Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social Networking Platforms Pose Detrimental Effects
Apologies for assuming you were male! I will now use "her," "she," and other female pronouns. I want to inform the audience that PRO appears to have copied her arguments from http://www.businessweek.com..., unless she can confirm she is Jenna Goudreau, a Business Week journalist and author of the PRO argument. Though plagiarism wasn't explicitly forbidden, PRO should still be penalized for this act.

PRO has disregarded and failed to respond to these points:
1. Self-determination Groups—She overlooks the significance of social networking platforms when self-determination groups seek to organize. These individuals may be oppressed by their government and unable to assemble in public, so they use online social media. Online forums facilitate the right to free speech and assembly. She concedes my point that individuals with shared interests can unite and take action.

Rebuttals:
PRO asserts, "I believe Social Networking sites are detrimental due to cyberbullying. It's horrifying how many individuals experience cyberbullying."
1. I've already mentioned this, but I'll reiterate. These major social networking sites are continuously monitored by staff.
2. Parents and schools serve a purpose. Those who face cyberbullying, like those bullied in person, can seek help from their parents or school.
3. Most social media users are adults capable of making their own decisions.
4. People are responsible for their friend choices and addressing cyberbullying with the appropriate authorities. Schools are increasingly addressing cyberbullying.

PRO states, "Evidence to support this idea is scarce. Despite a recent surge in professionals connecting online, social networking platforms remain inadequate for successful business networking. Without prior contact, it's challenging to ascertain the identity of online acquaintances. The computer screen offers little more than a résumé with a headshot."
1. According to http://mashable.com..., LinkedIn surpassed 100 million users and now has 131 million members and over a million groups. This hardly suggests inadequacy for business networking.
2. LinkedIn gains a new member every second. (http://mashable.com...)
3. A LinkedIn user survey found that 61% primarily use LinkedIn, 22% use Facebook, and 4% use Twitter. (http://mashable.com...)
4. In another survey, 90% of LinkedIn users found this platform valuable for connecting with clients and hiring individuals they might not otherwise meet. (http://mashable.com...)

I agree that this is partly the cause of affecting our youth, but we should not just filter the media entirely. Yes, our children view these programs and are like I should do this because this reality star is rich and beautiful. The reason they believe this is because of lack of parental support; yeah okay media has some partial responsibility, but it's the parent's responsibility to help explain and prepare their children for media exposure. According to the article, Exploring the role society and the media play in the development of an Eating Disorder and the Media Influence on Eating Disorders, "part of the societal problems are a result of lack of education". One can't blame a student who killed other students in a school shooting because he saw a program; the parents should be actively involved in their child's lives from hobbies, sports, to social relationships. A parent is there for guidance and without a parent we as humans become lost in knowing what is right or what is wrong.

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

I will argue that the Existence of the Internet/The Web, is helpful, and while doing slight harm, provides more good than bad. Look forward to a intelligent debate. Thanks Guys!

It is a good way to keep in touch with people, but people get used to talking to people online so when they have to talk face-to-face it is difficult. People also say things to others that they wouldn't say to their face and that is when problems with bullying happens.

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. Although, people might say that these children will be cyber-bullied, but as long as they are taught to prevent it and stay away from it, this will not make a problem. Some may say:"They will get attracted to it and they will not be concentrating in school" But I think, if your child can self-control it, let most of the kids do, that will be not a problem. If your kid cannot control themselves from playing games, you can tell them the negative ways of getting addicted to playing games, and they will probably stop playing and control themselves from playing games. Some people may say "It makes your child's eyesight bad" but, if you use the media in an appropriate way of using it in a certain amount of time, and you can decide it and write on something, called Media Schedule, you can write the time that your child can use media and let them decide when to use the time. So, your child can still have a good eyesight. And, your child will be happy that you give them time to do whatever they want on technology items. Also, if you are still not unsure to let your kid use technology, there is some kind of apps that you can install to the media and you can always spy on your kid using the media.

As stated before, I will be debating pro on the topic, "Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy." Before this issue can be debated we must define privacy. Privacy is defined as, "the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs," [1] with private best being defined as, "personal and not publicly expressed" [2]. The point at which Facebook becomes detrimental to an individual's right to privacy is in the three words, "not publicly expressed." Facebook and its employees do not seem to know the meaning of these words because they continuously run into trouble over disseminating private information. In my case I will first establish an individual's right to privacy and then present cases in which Facebook has violated that right. -The Right to Privacy- Perhaps the most significant affirmation of human rights is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While not binding for any country, it has set the standard for human rights across the world. Because it is charted by such a powerful organization (a statement my opponent can be sure to agree with, as established by his profile [3]) any serious violations of the Declaration can expect to draw attention, as has the issue before us now. The article of the Declaration that most concerns this issue is Article 12, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks" [4]. Facebook has absolutely interfered with privacy and potentially interfered with correspondence, honour and reputation, as will be established later. Some may argue that because a person has put certain information on the internet, or more specifically, a Facebook profile, that information is no longer private and that person has given up their right to privacy. When this becomes true depends on when a person has not "publicly expressed" information. To know when a person has publically expressed information, we must define public. Public is best defined for this issue as, "open to all persons" [5]. Therefore, a person has given up their right to privacy when they have made information known to all persons. In the case of Facebook, a person can make their information known to all persons by selecting "everyone" in his or her security options. The options available are (in order from most private to least) are: "customize", "friends only", "friends of friends", "friends and networks" and "everyone". By selecting "everyone" a person consciously gives up their right to privacy. But every other option is somewhat selective, making the information open to some persons as opposed to all. In these cases, a person has not given up their right to privacy. Therefore, when information is given to unauthorized persons, Facebook is not only violating the right to privacy of the owner of the information but the privilege of those selected to see that information. Sadly, Facebook has violated people's right to privacy by publically expressing information and it has made this violation more than once. When the world shouts, "rights!" Facebook goes left. -Violating the Right to Privacy- How does Facebook love thee? Let me count the ways. There are 400 million active users on Facebook. 50% log onto Facebook on any given day. The average Facebook user has 130 friends and creates 70 pieces of content each month. More than 100 million Facebook users engage with Facebook on external websites every month [6]. So what does this mean for Facebook? Lots of information on you which equals lots of money for them. Facebook makes money through the advertisements seen on the side of every Facebook page. And though the advertisements are small, they reel in big bucks; Facebook made $500 million last year, with about 3/4 of the revenue coming from ads alone [7]. The ads are targeted towards users; when a person puts information on his or her profile, that information is used to display ads that may appeal to the user. Although this practice seems harmless, it's alarming how much information Facebook gathers from its users. First, look at Facebook's privacy policy from 2005. "No personal information that you submit to Thefacebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings." Now, look at Facebook's privacy policy today. "When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends' names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to "everyone."... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection" [8]. Obviously, Facebook has changed its definition for what is "private." Look at the first line from the privacy policy now. Facebook admits that it gives information to applications and websites. Although the information may be as simple as a name, a name alone carries a lot of weight. A name on a college degree gives a very positive reputation. That same name on a porn website destroys the former reputation. This example, though admittedly somewhat intense, is possible and is a violation of the right to protection against interference with honour and reputation. This communication of information can also go the other way, from websites to Facebook. Facebook's Beacon system sent information from particular partner websites to Facebook users' News Feeds. For example, if a person were to make a bid on eBay, that person's friends might see that information. The service was default, creating many concerns that information a user might not want to be seen (such as the captain of the football team renting Sex and the City: The Movie for the fifth time) would now be seen by all. The system was shut down in September of 2009 following a lawsuit [9]. But the communication continues today, with "like" buttons seen throughout websites across the internet. While not as illicit as the Beacon system, it only takes one false click to let everyone see what you've been doing on the internet in your free time. This unauthorized communication between websites and Facebook also violates the protection to interference with correspondence. -Conclusion- It should come as no surprise Facebook is the second most used website in the world [10]. Millions of people connect everyday, both old and new users. And although Facebook has many benefits, it has huge vice: disrespect for privacy. Any supporter of human rights would agree that privacy is a fundamental right. The United Nations is one of these supporters. But Facebook continues to violate this right to privacy by collecting and distributing information without the permission of said information's owners. Facebook's advertisement system and website interactions collect and distribute unauthorized information which is why Facebook, as currently constituted, is detrimental to an individual's right to privacy. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.facebook.com... [7] http://www.businessinsider.com... [8] http://www.eff.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Face

