that is why I urge a negative ballot.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social networking platforms have a mixed effect on the United States, with both advantages and disadvantages.
Implications Definition 1a--> There are multiple interpretations, and I support both. Implications can be direct or indirect, and they can have a significant effect. b--> My opponent's definition also acknowledged that "an implication could be direct or indirect." This means that the impact of social networking sites is determined by the individual using them, not specified in the resolution. Therefore, implications can be compared to a baseball bat, a tool that can be used for good or bad. c--> 1) The term "effect" can also be used if "impact" is too ambiguous. 2) Discrediting Webster's Dictionary would be absurd. d--> If social networking sites had no users, they would have no implications. This is similar to tools like hammers, guns, and baseball bats. If the positive aspects of social networking sites are accepted, then it is evident that the tool is not the problem, but rather the individual using it. 2--> My opponent misinterprets my stance, which I will address later. 3--> My opponent assumes that tools are either positive or negative, but I have demonstrated that it is the individual who determines the tool's impact. Guns, baseball bats, hammers, and social networking sites are all tools that can have both positive and negative effects. The impact of social networking sites is subjective and can be positive or negative, but objectively, it is a mix. The user of the networking site is the true determining factor. 3a--> Are you arguing that social networking sites aid the economy and the war on terror? If so, you have conceded that they assist sexual predators. A gun may assist in killing, but it is not what has the impact. The person pulling the trigger or the one lying about their age to kidnap and rape a child has the impact. Would you argue that guns have a negative impact on society, or do you agree that it is the shooter, not the tool, that determines the impact? 4--> Apply the sexual predator and child-parent relationship harms to this point. It proves that the user of the social networking site is what causes the impact. 5--> Exactly! Social networking sites have both positive and negative impacts, so how can you claim that they have a positive impact on the United States when there are also negative ones? Economy: 1) The USA Today evidence supports my argument. Newspaper sales have decreased and shifted to TV and social networking sites

Introduction: Agreed with my opponent's definition of religion. To clarify the resolution, my opponent has asserted that religion benefits modern society. In order to win this debate, I will either have to show that religion harms modern society or simply that it does not benefit it. My opponent's argument thus far consisted of the following sentence: "Religion benefits modern society, as it creates and enforces moral laws which all in said religion are forced to follow." This makes the following assertions: 1. Religion creates moral laws 2. Religion enforces moral laws 3. All those in a religion or forced to follow the moral laws laid down by said religion My argument for this round will consist of showing that each of those contentions is false. Contentions: 1. Based on my opponent's definition, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe creates moral laws. Why would such a belief create moral laws? It does not logically follow that a religion would cause moral laws to come into existence spontaneously. If it were somehow true, than what would happen when two religions proposed contradictory moral laws? A religion may propose an idea about morality, but these ideas are not universally accepted and they often directly contradict moral ideas that are derived from logic and reasoning. Simply because religion proposes moral ideas does not mean that it is beneficial to modern society. In order for this alleged moral contribution to be relevant, my opponent would have to show that the moral ideas proposed by religions are logical and beneficial. That fact that many religions would directly contradict each other would also have to be reconciled. 2. In modern society, religions do not have the power to enforce their moral laws. I really don't see how this could be contended. Though people may attempt to make their religious ideas into law, religions do not directly possess this power and in any case it is unconstitutional in the United States. 3. No one in a religion is forced to follow its laws in modern society. Again, this is hardly a contentious issue. Murder is not allowed in Christianity but Christians commit murder. The religion does not force its followers to obey moral laws. Conclusion: I could go into a number of arguments that morally does not come from religion and I could provide many examples of the negative influences of religion. However, the argument that my opponent has provided does not make this necessary. My opponent's only argument has been that religion creates and enforces moral laws, but it clearly does not do either of these things.

I will try to prove my point that technology is a really important thing in our lifes. I am not sure if my opponent meant the Internet or technology in general but I will give some arguments. "For example, most of us has iPhones, iPads, smartphones and so on, and everyone (I am not an exception) loses their time on social websites and on different kind of games, which makes everybody think and do things like a zobie. " Actually video games help people. Certain games can help people that have a problem with their brain. Strategic games can improve strategic thinking and brain agility. There are a lot of games that can actually educate you. I am not a huge gamer but I know that those exist. I think "Skyrim" and "Assassin's creed" can educate you but I am not sure. But most of the games can make you smarter. People that use the Internet helps them learn English. There are some people who perfectly know English just from the Internet ( My English sucks but I wouldn't know English that good if I didn't use the Internet ) There are a lot of website ( like this ) that can help you to improve your social skills and educate you. You can shop much easier. I hate social website too but today's society needs those websites to communicate with friends really easy. For an example if you have a friend or a family member in another country he/she can chat with you every day, see the pictures that you posted and connect you both more than if technology didn't exist. Technology, for an example robots help the production of products. Technology helps science ( explore space, experiments etc) If you had a sad day you could watch a comedy or a parody. This can cheer you up. If you are a lonely person you can find Internet friends and have fun with them. The Internet can connect you easily with people that are like you and have no friends. Technology is important for the business and advertising. Also the technology is important for a business to be efficient. You can read books. It is harder for the government to spread propaganda because you can get informed about the events on the Internet. For an example youtube chanels. If people get informed it is harder for countries to get into war because people stand against that. There are a lot of other stuff I could point but I don't think it is needed. The good things that come with technology are much more than the bad things. Sources: . http://www.nbcnews.com... . http://www.theguardian.com... . http://blog.deepbluesky.com... . http://www.ask.com...

