Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social networking platforms contribute to the growing issue of nature-deficit disorder among young people.
In response to my opponent's initial criticism regarding the lack of evidence on my side, I will address the matter. Firstly, my opponent argues that there is no proof linking students' time spent on social networking sites to nature-deficit disorder. However, a study by Stanford University of Medicine indicates that over half of internet usage is dedicated to communication, primarily through social networking sites. Considering that students typically spend three hours daily online, it is reasonable to assume that they dedicate at least an hour and a half to these sites. While engaged in these platforms, they are not exploring the outdoors, leading to a significant reduction in nature experiences for young individuals. Thus, social networking sites are directly contributing to nature-deficit disorder. Secondly, my opponent questions the existence of nature-deficit disorder. However, Richard Louv, who spent a decade conducting interviews and gathering research, is not the only one to acknowledge this phenomenon. Harvard professor E. O. Wilson refers to a similar concept called "biophilia," suggesting that humans have an inherent connection to nature. However, people are spending less time outdoors and more time indoors, engaged in technology-related activities. The Nature & Children Network also recognizes this trend, agreeing that nature-deficit disorder is a genuine problem. Therefore, when multiple individuals and organizations concur, it cannot be dismissed as mere speculation. Thirdly, my opponent claims that since I cannot prove a direct link, the onus is on me to vote negatively. However, I have already established a connection. Firstly, the majority of internet usage is devoted to social networking sites and communication, pulling children away from nature. This reduced exposure to nature is causing nature-deficit disorder, leading to behavioral issues such as attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, and family stress. By disconnecting our youth from their innate connection with nature, social networking sites are exacerbating nature-deficit disorder. Consequently, it is your responsibility to vote in favor of the proposition, acknowledging that social networking sites are indeed causing nature-deficit disorder. Addressing my opponent's argument, they assert that social networking sites do not contribute to nature-deficit disorder, as their primary purpose is to foster new relationships and socialize. However, this assertion is irrelevant to the debate topic, which is whether social networking sites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder among our youth. Even if social networking sites facilitate connections, it does not negate their role in disconnecting young people from nature. By

Debate.org is an online tool that allows users to begin a debate, choose an opponent, argue for or against a thesis, and then receive feedback from an authentic audience of users from around the world. Middle school students would benefit from this tool because it promotes critical thinking.

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.

Might I also add that Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE who enters the site. While your opening argument (and mine) were credible, Wikipedia as a whole is not a very credible source, considering it can be edited. ===================================================================== The definition of necessary is something that is essential; such as water. Anything besides water, food, etc. can be considered NOT NECESSARY simply because it is not essential for life to continue. Censorship is not essential for life to continue; however, the studies suggest that censorship is needed for the benefit of the individual. "-Congrats, you have successfully stated your opinion on this matter. I agree that what we watch has an affect on us, HOWEVER this in no way means that censorship is necessary. It may be beneficial to our culture, depending on how you interpret it." While this may come across as simply my opinion, you may want to check the numbers of violence back in the 50s and so on. Violence was simply not shown on the television. Most families only had one television in their home, so parents monitored what their children watched (censorship), the numbers of violence is significantly lower. Go ask one of your parents if there was a lot of violence for them while they were in school, see what they say. So my guarantee was not an opinion, it was fact. Censorship may not be essential to continue life, considering we can certainly survive without it; however, the studies that have been presented show that censorship does present a great benefit. It is essential for the psychological health of our youth, if the TV stations don't censor than parents will, and the majority do any ways; that is their responsibility as parents. But even that is a form of censorship. When children go to school or the library, the computers have a filter to block certain sites (this is censorship). In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. I urge those who read this debate to vote CON, as censorship DOES have benefits. Whether the government chooses to censor something, or parents monitor what their kids watch on their television, censorship is put in place for a reason. If we didn't think it was necessary, then we wouldn't care whether a 4 year old watches an R rated movie, or what kind of music your daughter listens to. We as individuals put censorship into motion for a reason, no, it is not essential to survive. However, it is there for a reason. If it wasn't necessary to some extent, we wouldn't feel the need to use it.

First off, Pro says the candidates should be "forced" to debate on this site which is not something positive. Force should not be required. If the candidates see a benefit to a social presence on this site, that is fine, but it should not be forced. The benefits of having candidates post on this site are two-fold: we get to see their positions on the issues and we get to see them compare their platforms, and defend their platforms against their opponents. But the candidate's websites and other sites comparing them already tell us where they stand on the issues and how the candidates differ from each other. http://2016election.procon.org... The candidates participate in multiple debates throughout the campaign, so we already get to see them debate live in real time and in person. On this website, candidates would probably have one of their staff members post their talking points. Real live debates are more personal. We would not get to see the candidate's "written communication" showed off here, and plus politicians do not really do a lot of written work while in office so it's irrelevant. People campaigning have better and more important things to do with their time. If there are already places people can see them explain their views (like interviews, rallies, appearances) then having the candidates on this site doesn't give us anything new or useful.