I believe that, for the safety of our children, Parents should have an account to access or see what their children have posted or received. Too many people are being cyber-bullied today and 4400 people a year commits suicide from cyber-bullying on average. allowing parents to access their childs social media will greatly decrease the deaths of children and teens. If you are a parent, you should understand. If you are a teen, guess what? So am I! I have been cyber-bullied and suffered from depression before. I was treated by a psychologist. PARENTS! PROTECT YOU CHILDREN! Dont be stupid and go against please!

Let's look at your statements shall we? "~Are you sure games we play on mobile or console designed for brain-training to solve problems? Children play games for entertainment and problem solving is something different. refer the articles which clearly shown the bad effect of digital games." First, problem solving skills develop naturally. I'll throw you an example of something else that portrays this as well. Pretend you're a blacksmith. You Swing a hammer against metal all day. Not only do your skills with working with metal improve, but also you become stronger, an indirect positive outcome. Second, your sources weren't that reliable. Ehow was the most reliable, however "SCMP.com" talked about TOO MUCH screen time. What about moderation? If parents moderated their children's play time, there wouldn't be that many bad effects, if any. CNN isn't reliable at all but ignore that and look at THEIR signs. They aren't too good and in fact common sense should already tell you when you're "addicted". "In addition to bad results on academics, purchase games and add-ins generate credit card bills. http://venturebeat.com...; What about the population of people that can afford games? Are you going to take their right to have fun because they have money and others don't? It's their money, let them spend it. It's up to YOU to make choices about this stuff. To further add, you're mad at people for making money? The revenue is 3 billion dollars (USA). That's USEFUL to the ECONOMY. By BANNING MOBILE GAMES HURTS THE ECONOMY. Now to make my points. Read this http://www.theesa.com... The gaming industry is a constantly expanding empire and even grew faster than the US economy (Not surprising) and PROVIDE JOBS TO PEOPLE. Because it grows so quickly, more jobs are needed. BY BANNING MOBILE GAMES OR GAMING BUSINESSES, YOU ARE GETTING RID OF JOBS. The gaming industry also added $5 billion dollars to the US GDP, which is a VERY good thing. Still refuse to believe it can help? http://www.wired.co.uk... Even the UK can't avoid the positive influence of the gaming industry. Yes, it's gone international. Still can't face the facts? http://www.businessinsider.com... There's no denying. The gaming industry has a positive impact. Here are some jobs that the gaming industry needs to run successfully. http://www.ccs.neu.edu... In Texas, 1700 jobs were created. How you wonder? The gaming industry. Further proving my point, it creates jobs. http://www.mlresearch.org...

Many people who use social media sites like Facebook, often put themselves in danger by putting too much information on the websites and not protecting it properly. People also accept random people as friends without knowing them personally which predators to access their information.

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial for Our Community?

Social networking platforms are often criticized.
Social networking platforms are frequently deemed detrimental to individuals, yet their widespread usage continues to baffle many. Here are my observations: Firstly, these platforms serve as powerful tools for promoting one's work, organization, or personal brand. Websites like LinkedIn and MySpace provide ample opportunities for showcasing your business, organization, society, or individual talents. A significant benefit is that social networking sites facilitate the development of a comprehensive strategy for brand promotion. Secondly, these platforms foster connections, allowing people to find friends, take a break, seek travel companions, or even potential life partners. The underlying concept is to create a space where individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures can come together and share aspects of their lives with others. Social networking sites such as Orkut, Hi5, and Facebook have gained immense popularity because they enable people to transcend artificial boundaries and connect with others in specific communities or locations. Let's delve into the terminology: Social networking refers to "the cultivation of social and professional contacts; the exchange of information and services among people with a common interest." The term "good" denotes "excellence or merit," while "harm" signifies "physical injury or mental damage." Given these definitions, when someone asserts that "social networking sites do more harm than good," they imply that their children, siblings, or acquaintances have experienced either physical or mental harm as a result of using these sites, potentially leading to peculiar behavior and an inability to continue using the platform. So, how do you interpret the concept of "harm" in this context?

Although parents should trust their children, in this world of social media, children do not often know what they are doing. There are often sexual predators that will create fraudulent accounts on social media sites in order to get the attention of these kids. Kids often do not notice this and can fall for the tricks that the fake people play. In order to prevent things like this parents should monitor their child's social media. Along with being cyber bullied and taken advantage of over the internet, parents can prevent kids from becoming a cyber bully or an impostor on the internet. If parents knew that their child was a cyber bully or was disrespecting other kids over the internet, there is a much greater chance that the interaction will be terminated before it gets any worse. Along with preventing kids from doing bad things or having bad things done to them, parents can aid their child on how to use social media. If a child does not know how to use Instagram for example, a parent could show the child how to post photos and videos, as well as adding filters and effects to the photo or video to enhance the child's use of the social network.