Thanks for having me. I am currently overloaded with finals so I'll have to do a very quick round(in under 2 hours). However, this is no such excuse so I ask all voters to evaluate my case based on merit alone. Discredit the emphatic lens please. I will do my best to provide an insightful and entertaining case instead of just completing it for the sake of praising the RNGesus of Finals. That said, Let's begin.===Indicators of societal progression can be seen through changes within the social norms of a given culture. Changes are usually made and directed by social groups and these groups usually hail from a large array of resources. One of those resources happens to be feminism and I will argue that despite the immeasurable amount of social variables to weigh on, feminism is still a positive force. Challenging pre-existing norms is a valid cause Hitchens regarded women as the "gentler sex" () and that there is always a reason why they were regarded as so. He also testified how incredibly difficult it is for a male to take the role of a nurturer and that each male should continue to be the breadwinner. In addition, Bill Maher also did a stand-up comedy mocking feminine values as well as calling submissive men as cowards unworthy of life's succulent adventures(). He argued that men should return as former "mustang" adventurers prioritizing fun over "safety".The amount of male bashing they did are all part of a belief that holds women as the inferior type. Women are often regarded as the inferior sex because they are usually less "adventurous" than men and that they are much more comfortable soaking up emotions from the leading breadwinner. They are socialized to accept that one gender has an assigned social construct, in such that cooking is an exclusive feminine activity restricted to only women and that leading financial gains is often only restricted to only men. From this point of reference, they like to form further soft comparisons of how each gender should be geared towards. Domestic Issue AwarenessThe problem with social values is that not all values are transmitted throughout society. The prevalence of sub-culture itself promote isolation and isolation prevents proper integration. Nuclear forms of marriages often receives the brunt of this weight. If a couple decides to work together, lots of "back-door problems" may start to arise, where intentions fail to translate into actions.The Bureau of Labor Statistics show that women's domestic workload is twice to that of their male counterpart, despite both being full-time workers (http://www.bls.gov...). Moreover, women are seen as the primary child-rearing parent and they are seen to have twice the amount of nurturing time(http://www.bls.gov...). It is an acceptable premise to argue that in domestic chores and child rearing, women are seen as the leading caretaker. Whether that translates to inequality the same way Bill Maher regards Men as mustangs is debatable but I'd like to argue that most women do experience a sense of inequality given how both genders are now full time workers.That said, It's important to distinguish the line which different feminists advocate. The rather common versions of feminist critique regarding this issue is often so that men do not hold similar concerns and that they're often selfish due to the existing norms that shape them. While this may be true for unique cases especially the narcissist likes of Hitchens and Bill Maher, whose ideas are often misogynistic in nature, it is however untrue for the majority of men.Recent studies made by Gerson shows that Men do care and that their feelings are often known to their spouses that they wish for an egalitarian relationship (https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu...). Men do aspire to be nurturers and valiant cooks, in such that they wanted to equalize the amount of workload between both genders. They are aware that there is a pattern of inequality and they wish to work against such pattern. Gerson specified that in an era of industrialized society, people often have flexibility in their workload, and this allows them to distribute different ranges of domestic work despite being full-time workers.This model is the ideal form for most family structures. There is no "mustangs" in the family and there is no "gentler sex" when it comes to the breadwinner. There is only an advocate towards equality and the only way to do this is to have men being consciously aware of the position that they're in and that they should cater equally in terms of household work.This is the best that I can do. I leave the floor to Con for his case.

There are various community service outreaches. Like any subject in school, you may enjoy it or you may dread it and feel like it is a burden to you. Take the subject of math for example and compare it to community service. There are various areas of community service just like there are many areas of mathematics. There is algebra, geometry trigonometry, calculus and many other areas of math. In the same way community service has many areas. One could help the community by feeding the poor, picking up trash in the neighborhood and many other things. Some people hate geometry but love algebra in the same way that some people love helping the homeless but feel like it is a burden to pick up the trash. Different areas are for different people. Given some people will probably not benefit from the service projects in the community, that does not give a sufficient response as to why the entire idea should be taken away. One can not please everybody. some will benefit and some will not benefit. In response to what my opponent said about community service being in equivalent to slavery, I have a few words to say. People treated like dogs. They were not treated like human beings. Is then a student doing math or science that he/she does not enjoy also considered slavery? It is also considered involuntary. You see just because one does not want to do it does not make it unbenneficial. Involuntary community service can by no means be compared to original slavery. The standard my opponent uses for community service being equivalent to slavery and a violation of human rights is not being used in all aspects (would you use the same standard for whether or not one would like to do math or science in school). Does not math or science or anything the students don't like change the atmosphere in a school? The example my opponent gave about a student who has to feed his family is a specific case. The entire school does not have that situation. One can not base the entire decision on specific cases. I hope I have convinced you well enough.

If you say children should not use technology, it means that they should not use technology totally. You can control what websites that your child can visit, and also can control apps that the child uses, so I don't think, they can visit false websites that contain false information, and be addicted to games. So I still think using technology is good. Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in.

I agree that it will bring goodness into the community, but the problem with community service is that sometimes you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause that you don't really want to support.

Honestly it doesn't make a difference because of how simple it is now becoming to create an account and without a doubt there are under 13's with a fake account. kids may have older friends and family who encourage them to use it. also, trying to prevent something from going public makes it go public and I would like to employ reverse psychology by maybe lowering the age limit to see what happens. Also, these sites provide a great way to communicate with friends and family across long distances.

I would like to see a source for the statistics provided, however. My opponent tries to argue in the first round that "[Mobile tech] has defeaated the purpose of social gatherings, personal connections. .. and physical activity. " I am not sure what gives PRO justification for stating this. What purpose is this? How has mobile tech defeated? PRO makes claims, but does not support them. My experience has been that cell phones actually make having social gatherings and face to face meetings easier. Person A can call persons B, C, and D, and invite them all over for a movie, for example. If persons B, C, and D are a long distance from person A, say 45 minutes, then getting the necessary arrangements in place will be troublesome, as A would have to drive to discuss these things with each person. A can simply call or text each person, and they can plan ahead. This stretches in to various industries, the most obvious being business. Business professionals will not always be in their office when they are called. As such, the use of a cell phone allows people to get in touch with them. Or, even simpler, there is the fact that cell phones can be used for such simple tasks as keeping a planner. Granted, those people who are forgetful may lose their phone, or forget to check their planner, but this does not negate the usefulness of the feature. It simply shows that the person involved is not using their mobile device in the most productive way possible, as the business person will be wont to do. The above falls into the section of my opening statement where i mention the capacity for social gatherings and long distance personal connections. I then mention educational activities. Tablets and laptops are the best example of mobile tech being used for educational purposes. Some people, not all mind you, buy ebooks and read from a tablet. Other people go on the web regularly and engage in intellectual conversation. Still other people do independent research. The list is almost inexhaustible. I will concede the point that mobile tech can lead to negative things, however, the positives tend to outweigh the negatives. I believe, and I hope PRO corrects me if i am wrong, that many of the problems created by mobile tech (related to lower self-esteem, and cyberbullying) can be easily avoided by refraining from the use of particular websites. Some people are mean, and do mean things to others, however, there is no reason to believe this is a failing of mobile tech. Rather, it is related to the individuals who do these things.

In my opinion the communication between students and their school teachers via social networks is an unacceptable phenomenon that we should prevent from happening. Acceptance first.. P.S.: HERE FOLLOWS AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: As I wrote in the title, we should avoid the PERSONAL communication between teachers and students. Their participation in public discussions that can be seen by everyone is not only acceptable for me but I also recommend such actions.

And since there is no format what so ever I shall have the freedom to chose my own format. Thus begging my opening argument : Photoshop is not to blame for these social influences placed on young children and adults. Instead of blaming and pointing the finger at photoshop how about the modeling magazines showing super thin models in a skimpy dress to be plastered on the front of a magazine? Or how about the fast-food industries with its addicting foods which are fating up our people. I work on a yearbook staff at my high school and I need photoshop to make cut-outs, lower the opactiticy, etc. It is a very benfical tool and it should not be cut out since some teenagers and young adults use to altar their bodies. This begs the question were does personally resboinsbillty lies and courpret resposnibillity?


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial for Our Community?

Social Networking Platforms: A Detriment or a Boon to Society?

At the heart of this debate lies the question of whether social networking sites contribute more harm than good to our society. Let us clarify that we are discussing the impact of social networking sites as a whole, not just individual platforms like Facebook or Myspace. Essentially, we are examining the role of online communication between individuals.

The proposition that online communication can somehow be more detrimental than beneficial is absurd. Social networking platforms facilitate human interaction across great distances, enabling global connections, idea sharing, expression of desires, friendship formation, and discussion of common interests. In an era where loneliness or isolation can be alleviated through a quick online search, these platforms offer a refuge after a long day of work or school.

The only difference between a social networking site and a physical gathering of friends is that the former makes connecting easier. Would my opponent suggest that social interaction is harmful? If not, then how can they criticize a wide array of websites that promote such interaction, allowing people to keep in touch with friends, distant relatives, or loved ones around the world?

To justify their claim, my opponent raises two potential issues: the public nature of social networking sites and their impact on employment. However, these arguments are flawed.

Firstly, blaming social networking sites for the actions of third parties is misplaced. The existence of these platforms does not force employers to act in a certain way; they do so of their own accord. Removing social networking sites would not prevent employers from seeking information about potential employees, as they have done through various means in the past. The issue lies with employers' actions, not the platforms themselves.

Secondly, most social networking sites allow users to create usernames, distinct from their real names. This feature negates the concern that personal information can be easily accessed. Moreover, users can simply choose not to use their real names, further protecting their privacy.

The morality of firing someone based on information found on social networking sites is questionable. Firing someone for not enjoying their job, even if they perform it well, is morally reprehensible. We should not defend such actions by criticizing social networking sites. The problem lies with companies that make such decisions, not with the platforms that provide the information.

My opponent also suggests that social networking sites interfere with education, both in terms of studies and university applications. However, this argument is flawed as well.

The connection facilitated by social networking sites can be beneficial for education. Students seeking help with homework or understanding complex concepts can find detailed responses on platforms

Since the rise of the media in America now thousands upon thousands of people are able to view much more than possible in past American societies. With television being a leader in television shows and a diverse number of advertisements along with magazines following close behind, teenagers, and recently, those even younger are being pounded continuously throughout the day of what they need to do in order to fit within the current society's norm. Not only are we no longer allow to filter what our children watch and keep them safe from the darker aspects of the outside world, we also have to pay closer attention to what our children are being exposed to in order to keep them from doing things that may end up affecting their lives in very negative ways. Currently the media is continuously attacking our children with their malicious and degrading advertisements and television shows telling our youth to look, act, and even pretend to be a certain way to be more generally accepted, to be "normal". Not only are children being told that they must be a certain way to be accepted, but the media is also practically telling these children that if they are not acting, doing, or saying these things to be cool then they are not "cool", then that these children are not "normal". The thought of not being normal and not having the ability to fit in cause many of our children to take drastic means and measures to fit in. Many of these include the results of an increase in body image issues, eating disorders, drug abuse, and even an increase in suicide rates. With all of these issues on the rise and the media growing at ridiculous rates we as a community are becoming less and less able to help our children. With the inability and a weaker hand to help keep our children safe and filter them from the societal monsters and pressures, we must find a way to get a hold on the media and our children in that they do not have to think twice before trying to attempt in doing something stupid simply to fit in and get attention from their peers. Instead of allowing the media to feed our children all of this negative attention we as a community must take a different measure in fighting back against the media in which we flood it with positive influences. Not only are we trying to make sure our children and youth do not fall into the hands of drugs and sex from all of the negative role models portraying the "glamorous" Hollywood scene, it is also our obligation to make sure that our children learn to love themselves the way they are and accept that the beauty in themselves is what makes them different. Though filtering may be thought of as the ideal way to protect our children from these negative ideas, in actuality if anything we should allow our children to see these things and let them understand that in order to be perfect and beautiful they do not need any of these things that the media is telling them they need, yet they need to understand why they do not need them.