Modern technology makes a person sluggard So sluggard that we now have communication at the speed of light, can travel the world in a day, and have created machines that have the manufacture of almost everything faster. 2.) Pollution, Global warming etc. is done by modern technology Global Warming would also be caused by fires. Pollution and global warming is caused by people. We're at fault. When someone is murdered, we don't punish the murder weapon, we punish the murderer. 3.) Influence has worse effects on children and adults Most children have exposure to education which they never would have had a chance to receive any kind of education if it weren't for technology. Most of us would be isolated in rural settings working as farmers. 3.a) radiation from computers and cellphone A very limited amount of damage is caused by these devices. People used to die before we ever had technology. 3.b) if you text through a cellphone you do not type on the cellphone, The first written language in Western Civilization was known as Cuneiform. It was incredibly complicated and purposefully designed to be difficult to learn. While there is much to be said for the written language, language will always be fluid. Cuneiform died out because it was burdensome to learn. Cellphone texts often include language which is abbreviated because it is more time consuming to type out proper grammar, also many texts have a character limit. 3.c) age meter goes dow This is simply not true. The average life expectancy of a person has dramatically increased in the last three hundred years during the development of our modern technology. 4.) Synthetic foods which harm us are produced through technology If you slaughtered a goat using a sharp rock, and ate all of the goat's fat, it would be just as unhealthy if you ate a fat that was derived from corn oil and then processed into a twinki. Fat is fat, nutrients is nutrients. We become unhealthy because we choose to eat and drink unhealthy things. There are many people who maintain a healthy lifestyle while still eating processed foods. Points that I successfully defended till the end: 1.) Technology adds the entropy and makes students lazy Technology has enabled students to learn beyond conventional means. You get to practice your English via the internet. Points that I successfully clashed: 1.) The fault does not lie within the tool but with the user. So, you were saying that it was the problem of humans that made technology turn this way Yes, people are at fault. If we are smart enough to recognize we're hurting ourselves while not being wise enough to stop hurting ourselves, I really don't think its ethical to blame technology for this. 2.) They were dependent on technology since the start of everything. Early years, the loss of technology resulted to their demises. No, this was not my statement. Civilizations rose and fell before modern technology came to light. The collapse of a nation can happen without the influence of technology. If civilization, or society, or a nation fails now, it happened because of poor leadership and external pressures, not because of technology. 4.) We owe it all to technology We even own our debate to technology. Thanks for the debate, I'm sorry I was not quicker about responding to your arguments. I get very preoccupied with real life.

Hello. A somewhat obscure statement. A society is a collection of organisms and a century is a period of one hundred years relative to the orbit of a planetary body around a star. In this respect a century is what a century does and a century has no direct impact upon a society. Most societies tend to function instinctively. That is to say, That notwithstanding catastrophic natural effects most societies will continue to function much as they always have, Irrespective of any given time frame. "Our society" and more so, Individual human beings or sub groups within our society, Although functioning instinctively at a base level, Because of their advanced levels of cognitive ability have been able exceed the limitations that a slow rate of evolutionary development imposes on other species. To this end our society is greatly affected by how we manipulate matter and as a consequence how we have been instrumental in an exponential increase in the rate of evolutionary progress, Or more specifically an accelerated rate of material development. What I am implying quite simply is that things are as they are, Not because 100 years has made any great difference to the base function of human society, But because there is an underlying inevitability in the process of material development and also how this process impacts upon our society. Therefore the concepts or notions of harm and benefit are irrelevant when viewed realistically and only relevant to a society in it's current situation and with it's current observations. However. If we regard the proposition in an historical context and make comparative observations with previous centuries. I think it is fair to assert that human social events were no less turbulent. The great wars of the 20th century being obvious examples. Ultimately we can only really judge by experience and a 58 year old has experienced society in two centuries, Whereas an 18 year old has only known the 21st century. I would therefore suggest based on my experience, That potential benefit or harm is appreciated in much the same way today as it was in the 20th century. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how Pro substantiates and expands their proposition.

Like I stated, children can meet friends just by walking outside and socially interacting, which child do you know that has NO friends at all? People have friends no matter what at some points of their life. And these days, which do you think is more reliable, people or the internet? Sometimes you just believe what the teacher is telling you not caring if it is false fact. But using the internet you can find variety of information and combine it into one, forming the most accurate information that most people agree with. If you think children are lonely, that is when SMS comes into action. We have Facebook and other social sites we can chat, call, and see their faces. People are putting way more effort to the internet than to schools. And by health and safety risks, I believe using the internet is safer than going to school for the matters of gun shootings and bullying. The Internet has drastically changed the way that children interact with the world. They have access to in-depth knowledge, tools to express their creativity, and people from all over the world. Simply put, you can do way more things when you are studying from the internet than sitting in the classroom and studying. There are distractions in classes like friends, and sometimes you do not even listen to your teacher. But when learning from the internet you are looking at one screen in front of you, fascinated and eager to do more things. Think of the possibilities the internet can give you information. for example, competitive education game, debates, and online award winnings. You mentioned there is not interaction with other children, but like I said there are many ways you can. By SNS and forming study groups together. Also, statistics show that when children learn from the internet, it raises their concentration and achieve higher grades. Technologies are advancing fast, and we have to adapt to them for our benefits. The internet is created for this reason. Children learning from the internet raises nearly all benefits than learning in schools.

How has this been a big help? Give me some evidence.

Stupid - lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity Precisely I agree this definition and facebook is stupid! Random herds of teenagers blogging on web 2.0 about there interests such as movies, TV shows and other corporate junk! Facebook is repressive Yes Facebook is repressing creativity and this is stupid and creating a culture of dumb stupid animals who don't listen to classical music but the minimal techno's! /Facebook is authoritarian! Why should we assume that this huge corporation which is dominating and corrupting our culture is passive? Facebook teaches ignorance because people use it to believe they have 500 friends It doesn't force you too but it implies and encourages it! In order for my opponent's to refute my claims he must do the 10 of the following! : Prove that facebook is NOT repressive, authoritarian, ignorant and stupid Prove that he did not make a logical fallacy in seperating repressive, authoritarian, ignorant with stupidity! Prove that facebook doesn't steel your information to spam you with advertisements (propaganda) Prove that FACEBOOK MAKES TEENAGERS SMART! Prove that the western structure of debate will help you win! http://www.youtube.com...

I wont even bother to read your agruement this whole arguement is baised on an opinion that is not a fact but an opinion All i have to do is prove something else creates disharmony Human instinct through evolution to protect the young found mostly in mothers, that stops disharmony and teaches the children to be in harmony. Schools prevent disharmony by giving an area of interaction. two other things that prevent disharmony and now there is no more point in agrueing youve chosen a very unspecific arguement, next time specify

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.