Well the limit factor sounds acceptable but, society is like a bully if they take away a piece of freedom they will keep coming back for more. So if they limit our rights to speak, because of our feelings to protect people against verbal offense, then society will take the limit and turn it against us. Opening the door for society to take away more of our rights. Therefore what people meant for good, society will reverse it, so they can have excuses to take away our rights. You see this world is full of manipulation, so if they limit our right to speak, we have to think about the people who are really suffering and need to be heard; people like the labor force, homeless, middle class, children in abusive homes, inhuman cop cases, racism, street violence, deaths, court cases, justice and inhumanity. Most fail to realize that society's actions of taking a way rights is a form of power. Power says "we control your right to speak and you will do what we say". See here is what you have to understand, is when people or individuals have power they can either use for good or abuse it. And here lately former leaders, who had power over people, have been abusing it; people like Hitler, Binladin, the Pope, the Mexican drug Cartels, and thousands of others over the course of history. My point is that having power over people, gives the society power to: become rich, enslave people, be unrealistic, take full control, kill, steal, destroy, and much more. I believe having to much power over people will begin to destroy them as a nation, so henceforth it will become a new people abiding under the rules and tyranny that was set. But I do here what you are saying, but I believe if most of us had the freedom to speak in the middle class, we would address a lot the wrong we see society is doing to bring down the nation.

The Internet brings more harm than good as people get bullied almost everyday. Bullying shouldn't affect anyone but some minds are weaker than others. The Internet can also be the cause of rape, suicide and murder. Cyber-bullying has a lower chance of the victim committing suicide, getting raped or murdered because it's not as direct as the murder or rapists talking to them online and then finding their address to kill or rape them. Although the Internet has the ability to make your essays sound better than usual, it is still a dangerous place as anyone and everyone can find out information about you without you even knowing.

I will be using this section to state what this debate will be about and ask my opponent whoever it may be simply accepts the debate in their first round. I am not sure if I will get any takers for this debate, but because this is my first debate, I wanted to debate about something rather laid back and easy to discuss in order for me to get a better idea of how this works. I don't care who my opponent is, although I've never debated before, this subject shouldn't be too difficult for me. I have been on different forums before and am aware of a lot of features that forums can have. I just ask that people bear with me as this is my first debate. I am for the fact that the forums can be greatly improved upon and the con is against this, either they like it the way it is or whatever they want to argue. I hope I covered everything, I expect this to be a fun rather than serious debate. The rounds should not be that long so I am making the time to do your round 24 hours rather than 2 or 3 days. I am hoping to get good feedback from this that I can use in future debates! Thanks.

Yes the techs have made us cattle who are following the same path of getting a 'like' .From evolution we got tech and now our condition is deteriorating!! Its well said one cannot resist it but it also creates a loophole for the unsocial people who are craving for destroying worlds peace

Broadband is decreasing now, claimed to help the economy bla bla bla, (Vikki S. Katz, Matthew D. Matsaganis, and Sandra J. ball-Rokeach, Ph.D., University of Southern California, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102.) but it means that minoritys which depend on cheap public broadband will not be able to send their radio and TV news at all. But it also means that because most people get their news from public TV and radio which is corrupt with racist ideas (Chucks Amajor, Mark Sanders, DeRonnie Pitts, http://www.stanford.edu......, )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org......)

OK, the personal communication between students and teachers via social media must be unacceptable!! First of all, a private communication between a student and a teacher is not ,obviously, very trustworthy. No one can know what they are talking about and we can not check the content of their conversations. I know that a lot of the private discussions are innocent but unfortunately we can not be sure. Nowadays, the phenomenon of teachers who have an inappropriate sexual interest in their students is very frequent.It is very difficult for a child to realize that he is being groomed; they are unlikely to know the risk. After all, a teacher is regarded as a trusted adult. But, if the child is aware that private electronic contact between teachers and students is unacceptable for the society or even prohibited by the law, the child will immediately know the teacher is doing something he/she is not supposed to if he initiates private electronic contact. This will therefore act as an effective warning sign to the child and might prompt the child to tell a parent or another adult about what is going on. Social networking websites have proven to be particularly effective for child grooming by pedophiles. Teachers are already in a position of power and trust in the relationship with their students. Being allowed to communicate with students via facebook would greatly facilitate misconduct by a teacher who wants to start an inappropriate relationship with a student, by giving him virtually unlimited access to the students after school. In fact, many such relationships do involve some form of electronic contact. According to Carol Shakeshaft an expert in sexual misconduct by teachers: "educators who use social media for personal and intimate conversations and contact are not much different from those who spend their time hanging out with students at the beach. You have to ask why a teacher would do this. The honest answer is that it rarely has anything to do with student learning.[*]" And for those of you who believe that this is something unusual that is almost impossible to happen: "A teacher accused of having sex with a 14-year-old-student had groomed him for a up to a year, according to police. Chrystal Miller is alleged to have sent the teen phone and Facebook messages before the relationship turned physical." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) "In January the 15-year-old victim told special unit detectives about his relationship with his dance teacher at Dance Effect Studio in Coral Springs.Detectives then confirmed details of Deberry's relationship with the teen via communication on the victim's Facebook account, email, and through 117 pages of texts. The two exchanges messages such as "I love you so much" and "Making love with you was the greatest feeling in the whole world," according to the arrest report." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) And if you haven't got convinced yet: In their 2002 survey, the AAUW reported that, of students who had been harassed, 38% were harassed by teachers or other school employees. One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators; in turn, 13% of educators reported sexual interaction with their students.[9] In a survey of high school students, 14% reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. (Wishnietsky, 1991) In a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 found that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. And a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees. Indeed, one critic has claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If you search a little bit, you will find more affairs.. Furthermore, teachers are not only educators but also ordinary people who have their personal lives that might undermine educational messages. Access to a teacher"s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking[**]? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a "hypocrite" by her students when a photo of her was found on her facebook page[***]. And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening. Of cource, since teachers do not something illegal they can not be considered as a bad example for their students but they have to teach to avoid some things that can harm or put the in danger and the teaching would not be very effective if children saw their teachers doing things they had told them not to do. Finally, interacting with one"s teachers the same way as with one"s friends, sharing personal information, can only erode the respect and distance that a teacher needs in order to be an authority figure and a mentor for her young charges. Even if such "friendships" were entirely innocent, they would still cast enough suspicion on the teacher-student relationship to put considerable strain on the teacher"s role as educator and their ability to do the job. If a teacher wants to help their students understand something or answer some of their questions, he/she could do it in a pulic forum for example, during a school break the next morning or even in class. But the personal and intimate communication between students and teachers is harmful not ony for both of them but also for the society as a whole. sources: [*] Shakeshaft, Carol. "Using Social Media to Teach: Keep it Transparent, Open and Safe." The New York Times. 19 December 2011. http://nytimes.com... [**] Preston, Jennifer. "Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online". The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html. [***] Keneally, Megan. "Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways." The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk......

This debate is on wether or not reading is good for you. I explained how it contributes to society. But it seems like you are angry on how it destroys your eyes. You also point out other objects/activities destroy your eyes like TVs and computers. Many people would be angry at you for putting TVs and books in the same category because most people would agree TVs hurt your eyes and brain more. Your POINT 2 is disregarded because most people our days will have Kindles and IPADs to read. Or they are by a lamp or snuggled under a tree. Also why are glasses so bad? Well if people call you 'Four Eyes' I'd get it but our days most people have glasses and it's in the "norm' " pretty much and they don't really cause problems other than how they cost and if they break. :POINT 3: I agree with kids not allowed to read at a certain age but there's a difference between Asian countries and America and that difference is. . . We have junk TV and they don't so put it this way: would you rather them learn their ABCs or watch Ben 10 and Barbie? My other thoughts on bad eyesight is that later (duh, Ben everything will happen later because you know we're 'merican) we will have technology that will fix our eyes and maybe even progress them even farther. We are already getting started because I saw this one guy have a robot eye that can take videos. My own views on reading: I love to read and not only has it made me the way I am but it also made me realize that there is a god because I read the Bible and many myths and what I realized is that they are practically the same other than some settings or names so they aren't really that different. If you want me to give some examples just ask though they won't have anything to do with reading mostly Theism vs. Atheism. Back to you. . .

yeah i didnt thinik of that i just wanted to debate with someone on this topic. so yeah i think they can be good for you as they keep the mind active and yeah i cant think of anything else at the moment ( my mind has gone blank ): )

Is chatrooms can destroy our social life and how if we use just an hour a day i think there is no issue, What you say guys


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

On balance, the internet provides more advantages than disadvantages for United States businesses. The argument that the internet is not the only mode of communication is valid, but it overlooks the unique benefits of online platforms. Traditional methods like TV, radio, and billboards are indeed alternatives, but the internet offers a more interactive and cost-effective means of communication, particularly through social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and Skype. These platforms facilitate direct interaction between businesses and their clientele, enhancing efficiency and collaboration. Email services, available through providers like Google, Yahoo, and AOL, also offer a cheaper alternative to telephone communications for business transactions.

The claim that not everyone has internet access is true, but it is less relevant in the context of US businesses, which typically have reliable internet connectivity. In fact, businesses often have more extensive online presence than TV exposure, making the internet a more efficient tool for advertising and customer engagement. Online surveys and polls can be conducted more easily and cost-effectively than through TV or mail, providing businesses with valuable consumer feedback.

The concern about the internet's risks, such as viruses and scams, is valid, but these issues can be mitigated with proper cybersecurity measures. Businesses are aware of the potential dangers and can safeguard against them. The unpredictability of the internet, such as occasional failures, is a minor inconvenience compared to the benefits it offers. All forms of communication have their limitations; for instance, TV can suffer from signal disruptions, radio from technical difficulties, and billboards from weather-related damages. Despite these challenges, the internet's advantages, such as its cost-effectiveness, interactivity, and widespread business adoption, clearly outweigh the potential harms for US businesses. Therefore, the internet is a net positive for the American business landscape.

I understand your thoughts on this topic, but I must disagree and say that I do not think that parents have the right to view their child's social media. Parents should have faith that they have raised their child to make the right choices when it comes to social media. When parents give the kid permission to join a social media site, they are giving them their trust to make the right decisions. If the parent is checking everytime their child posts something, then they will begin to feel like there is no trust. The child should be able to feel like they can express themself, without the fear of their parents disapproval. Hopefully, the child and parent has a strong enough relationship that if the child began to feel cyber bullied they could come to the parent.