It is clear that everyone's privacy can be greatly harmed by the internet. Privacy online is a big concern, but an educated citizen can navigate the Internet in a safe and sensible manner with minimal privacy issues, although as with being offline the threat of crime can never be entirely eliminated. My opponent gives an impression that the effect of the Internet is having a negative impact on society, this is clearly not the case, people like the way the internet can bring people together. **************************************************************************************************** People often complain that their opinions are ultimately pointless as nothing will change. This trend can be demonstrated with the numbers of people going out to vote consistently falling, however with the rise of the Internet this trend could reverse. What the internet has enabled is for everyone, in one way or another, to have the chance to truly have their voice heard. It has given them the ability to fully engage in topics that matter to them on a personal level. As this website and this very debate show, people can debate, share opinions and start petitions in the ways that were never truly available before.

Is there really a need to take selfies? Selfies are just not the kind of social activity that we should be using to communicate with each other. It seems like they love posting pictures of themselves for everyone to see. In response to my opponent's question, they may not seem self-conceited, but they are sub-consciously self-conceited. Like I said before, we should just talk to each other on the phone rather than text because it is more personal and unique than any text. Facebook may be an easier way to keep connected, but if we really wanted to keep our friends from our past to our adulthood, then we should take the extra mile to do so.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Society appears to be in a state of decline. In nearly every aspect of life and public interaction, there is a notable absence of order. Young people today seem to lack discipline, and many adults are apathetic about it. With the unchecked proliferation of social media, where the emphasis is on appearances and popularity, what prospects do individuals have for genuine connection? Society is becoming increasingly toxic, as people are being indoctrinated into harboring negative sentiments. If you believe that society is improving, I invite you to present your arguments, because from my perspective, all I witness is a breakdown of norms, defiance, and disorder.

I will show that "freak shows," as my opponent has put it, are detrimental not only to the self-esteem of the persons involved but to the social awareness of the viewers. I will also prove that "freak shows" are in mass media today in a more diluted form, and therefore it is not necessary to revive the more socially unacceptable versions.

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.

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.

You do make very good points throughout our debate, but overall I still strongly believe that parents should not be allowed an excessive amount of access to their child's social media account. The parents should believe that they have raised their child with enough knowledge of potential dangers of the internet that they can avoid them. And if cyber bullying does occur the child should feel like they can seek help from their parents. Most importantly though I believe that when the parent gives the child permission to get a social media account they are giving them their trust to make the right choices with it. If the parents are constantly checking and watching over the child's social media, then there is no trust shown. For these reasons I strongly believe that parents do not have the right to check on their child's social media accounts.

I will argue that libertarianism is not beneficial to a society.LibertarianismA set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. Government keeps economical and social interference to a minimum.Not beneficialDoes not have a good effect [on the society].No semantics, first round acceptance.I ask the voters to vote based on who won the debate not on your personal beliefs (because then I'd be screwed).

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.

Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow: 1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy. 2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro has not established a clear resolution. Based on assumption, it seems that they’re asserting that technology is making life graceless and is leading to a general deteriorating of society, and that social media is forming a drone-like mindset amongst the masses. As Con, I will argue that technology actually enhances and improves life for all and that social media is not turning the population into mindless cattle. Definitions: Tech: Technology Technology: The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. Technology Enhances & Improves Life: “Has tech wizard made our life graceless” - Pro “From evolution we got tech and now our condition is deteriorating” - Pro Pro has not said much to support his assertion, so we’ll discuss how technology enhances and improves life. Technology has not made our existences any less graceful. Rather, it has opened many new opportunities and has advanced the human race as a whole. Examples of this include, but are not limited to: 1) Leaving the planet’s atmosphere and venturing into space. 2) The creation of automobiles, which are used on a daily basis for transportation. 3) Many medical advancements. 4) The vast improvement of communication with the ability to simply contact people around the world using the Internet, as well as being able to upload images and videos to show friends or family, via social media. 5) The primary cause of many great scientific discoveries, which allow us to learn more about ourselves, the universe, and our history. 6) The immense warehouse of knowledge and information that nearly everyone can access known as the Internet. These are only a few things that indicate how technology has done the opposite of what Pro claims. Not to mention, each of these differing aspects are continually evolving to have even more positive impacts on our lives. Technology makes things more efficient, which gives us time to spend on other things, it lets us live longer, and has made communication faster than it’s ever been before. It is certainly not reducing our gracefulness. Social Media Is Not All-Consuming: “Yes the techs have made us cattle who are following the same path of getting a 'like' . ” -Pro Social media is not as destructive as Pro implicates. While some users may just be in it for the likes, not all of them are. It is unreasonable for Pro to attack all of social media for the faults of a (relatively small) portion of the users. Social media is not a quest to gain likes, but rather, it is a tool inherently meant for the sharing of information with family, friends, and the world. It is more efficient than texting and email in some ways, which is why people prefer it. Social media has contributed to the development of businesses, and therefore, the economy, and also has been used as announcement platforms for movements and organizations. To get the point across that social media is not all-consuming, let’s look at the figures for traffic for a few popular sites. Facebook has roughly 1.55 billion monthly users, and around 800 million daily users. The current human population is at an estimated 7.4 billion people. Looking at it from a statistical standpoint, ~20% of the complete population uses Facebook monthly, while ~10% visit Facebook daily. This leaves a staggering 80% people who don’t even touch Facebook on a monthly basis, as well as 90% who don’t use Facebook daily. [1] Instagram has around 400 million monthly users, which adds up to a small 5% of the population using it, leaving 95% who don’t. [1] And finally, Twitter has monthly active user base of about 320 million. That’s 4% out of 96% who don’t use it. [1] It’s worth noting as well that these user bases are not mutually exclusive. There’s a large chance that users who use Facebook will also use other social media platforms and vice-versa. These figures indicate that there is a massive amount of people who don’t even bother with social media in general, much less spend time blatantly pursuing likes. Essentially everyone who uses social media is there by their own choice; they are not being forced by some higher-ups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will not address Pro’s, “Its well said one cannot resist it but it also creates a loophole for the unsocial people who are craving for destroying worlds peace” statement, as it is unclear what the intention and meaning behind it is. If Pro would like to offer more insight, I would be more than happy to talk about it. In conclusion, technology’s benefits far outweigh any negatives that could come up and social media is not what Pro indicates that it is. The burden of proof now lies upon Pro to provide a compelling argument as to how technology is damaging society and how social media is transforming the population into mindless cattle. Vote Con. [1] . http://www.statista.com...

I'll post a brief argument. Throught history, suppression of free speech has been a factor in support of tyranny. In addition, if you personally have problems with social networking sites causing issues with school studies, then can't you address that on your own? Is it really necessary to say "I need a higher authority to ban twitter, because I can't control myself". Must we ban all things that are causing problems in your life? The drug war, for example, is not working out too well. Neither did alchohol probibition.

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. Although, people might say that these children will be cyber-bullied, but as long as they are taught to prevent it and stay away from it, this will not make a problem. Some may say:"They will get attracted to it and they will not be concentrating in school" But I think, if your child can self-control it, let most of the kids do, that will be not a problem. If your kid cannot control themselves from playing games, you can tell them the negative ways of getting addicted to playing games, and they will probably stop playing and control themselves from playing games. Some people may say "It makes your child's eyesight bad" but, if you use the media in an appropriate way of using it in a certain amount of time, and you can decide it and write on something, called Media Schedule, you can write the time that your child can use media and let them decide when to use the time. So, your child can still have a good eyesight. And, your child will be happy that you give them time to do whatever they want on technology items. Also, if you are still not unsure to let your kid use technology, there is some kind of apps that you can install to the media and you can always spy on your kid using the media.

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. . .


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial for Our Community?

Students should utilize social networking sites for educational purposes, but with caution. 1. Social media as a classroom distraction: One major concern about incorporating social media into the classroom is that it might divert students' attention during lessons, potentially hindering their learning and making it difficult for teachers to gauge engagement. 2. Misuse of social media in educational settings: Students might misuse the privilege of accessing social media in the classroom by engaging in personal activities instead of focusing on academic tasks, requiring close supervision to ensure proper use. 3. Social media's impact on interpersonal skills: Encouraging students to interact through social media in class may detract from developing essential face-to-face communication skills, which are still crucial in a technology-driven society. 4. Increased risk of cyberbullying: Allowing social media in schools could exacerbate instances of cyberbullying, where students might use these platforms to harass peers with hurtful messages. 5. Inappropriate content on social media: The lack of effective monitoring of social media use in schools raises concerns about students posting inappropriate content, such as pornography or offensive language, which can be both distracting and harmful to the student body.

Reasons why Urbanization is beneficial to society 1) It allows millions of people to live comfortably in a small area which conserves space 2) It allows for people to easily improve their lifestyle 3) It allows people to seek economic opportunity better 4) It allows for the centralization of business, wealth, and services 5) It is a tool for measuring how prosperous a country is 6) It allows for people to become specialized at different skills in an economy 7) It allows for people to pollute less per person than they would living suburban lifestyles 8) It allows for exchange between countries overseas and internationally better than if they were rural 9) It allows for modernization to solve any problems caused by early urbanization I hope this is enough to prove why urbanization is at least not the second worst mistake humanity has ever made :)

Alright, I got it. I'm sorry for being late) and also if I didn't make the message understandable. I'm talking about everything what is connected to technology. So your point is that you think the video games, which actually makes people lazier, do absolutely opposite thing and makes us smarter. In some context I do agree with you, where you said that internet helps to learn something new BUT I meant that everybody who are using the smartphones and facebook(social websites in main) are not being connected to the whole world. They don't feel time while sitting in a computer club or playing PS or X-box. Your argument about disabled children which are growing up in mental way is good, but what about other people who hasn't got any problems? Yes, they are getting more and more dependent, and I'm not talking about the games. For example, when friends meeting to chill out together they don't talk much to each other because of the internet in their smartphones - that is also big problem.

[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.)

touche firstly you cant learn social skills from online, there's no body language or eye language involved which obviously doesn't provide good social skills. as for the bullying issue lets say you kind of "evolve" and learn ways to stop or even prevent bullying, I know this by firsthand because I used to get bullied a lot when I was in primary (elementary) but eventually learned how to stand up to bullies. Sure, some teachers might not allow talking in class, but have you ever thought why. Teachers usually stop talking because the desired amount of work isn't being completed and try to HELP the students catch up by removing a distraction which was simple, so if you want to talk do your work to. And you not being able to "chill" at home because of homework doesn't really make sense, teachers give you homework with a reasonable time limit for completion. you not being able to "chill" means your not spreading your workload and organizing things, such as giving yourself 45 minutes of free time for every one and a half hours of studying and homework. It could also be that you don't complete schoolwork at school , which then get transferred to your homework (that's how it works at our school). also, the cirriculum for school are made to be easy to understand, easy to comprehend and made so its at your grades average level, none of the work is forced into you, every subject can be fun if you apply yourself. if if you don't like a certain subject you can just not take it on your chosen subjects in year nine and after. as for the "homework plague", again spreading your workload helps alt in giving you time to enjoy.

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.

Life survived well before we ever had technology, now it seems like teenagers need it every day, but did you know about the side-effects? Social media has greatly become more popular over the years, thanks to teenagers gaining more and more technology. There have been studies done that show social media in a negative light. Although many teens today find social media interesting and fun, it is the root of many problems for teenagers.

It is arguable that technology can be both good and. It has help bring medicines that save lives and it also allows us to communicate with the people we can't see everyday. Even with those amazing things, technology is still really bad for us. The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental.

A cartoon doing the rounds on Twitter on Wednesday compared the way we listen to music, watch films and read the news 15 years ago to today. Now, of course, those are all things we do alone while plugged in to a computer. Beyond the punchline, is there some truth in the assumption that despite our hyper-connectedness, we are potentially more isolated than ever? Research by Pew claims that online social networks do provide genuine emotional support and well-being, including advice, information and companionship. Using an established system of measuring well-being, Pew found that internet users felt it provided significant emotional support for them, particularly through social networks and particularly through Facebook. There's an important distinction there; it was not that they found that users of Facebook were better supported emotionally, but that they reported that they felt they were, and in two key categories of emotional support and companionship. Pew described the sensation of well-being as equivalent to around "half the boost in total support that someone receives from being married or living with a partner". The average American, Pew found, has 634 social ties from family and close friends to colleagues and acquaintances. But the average internet user has 669 compared to 506 for those who do not use the internet. Nearly half of all US adults, or 47% of the population, use at least one social network, and 56% of those are female. Facebook is by far the most dominant, used by 92% of people who engage with online social networking, with 29% (still) on MySpace, 18% using LinkedIn and 13% on Twitter. In the popular imagination MySpace might appear to be dead, yet according to Pew's research it still has more than half the user accounts of MySpace. But in terms of frequency of use, the majority of Facebook users said they used it several times every day, compared to the majority of MySpace account holders who said they never used the site any more. For LinkedIn, 35% of users said they used it less than every few weeks, while 20% of Twitter users accessed the service several times each day. Pew also found that Facebook users reported having more close relationships and friendships and of being more trusting of others than non-Facebook users, with heavy users 43% more likely than other internet users to trust other people. What this doesn't reflect, though is the likelihood that more socially engaged and outgoing people are likely to join Facebook in the first place. If you're suspicious of the internet and social networking, or introvert and not interested in socialising, you're not likely to be drawn to Facebook. "The likelihood of an American experiencing a deficit in social support, having less exposure to diverse others, not being able to consider opposing points of view, being untrusting, or otherwise being disengaged from their community and American society generally is unlikely to be a result of how they use technology, especially in comparison to common predictors," concluded the report. "A deficit of overall social ties, social support, trust, and community engagement is much more likely to result from traditional factors, such as lower educational attainment."