[I will start by attacking my opponent's case, then moving on to rebuild my case.] The first argument I make on my opponent's case is that "on balance" has already been defined in the round, the definition I present comes from as many sources as possible to provide a clearer definition for the debate therefore you disregard his definition of "on balance" and look to mine and through mine you see that my cons on my side of the case will outweigh his pros in the end. Also, he provides a confusing definition of positive in the context used the resolution as the positive referred to has nothing to do with irrefutable fact, positive is better defined in the round as "good," if you look to my opponent's definition of positive you are voting on the basis of an incorrect resolution. On his Contention 1 he states that private accounts can be made on these social networking sites, but private accounts are incredibly easy to hack; this has happened before to a number of people. Also, teens can be gulled easily by people pretending to be their age online; if one of their real-life friends has an online friend posing as a person their age they are more likely to try to be friends with the second person because their real-life friend is friends with them, therefore pulling them into a false sense of security where a sex offender or murderer could be hiding behind an account disguised as an innocent teenager. His second through fourth contentions deal with education, politics, and economic gain, but after I block his C1, you must apply my C3 that his C1 failed to block where we must value a human life above all things in the round because a person's intrinsic worth is greater than that of any earthly idea such as education, politics, and the economy. It is morally more correct to value a human life because our nation was founded on morals and losing our morals destroys the foundation of the US therefore not having a positive impact on the affirmative side whatsoever, and the affirmative does not value this at all; I therefore have the higher moral value in this round which should be the basis of your vote here. It is currently pointless to make any new arguments against C2-4 individually because, like I said, I am upholding the greater moral value on my side: human life, so you cannot consider them drops, you basically cross-apply my C3 on all of them. While the aff may argue that his plans are better for the US because they are valuable to the US, nothing can be better for the US than keeping our population alive; we were a country founded on morals, if we drop these morals we lose our essence and foundation as a nation. This is why you must look to the negative in this debate. Glad to see it's going to be a good one. (To my opponent, are you a debater? If so, LD or CX? I remember having to write this case for a public forum debate.)

I admire you for attempting to quit your Internet addiction. For the following reasons the Internet does more good than harm. Contention #1: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation. This is one of the most and logical Philosophies ever. It has yet to be refuted. This basically states a logic that just because the alphabet can be used to write insults, it doesn't make it a bad thing, and doesn't prove anything special. For example, I have a really big head. One of my friends has a really small head. But he is way smarter than I am. So just because I have a bigger head it doesn't mean that I am smarter. This is what this Philosophy is stating. This can be used as a example for this debate as well. The internet is not completely safe. No has and/or ever say it is. So simply just because the Internet, has bad things, it doesn't mean there are insufficient good things to balance it out. In fact there are more good things on the Internet than bad things. I personally have a lot of people around me who's lives evolve around the internet, and yet they are still the same person as they were when hearing someone is using the internet is rare. Bottom Line: The Internet Does More Good Than Harm. Contention #2: Personal Development The Internet has revolutionized the way we look to enhance living environment, and more importantly our entire lives for the better. The Internet has so many wonderful things we can do with it. Because of the Internet we can: Find Jobs Because of the Internet we can: Submit Resumes Because of the Internet we can: Gain Knowledge Because of the Internet we can: Increase Confidence Because of the Internet we can: Connect With Other People Because of the Internet we can: Go To School Etc. So all these (and so many more), are helping our World, Economy, and our selves grow, and become enhanced! Translation: We live better lives because of the internet. So now I ask you: The internet is giving you a better life. Does it do more good than harm? I would say YES. Bottom Line: The Internet is helping our world grow. Contention #3: Our world is working and has eliminated lots of negative aspects of the Internet. 1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is act put in place to reduce the amount of illegal activity on the internet. "It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel" 2. Both Windows, and Macintosh (including iOS) OS' have security features inlace to protect, humans from Harmful and Illegal acts/uses online. These features allow the user to control what websites and/or content the computer will be able to show. This is protecting our selves, and maybe even more importantly the future of our world - our children. So these features are helping us, or you could even say, making us stay away from terrible thing online such as Pornography, Identity Theft, Bad Influences, ETC. Bottom Line: Our world has and is working to eliminate bad things from the Internet. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Neilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) "As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process." Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' " says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are "exploring and experimenting" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. "There's been a definite shift the last two months," she says. "There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before." I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become "friends" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.

It is so amazing to me as to how many times that I am forced to reiterate that this whole debate has nothing to do with how we protect our children from the media, but is about how negatively the media affects our children. You continuously go on to state how the idea of a filtration system sounds on the verge of ludicrous to you, when you state that education is key. When educating a child, that child has the ability to pick up everything and anything whether or not it is coming from the educator, in this case you wanting it to be the parent. Therefore if anything, a filtration system for a HOME TELEVISION would be a smart idea in order to protect our children from picking up information that may be detrimental to their health in their futures. Initially, before you had skewed my argument, I was stating that the internet was negatively affecting the health of our children, I had stated that a good way to start in order to keep our children safe would be to have a sort of filtration system to keep them protected. But this was not what my argument was about, my argument was stating that since the arise of the media many studies have shown that suicide rates, drug abuse rates, and eating disorders have increased dramatically. According to ap.psychiatryonline.org it stated that since 1998 dieting had increased from 0 to 69%, and all of those women that were interviewed stated that they were aiming to earn bodies such as the actresses on shows such as Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place. Along with this around twenty five years ago it was recorded that that the average woman was only 8% heavier than the average model, today that number as skyrocketed up to 28%. All of these women striving to achieve the near impossible are putting their lives and health in danger in that they force themselves to do dangerous things such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia in order to achieve the "perfect" body, many times these actions ending in very negative ways. Also, the media advertising movies in which glamorizing the drug world attracts many of our naiive youth to act as copycats in that everything they see done, they do. With movies such as The Pineapple Express and The Hangover, the characters in these movies use drugs in order to have a "good" time and to enjoy themselves a little bit more. Children seeing this say "oh wow they must have more fun high, so maybe I will too." The glamorizing of cannabis and other drugs makes children think that the drug is not that bad because they are being used to have fun, if they were really that bad why would they show it on television. Seeing this and believing that it is not that bad for one's health the children usually partake in this innocent need to have fun, and eventually this all ends in addiction to much harder drugs in the need to have a much stronger, and sometimes much more dangerous high. Is this how we want to see our children grow up?