My opening argument is Religon overall is not beneficial to humanity or society. First let’s point out what is logically not beneficial to society and humanity. To start off and name a few Religous motivated violence,the Quashing of science and impediment of education and the teaching of creationism in public schools , political oppressiont he discrimination of same sex couples . Such things are not beneficial being of society and humanity and any of us are nearly entirely becuse of religious ideas and teachings. P1 Religious inspired violence. Devout religious followers have done horrendous acts of violence entirely for their faith and religious reasons. Religion has procured and cultivated Religious extremists such as the Taliban in the Islamic world or even the Christians here in the USA who don't care about separation of church and state ,democracy or respecting other people's right to live differently from them. This is irrelevant to them. because in their mind the only thing that matters to them is making God's will happen. In their mind, God created everything that exists. .. and therefore, God's will trumps everything so with religion producing and cultivating such deas starting in young intellectually defenseless children who are told before they have critical thinking & can think for themselves they are forced to believe that the world around them is, quite literally, irrelevant since their religion has imprinted upon them that the next world is what truly matters. Suicide bombing, "honor" killing such as the attack on the world trade center was a direct cause of Religion Islamic extremism. USA one is also one of the most religious first world countries in the world with a huge rate of gun crime, murder, imprisonment compared to less religious western nations. P2 Oppression. The unverifiability of religion leads to many forms of oppression. It makes religious leaders and organizations extremely powerful because according to them they have God on their side. Their followers as young children are told to implicitly believe whatever their religious teachings and leaders tell them. They are taught that their religious leaders have superior virtue, with a connection to God they've that they should trust their religious leaders and if questioned since childhood they are filled with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture. And for these reasons such things happen. Saudi Arabian women are required to wear the abaya, a black loose outfit that is reserved for Arab women so as to prevent men from viewing them as sex symbols. In Iraq all women are forced to conform to the Islamic religon and thus half of the population lives in cloth bags. If the resist they are beaten ,murderd and raped. In India Hindu law gives women limited rights to inheritance the oppression of females in India, is due to Hinduism as well as Islam, which are religions that confine, restrict and oppress women. A pew survey of 198 countries found that the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religion rose from 37 percent in mid-2010 to 40 percent by the end of 2011. Equal rights. In the United States, when same-sex marriage has been up for popular vote, it has been shot down by followers of religious groups . It has been consistently defeated largely because the force of several organized religions, especially the Catholic and Mormon churches, have marshaled against it. How could this be helping our society by aiding discrimination and suffering of others? Think about the trouble and pain that same sex couples have had to endure just because a holy book . Is this benefical to their well being and to live a better life? I dare say no. Quashing science and education. religion our undercuts science and education Forcing abstinence-only sex education on kids? Teaching creationism in public schools? School boards all across this country are still spending time and money debating whether or not to have the theory of evolution taught in the schools. while they could be using these resources to actually teach they're spending debating this incredible thus denying our children the future leaders of society the ability to learn and think rationally this is in no way helping them become productive and intelligent citizens of society . The impediment of scientific advancement from Galileo ( took the church until 1992 to apologize) to current Stem cell research bans coming from a direct cause of religious ethics,morals and organizations that are a massive roadblock to the advancement of science. So when religion teaches that believing in the invisible is more important than understanding the perceivable. .. that personal faith is more important than critical thinking. .. that that what God supposedly says about the world is more real what's in the world itself . .. such things are the root of much evil.