For my topic of debate I have chosen: 2) Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy. For which I will take the Pro/Affirmative side. Here are my options: 1. The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote. 2. Spelling differences (ex. colour vs. color, theatre vs. theater) should be standardized throughout the English language. 3. Laughter is the best medicine.

Development always comes with some or the other flaw which widely affects the society. In our modern society of ours, television and internet have become inalienable from us. People switch on to television every time for one or the other need, be it recreation or getting updated with day today happenings. the same thing goes for internet too, but to a greater extent. But the point on which one needs to pay attention is that though television and internet help us in various ways, they are more harmful than useful. Children, when exposed to these mass media sources, often get affected because of the presence of enough of inappropriate content available which has become the major source of violence in our society. Children very easily get affected by their so called super heroes and tend to imitate them, completely unaware of the fact that the telecasted things are completely fictious.. Thus I find such mass medias the cause of violence in today's society..

The Internet is probably one of the greatest, most powerful, and most useful tool to be invented perhaps of the entire last millennium. This is arguable, as you will no doubt see in my opponent's argument the negative effects of the Internet on our society. Definitions are simple: the Internet is used here to mean the World Wide Web, and other Internet-based communications. Society means the world as a whole, internet users and hosts alike. Positive effect is to convey that the Internet has been beneficial to society. Furthermore: I have classified this debate under "society" to indicate that the debate is not primarily about the technology of the Internet, but, as the title suggests, its effects on society. The Internet has become a crucial tool in modern life. It is estimated that over 1 billion people have regular access to the internet. The modern economy, and most modern businesses now have a heavy reliance on it. The internet itself is a huge profit centre. Many people now cannot imagine living without the internet. It provides easy access to even the most obscure of information, allows people to share their opinions and other often useful content with anyone who has access to the internet, and it enables users to have cheap communications with anyone around the world, even instantly. It even has given people the chance to fall in love with like-minded people within just minutes! It can be used for educational, commercial, social, and entertainment purposes, and while many people have many complaints to make about the Internet, even they cannot deny the usefulness of the Internet. So, I await my opponent, with some idea as to what they might say. May the best debater win.

Good afternoon. In today's case, I shall prove beyond the notion of a doubt that computers are more beneficial to education than books. Let us start by examining a few crucial definitions which I feel may present a problem in this debate (which are both provided by Merriam Webster's dictionary): Definition 1: Beneficial: 1 : conferring benefits : conducive to personal or social well-being 2 : receiving or entitling one to receive advantage, use, or benefit Definition 2: Education: 1 a: the action or process of educating or of being educated; also : a stage of such a process b: the knowledge and development resulting from an educational process 2: the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools. Observation: One must note that education isn't merely limited to schools; one can be educated without being involved with a formal institution. Furthermore, one is being educated when they are inheriting knowledge and developing mentally (as suggested by the definition). Any action which causes individuals to inherit knowledge and develop mentally is to be considered education during this debate. Onto to my arguments: CONTENTION 1) COMPUTERS HAVE THE INTERNET: a) Research: With it, students (or people who just wish to educate themselves) have been able to speedily gather information they wanted at their own leisure; one merely needs type in a brief description of the information (on a search engine or online database) which they need and in no time, they will have access to it. It is far more time consuming to go to a physical library, look for books that may POSSIBLY help out in research, and spend hours searching for pieces of information inside the countless pages of books. Clearly, when comparing both methods of research, one has the bigger advantage in using the Internet via computer. b) Interactivity: When using the Internet via computer, one has the ability to educate themselves by carrying out thought provoking discussions/debates with other individuals. This website is proof of that. Furthermore, online/offline games such as online/offline chess and checkers serve as means of developing oneself mentally as well as giving one knowledge of how to think tactically, hence are a means of education. This is yet another advantage which computers have other books as actions like these cannot even be performed via books. c) Films: Through using the Internet, one has the ability to watch entire films, as well as listen to radio clips. This is highly beneficial as there are many education films and radio clips. In fact, many of these are difficult to locate in the physical world, much less impossible to locate inside a book. Once more, a clear advantage which makes computers more beneficial to education than books. d) Updates: Whereas books can have their information updated every year or decade, Internet authors don't have to go through all the trouble of publishing and such and can update their information instantly. Thus, there is the potential for more accurate information when using the Internet via computer. e) Institutionalized classes (especially for colleges) can be taught via Internet, via computer. Many education institutions have classes that are strictly conducted through the Internet. This way, students who cannot afford to make it to the physical classes at the usual scheduled times or individuals who are disabled have a much easier time at attending class and being educated. Not that it needs to be said, but books possess no such advantage. Basically, the Internet provides significant advantages which books cannot even come close to reproducing or competing with when it comes to education. CONTENTION 2) COMPUTERS CAN STORE MORE INFORMATION THAN BOOKS: Whereas it may seem long for a book to possess thousands of pages, one computer has access to (and can hold) an exponential amount of information (in comparison). In fact, with the Internet, one computer can be more beneficial than one billion books combined. CONTENTION 3) DVD CAPABILITIES: One can purchase educational DVDs and watch them on their computer. This differs from previous film point as I was referring to films which had to be found on the Internet. In any case, yet another advantage which computers have over books when it comes to education. CONTENTION 4) CALCULATOR FUNCTIONS: Most computers come with Calculator software. As real world calculators benefit math students and mathematicians through making it easier and less time consuming to solve complex equations, computer calculators can do the same. Once more, and advantage which one doesn't have with a book. CONTENTION 5) WORD PROCESSOR: Through using a computer, one can work on their writing skills (hence educate themselves) a seemingly infinite number of times through using a word processor (whether it be Word pad, notepad, Microsoft word, etc). This can also benefit students who need to type out essays. Can this be done through a book? Of course not. For these reasons, a computer is obviously more beneficial to education than a book is (especially when it comes to self-education). We must note that although books were great educational tools of the past, they are (for the most post) vastly outdated when compared to the educational capabilities of a computer. Of course, there are more advantages which a computer has over a book, but I feel no need to mention them (not just because I've listed the primary advantages) as I guarantee you that my opponent will unknowingly end up exposing these other advantages when he presents his case. I now stand ready for CON's case/rebuttal.