INTRODUCTIONI thank frostez00 for challenging me with this debate. I would have refused to accept such a debate due to the weakness of its opening statement if not for the fact that I was challenged directly by the opposition.Pro has not specified whether this round is just meant for acceptance, so I take it that I could start by providing a long-winded refutation before I thorougly present my position. My position on this is that social media should not have age restrictions, but instead use the testing method to decide whether the user satisfies the required standards.REFUTATIONPro claims, "People under the age of 20 are still immature and have no idea what they are getting into."Rebuttal: Pro has not satisfied his BoP by showing us peer-reviewed, scientific studies on how people below 20 are immature to the extent of being incapable of using social communication websites. Pro's central argument is nothing more than a baseless assertion. And I clearly have no idea why he specified 20 as the age-limit. There seems to be no objective, well-grounded criteria for his argument.Pro continues, "...social media websites are destroying the brains of a children around the globe."Rebuttal: Pro didn't provide any evidence supporting such a baseless assertion, although there is plenty of counter-evidence that could be presented against his hypothesis. For instance, Facebook has popular scientific pages which are presenting to young and adult enthusiasts many scientific discoveries, experiments and challenges. Take for example "Science is awesome.[1]" This page introduces them to puzzling mysteries and challenges about nature, the universe and everything, not forgetting that it teaches them critical thinking and some of the concepts of skepticism. I'm personally a co-admin of an Arabic page which has gained 200,000 users in a year because it aims to spread enlightenment through important quotations and publications about science and critical thinking[2]. Pro has failed to prove that with all those educational merits, Social Media is actually "destroying the brains of children around the world."Pro says, "The Internet is being abused by children and predators out there on the web. Adults using hooks to steal kids from there parents who hold there children in high esteem. Still social media is a big hook that predators use to catch a child."Rebuttal: It is true that the Internet is a tool that could be abused, but a tool is not redeemed evil for cases of abuse or misuse. Sexual predators have always took advantage of summer camps, schools, churches and swimming pools. This, however, doesn't mean that we should make those places 20+. It only means that parents should pay a closer eye to their children or teach them about perverts from an early age, ensuring that the children can better understand the dangers out there and learn how to cope with them. Dangers will always exist. It is quite an escapist approach to ensure that they will never occur if we'd only try to prevent children from ever encountering them.Pro remarks, "Social media distracts them[teenagers] and puts them in a temptation to do mostly bad stuff."Rebuttal: Pro has not specified any intrinsic quality about Social Media that entails such an adverse effect. Hence, this is a baseless assertion at best if Pro doesn't ground it factually.Pro further argues, "Social media is destroying lives and is being used as a tree to hide behind instead of facing a gruesome fact of life, that is called reality."Rebuttal: Pro is arguing that social media is bad to everyone because of the virtual reality it creates, even when most people use it to organize real-life events, get in contact with real-life friends, share their real-life happenings, post their real-life pictures and and keep track of similar additions made by real-life people. I would have agreed with Pro if the debate was about a virtual game where users depict themselves as eight-feet-tall monsters with tentacles coming out of their limbs, but clearly Social Media is popular because it is centered on managing and displaying real-life events. If some people misuse it, then why do all teenagers deserve to be prohibited from it? I find that ridiculous.Pro concludes, "The kids under 20 should not be allowed because reality will be too hard for them to face."Rebuttal: This sentence clearly summarizes the major error in my opponent's reasoning. He adopts the ostrich-approach which is to ignore dangers by thrusting your child's head down the sand. Escapism doesn't give the child an immunity against the dangers present in the big bad world. On the contrary, it makes the child much weaker and much more vulnerable to such unavoidable threats.MY CASEAs I explained earlier, my position is that social networks should not implement age restrictions but instead a testing procedure which determines if a user qualifies to be on the social network. I propose that because of the inaccuracy of correlating maturity with age, knowing that a child prodigy might be more mature than a 25 year-old man.It is quite common for intelligent children(not necessarily prodigies) to feel that they are undermined because of the false assumption that they are young and hence immature. A great illustration of that comes from the book "Harry Potter and the methods of rationality" which is a fan-fiction written by the great Eliezer Yudkowsky who is a well-known American decision theorist[3]. In this book, Yudkowsky attempts to explain the methods of rationality throughout JK Rowling's story and characters, but he self-projects himself in the character of Harry Potter by describing Harry as a child prodigy, explaining through him what he personally suffered as a young genius from not being taken seriously by adults to feeling undermined and disrespected because of that.'"Harry stopped. "I'm too smart, Professor. I've got nothing to say to normal children. Adults don't respect me enough to really talk to me. And frankly, even if they did, they wouldn't sound as smart as Richard Feynman, so I might as well read something Richard Feynman wrote instead. I'm isolated, Professor McGonagall. I've been isolated my whole life. Maybe that has some of the same effects as being locked in a cellar. And I'm too intelligent to look up to my parents the way that children are designed to do. My parents love me, but they don't feel obliged to respond to reason, and sometimes I feel like they're the children - children who won't listen and have absolute authority over my whole existence. I try not to be too bitter about it, but I also try to be honest with myself, so, yes, I'm bitter..."'My argument, therefore, is based on the right of children to be treated as individuals who are capable of having the required rationality to use social communication tools, so that they don't feel locked in a cellar and isolated from the social world because of a prejudice held by some parents and individuals about mature behavior.The test I suggest is centered on problem-solving techniques that are deduced either from experience or good critical thinking. This test wouldn't be difficult for an 18 year-old who should be experienced at this age, neither would it be difficult for mature 13-year olds who are critical-minded and more than qualified to operate on websites while avoiding all possible dangers and threats, although they might lack the situational experiences as they are too prudent ot make such irrational decisions in the first place.Here is a sample question:(1) If a stranger gave you an unknown hyperlink, what would you do?A- Open it to see its content.B- Open it while pretending you refused to open it.C- Tell him that you won't open something like that without having conclusive proof that it comes from a trusted website.D- Block the person and alert your friends.Solution: A and B are bad decisions because it could be a pervert/harmful person tracking your IP and location... -2 rationality points for each. C is the best decision to evaluate the intentions of the stranger... +2 rationality points. D is a bit too extreme but it acts like a protective measure, so +1 rationality points.The test would involve more questions that could contain ones that are more difficult than the ones presented in this sample. People should be allowed to use Social media if they pass the required test because:A.1.1- The correlation between maturity and age is inaccurate as it is based on the prejudice that children are always immature because it is assumed that they tend to behave irrationally. There are many people below 20 who are capable of rational thought and maturity. I gave Eliezer Yudkowsky as an example provided that he scored 1410 on SAT at the age of eleven[4] and 1600 at the age of fifteen[5]. Another example could be MysticEgg[6] (a fellow DDO debater here) who is fourteen years old, mature and even superior to me and other adult debaters on this social network in debating skills.A.1.2- The educational merits of social networks are very important to adolescents, now that the Internet has a huge role in bettering the world through scientific, philosophic, historic and political knowledge.A.1.3- Social Media is a great medium to encourage pluralism and diversity as it makes communication possible between people that come from different cultures and orientations. Teenagers are supposed to be subjected to such influences so that they aren't mislead into intolerance and radicalism.A.1.4- Social Media is a very effective tool for teenagers to participate in humintarian clubs(e.g charity-raisers) and communicate with many other teenagers and adults with similar interests and life causes.[1] Facebook.com/ScienceIsSeriouslyAwesome[2] Facebook.com/theenlightenedminds[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky[4] Singularity Rising, by James Miller, page 38[5] The Spike, by Damien Broderick, page 265[6] debate.org/MysticEgg/


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social media can have detrimental effects on young children and teenagers. One of the most common negative impacts is the addictive nature of social media, with constant checking of platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Experts suggest that staying updated on friends' activities can be addictive, as evidenced by UCLA's Brain Mapping Center's finding that receiving "likes" on social media activates the brain's reward centers, particularly sensitive during adolescence, partly explaining why teens are heavily drawn to social media. For kids and teens, tracking likes, followers, and comments can lead to compulsive checking, disrupting activities like schoolwork, reading, and sports. Heavy social media users admit to checking feeds over 100 times daily, sometimes during school.

Psychologists and studies highlight several negative effects of social networking on kids and teens: a 2015 U.K. Office for National Statistics report found that children spending over three hours daily on social media are twice as likely to suffer poor mental health. Their immersion in the virtual world can delay emotional and social development, potentially leading to social comparison, cyberbullying, and isolation. IZA Institute of Labor Economics suggests that just one hour daily on social media can make teens miserable, possibly due to cyberbullying, increased social comparisons, and reduced face-to-face activities.

A 2015 British Psychological Society study shows that teens feeling obligated to respond to social media throughout the day can negatively impact mental health. A University of Michigan study indicates that Facebook use leads to declining well-being in young adults. DoSomething.org lists adverse effects like sleep disorder, depression, addiction, 24/7 stress, isolation, insecurity, and fear of missing out (FOMO), leading to depression and anxiety in teen users. Screen relationships can detract from real-life relationships and social skill development. A University of Glasgow survey shows that nighttime social media use, especially with strong emotional involvement, leads to poor sleep quality, lower self-esteem, and higher anxiety levels.

Social networks can be breeding grounds for negative influences and anonymous attacks, and hunting grounds for deviants and predators. For attention-seeking kids, social media can become a platform for inappropriate behavior that could harm them. Extended social media use can decrease empathy and increase narcissism among teens. Young people with a history of self-harm or suicidal thoughts might be vulnerable to online negativity. Spending excessive time on social media can result in wasted time and negatively affect mood. Selfie addiction can trigger mental health issues, indicating lack of confidence or a sense of self. Educators note that

The beauty of forums such as these is they are a place where open-minded individuals gather. They are a place where people's opinions aren't set in stone, and, unlike much of the Internet, they are a place where participants don't enter a debate with their minds already made up. Without sites like these, the Internet ends up being a depressingly cynical place, and a place where one person's voice is impossible to hear.

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.