Here is my reason behind this topic,for chosen twitter to be the best, not facebook. " If mobile platforms are the future, Twitter has a better grasp of them. Facebook's share of revenue from mobile advertising reached 49 percent in the third quarter of 2013. Twitter's was 70 percent, even though the company only started offering mobile products in February, 2012. " Twitter's ad sales model is potentially more attractive to advertisers because it offers a better response quality. Facebook still sells views and clicks. Twitter doesn't: It gets paid for engagement, measured as the sum of retweets, responses and mentions. For Twitter to make money, the user " or customer, from an advertiser's point of view " has to make meaningful contact with the brand, not just see an ad or click on it by mistake. Surely that is the model of the future because it allows an advertiser more control over the budget and the outcome. " Twitter's cost structure speaks of a more innovative, less bureaucratic organization than the other publicly traded social networks. Research and development accounted for 36 percent of Twitter's third quarter costs compared with 27-28 percent for its rivals. General and administrative expenses " mostly the salaries of lawyers, human resources staff, support personnel, and so on " make up 10 percent of Twitter's expenses and 14-15 percent of Facebook's and LinkedIn's. 1. Facebook is limited to your friends and family, you both mutually agree to be friends. You can not see anyone's content that doesn't agree to share theirs with you. This may suit the secret ones amongst you but you try asking a question on both platforms and see which results win. Twitter is a search king. 2. Twitter is simple which makes it fast, responsive and better for mobile. By limiting characters and content Twitter is to the point and loads very easily on a smart phone. This, I believe, is key to its mobile use and indeed the best thing about Twitter. It's live and responsive. 3. On mobile Twitter you can tag people and businesses easily in a tweet. Thanking, advising or even complaining is simple. On Facebook mobile it is difficult and to mention a business you need to 'check in' to add it on your timeline with a link-able name. Far too messy and combuson when you can just type @warwicktweetup in twitter and it's done. 4. On Facebook your reach (how many see your content) is limited to the number of friends you have. On Twitter you can have no followers but a simple RT(retweet) can see your content thrust upon hundreds even thousands if you're lucky. How? On December 30th a friend on Facebook had his car stolen. I asked him for the details, put it on my Facebook and then my twitter. On Facebook no more than 195 people would have seen it. On Twitter it was RT'd over 100 times and had a reach of 32,316 people. My account @UnderwoodWines trended in the UK beating hashtags and famous people on the UK trend website for over an hour. Would you like a calculator? 5. On Facebook you update your status with words, on Twitter you share 'Keywords'. Confused? Well it's simple. Twitter is searchable by not only twitter users but by search engines like Google. Not only can someone on Twitter search follow and converse with you about 'Smoothies' or 'Blueray discs' when you simply type the word into your tweet, your content is search-able by Google spiders too. Endless possibilities when your content is on the super highway for all to find. 6. On Facebook you friend request people you have already met. On Twitter you follow people you have met, haven't met, don't know, will know, may meet, must meet. Networking is massive on Twitter, and a great way to meet new people, businesses and events. 7. On Twitter the Hashtag technology means you can link your tweet to others in one place. On Facebook they annoyingly bunch together all the tweets with Christmas/New year/Lady GaGa into a silly box on your timeline, making them an effort to read and again it's closed to you and your friends so no where near as powerful. 8. On Twitter you can make your timeline whatever you want into be. Follow accounts that only tweet about social media and your feed is entirely about social media tips tricks and info. On Facebook you get your cousins rubbish pet photos old school friends moaning status' and unless you follow loads of pages can not replicate the content rich feed you can get on twitter. Twitter is a specialist magazine Facebook is a very bad collage. 9. Twitter is a cocktail party with an open invitation. Facebook is an invite only VIP pass restricted bar. Want to stick with the same people your whole life? Stay on Facebook. Want to broaden your horizons in business and pleasure? You know what to do. 10. When you check Facebook it's often the same people, doing the same things and generally not much has happened since you last checked. When you check Twitter so much has happened in the last hour you can not see how you will ever catch up. And if that bloke tweets about his breakfast again you can just unfollow him, follow someone more interesting, and change your twitter feed to how you want it. 11. I have probably met more new people through Twitter than I have Facebook friends. Plus, in my experience, I actually share, laugh, help, and see people on twitter more. Try friend requesting random people on Facebook and then build a relationship and meet them and see where it gets you, in fact don't, it's just weird isn't it?! On Twitter it's easy, acceptable and happens without even knowing it. sources: warwicktweetup.co.uk.......... bloombergview.com..........