I believe Parents should be allowed to view their child's social media. Parents should be allowed to view this too see if their child is making the right choices in life. Parents are not out to get their kids in trouble, they are simply trying to raise their child as best as they can and I believe monitoring their use of social media helps them better raise their child. Children should not be protesting this, because if they have nothing to hide on social media, then why would they care if their parents see their tweets and posts? Also parents viewing their child's social media interactions can help a child who is being cyber bullied. If a parent sees cyber bullying, they can stop it and prevent future harm to the child. The prevented danger could consist of depression or suicide, which we have unfortunately seen come from cyber bullying very often in today's society.

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.

According to statista.com, 66% of artists are encouraged to share items on social media. Therefore I disagree because of this and, that the Internet today gives students access to lots of cool things, they allow young people to do their art and, it is a secure way of sending work. I think that it is important because, it gives inspiration for example, it is easier to get inspiration from other artists because, searching is so much quicker. This means that people can learn about art styles before putting it in to there own work. If this false accusation to, the internet is true, why are there so many young artists out there. Even in Britain there are so many great artists who have not at all been affected by social media or the Internet, except in good ways. These young people had and have peers around them at all times to persuade them to use social media but they ignore it, persist and they are just great, talented people to be around. These young people are the forefront of the future, and should be given all the tools they need, the Internet is one of those, they use it for inspiration and without it they wouldn't be the artists they are. On the other hand there are artists out there who wouldn't be artists without the Internet, Directors use the Internet for movie making purposes and Photo shop artists could not download there software without it. Young people also enjoy acting a lot and things often get lost in the post however, if they go into the acting career could not safely get their scripts without, the security of the internet In conclusion I believe that the internet is important for inspiration, media to use, and the security of work sending.

When judging a belief system such as Christianity, one must examine both the good as well as the bad and then determine which outweighs the other. My adversary claims that one of the benefits of Christianity is the community, and the friendship the church helps to facilitate. While I agree that Churches advocate friendship and unity among other people of faith, they tend to secularize themselves from people who do not share the same faith. For example, a pious Christian who meets an atheist, might have quite a hard time treating him with much kindness and respect. So essentially, what is happening here, is that religion is uniting those who are religious and distancing those who aren't. There isn't much benefit here in my opinion. I agree that good can indeed come from the belief in God. For example, religion provides emotional relief when the thought of death arises, or when one is feeling lonely, however these benefits are insignificant when we consider the negative effect of Christianity. For centuries Christians have used God not as a reason to better the world but have used him as an excuse to slaughter thousands of people. We can see this countless times throughout history, during the crusades, Europe's reformation, and many wars. While these examples of violence happened much more frequently in the past, countless wars are still being fought because of religion. The violence that is a result of religion, is not going away. One of the many examples of Christianity being the foundation of violent acts is Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny, was the belief that it was the American settlers' destiny to conquer America, and kill thousands of Native Americans in doing so. The primary motivation for this violence was God. It was the belief that it was what God wanted them to do. Imagine how it would sound if American settlers said "Hey, lets kill a bunch of Natives and then take their land." It probably wouldn't fly. They instead said something more along the lines of "God said that killing Native American's and taking their land is our destiny" In this case, most people (being that most were of the Christian faith) went right along. So overall, what I am saying is that people have, for centuries used God to justify what they want to do in the first place, wether it be good or bad. If we can agree that God is not real, and God is not guiding people, saying that God wants me to rob a grocery store must mean that I actually want to rob a grocery store. On the contrary, those who claim that God wants them to give money to charity, actually wanted to give money to charity from the beginning and they would be just as willing to do so if they were not religious. Ultimately, their faith is not what drives them to do good deeds, it is their own "DESIRE" to do good deeds. This desire is not subject to a belief in God it is subject to the individual. God simply gives them the needed justification when an action is negative. To conclude, for the reasons stated above, the presence of Christianity and many other religions for that mater, is harmful; as the bad outweighs the good.

Here is why face-to-face communication is better: 1)it's more pleasant to communicate face-to-face because people get more energy and positive feelings communicating personally; that happens due to the eye contact and facial gestures. 2) some important aspects included in face-to-face communication can't be replicated by technology. For example, we don't have an opportunity to hug or shake hands of each other via the Internet. Also, in face-to-face meetings people have a better chance of formingpositive impression by using their body language and voice. 3) people get the responce immediately. They don't have to wait till their interlocutar will read their message and type the answer as it happens in online chatting.

Privacy, like all things, in it of itself is subjective. The perception of each person's thoughts can widely scatter the view of what privacy is as a whole. When you as an individual think of privacy, what is it? Is it the total keeping of all personal information to yourself? Is it people not knowing enough that it will not interfere with your daily routine? This varies widely. Whatever the case, many people believe privacy to be a thing of the past. Ergo, this rather new invention has been demonized for its releasing of personal, valuable information. The expelling of this information should not have the Internet blamed. The individual people who either don't care or have a separate definition of privacy are to blame. Not only are they to blame, but the people whom talk about their and others private information, not knowing the facts, are to blame. Privacy is not simply a thing of the past; it is morphed into an understanding of it that is different compared to what it used to be. Do you really find this private information if you aren't looking for it? No, you find what is useful and get on to the normal world. The truth is, privacy hasn't changed; we have changed.

Two years ago, I had been very excited when our family had an the Internet connection because the Internet is very useful in some aspects. First and foremost, students can utilise the resources on the Internet; and therefore, learners can turn in better work and improve their mark. Likewise, the Internet connects the world together; he Internet enables us to contact anyone with an the Internet. Nonetheless, the overuse of the Internet can cause brain damage. The Internet is very useful because it provides resources for students and makes communication between people easier. The Internet has made communication easier around the world. In the past, sharing a file publicly seemed very hard. However, the wide use of The Internet makes it easier to share files. The benefits of using The Internet also include the fact that more people are becoming socialized. Communication/email servers offer free video or voice calls on The Internet. As a result, office workers can communicate and send files to each other with ease. This also benefits family members because they can contact each other when they are really far away. Not only do The Internet has made communication easier, but also education easier. The Internet contains a vast variety of resources for students or parents to learn more. Although students can use encyclopaedias to help them research, The Internet is more reliable because it has more resources than the encyclopedia. According to the University of Florida, students can "relate their interests on a personal level", which encourages the independence students need. Therefore, students are motivated to do better in schools. Not only do The Internet helps students, but also helps teachers and parents. Parents who have little or no English skills can depend upon The Internet to help them. In addition, parents can be more involved in their child"s education by accessing online school resources such as library website and the school website. Students can also use The Internet if their textbook(s) do not make sense or if they need more information. In brief, The Internet is a powerful tool to help improve education for both students and parents.

Technology in general is highly beneficial. A long time ago, we didn't have microwaves or cars or video games. To cook, they used fire made by rubbing sticks together, which takes a while. Now we have ovens which make the fire for us. Instead of horses, we can ride cars, which go faster and are much easier to control. Now why do you think technology is bad?