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.

Framing:The way that pro has set up this debate requires him to prove that religion is overall not beneficial to society and humanity. He clarifies in his round 1 that this means both in the present and past. Thus there are four arguments which my opponent must uphold:1. Religion is not beneficial to society now.2. Religion was not beneficial to society in the past.3. Religion is not beneficial to humanity now. 4. Religion was not beneficial to humanity in the past. Thus far my opponent has mostly focused on point 2, with a tiny bit of point 1. The Trap: A Secular Community:Pro suggests that quantification of non-religion can occur by examining secular communities. This is a false proposition, very few completely secular communities exist in the world, and none are of substantial size [1]. The next best thing is to examine the motive behind past atrocities: were they religious based or not? This examination will tell us whether they would occur in a world devoid of religion. Thus I will quickly list three secular movements responsible for mass deaths:1. The Holocaust (6 million deaths)2. Pol Pot's Cambodia (1-3 million deaths) [2]3. Stalin's Russia (3-60 million deaths) [3]My esteemed opponent will of course argue that there were some religious underpinnings. In the 2nd and 3rd case such an argument is unfounded, both situations were focused on the ideals of communism (an asecular philosophy). In the 1st case it has been well documented that Hitler became disdainful of Christianity; he repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular idealogy [4]. Of course these are only examples of wars which religion failed to prevent. My source 1 from round 1 demonstrates that religions heighten altruism in populations. Fundamentally many world religions preach respect for fellow human beings. Thus we arrive at the same problem as before: comparing secular and religious atrocities is impossible because we do not know how many atrocities religion prevented. Finally my opponent uses a few out of context quotations from my own source. The actual quote reads, "Perhaps moralising gods are not required for complex societies. After all, the Romans and Greeks created large, complex societies despite having a pantheon of gods who were not exactly paragons of virtue." This of course isn't my point; I'm well aware that moralizing gods are not "required". My argument is that complex society formed around religions which acted to bind them together. As the source delineates pro-social training can be taught via religion or otherwise. However, it is most likely that religion was the enabling factor for complex societies as it represents an absolute moral code. Thus religion has enabled much of present day society and it's population. The Mind's WarI'll quickly reiterate that massive medical organizations (the mayo clinic) recommend religion as way to relieve stress. My opponent's speculation stands unfounded in the face of scientific research. He argues that religion creates stress by causing people to pray, worship, and repent for their sins. I would like to remind him that the alternative is not knowing what will happen after death (a life stress). Religions allow people to avoid the greatest perpetual stress via promises of salvation. Besides, the majority of religious people are religious at their own convenience despite what the church says [5].I will reiterate the magnitude of what we're discussing. Life stress can increase risk of death by 50%. We are talking about 6 billion people here, these impacts dwarf anything my opponent has presented. Genetic Codes:As my opponent has constructed this debate, he must also argue that religion is not beneficial to humanity. He has yet to do so. I previously articulated that humanity, at it's core, is the genome. Thus the question of being beneficial to humanity is one of genetic favorabilty and inheritance [6]. Since Pro has already conceded that aggression and violence are not beneficial to society, my point is quite easy to win. Aggression and violent tendencies are partially genetic predispositions [7][8]. And war, at it's core, is just glorified natural selection [9]. Since people with violent predispositions are the most likely to be caught up in wars those predispositions are also the most likely to be terminated. Societies with the greatest scientific advances are likely to triumph in these wars, which allows their brilliance to become a larger proportion of the genetic pool. A world with religious wars is one in which humanity thrives, regardless of society. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. Ridley, Matt. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. HarperCollins 2013. Print.7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...

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

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

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

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social networking platforms contribute to the rising prevalence of nature-deficit disorder among young people.
Apologies for the delay, I had some internet connectivity issues earlier. Thank you for your patience and good luck to you too. CBS News reported that teenagers spend an average of about three hours online daily, which equates to over six hours in front of a screen. Interestingly, social networking sites account for the majority of this screen time. According to Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time online?, MySpace leads the pack with a staggering 11.9% of total internet time spent on it, significantly more than other popular sites like YouTube and Wikipedia combined. This indicates that more than one-tenth of internet usage is dedicated to a single social networking site. And this doesn’t even factor in the time spent on other social networks like Facebook. Considering that the typical teenager spends three hours online per day, it’s evident that social networking sites are diverting young people from the outdoors and toward digital screens, thus contributing to the development of nature-deficit disorder.

I'm just trying to prove my side sir. You are pretty much saying that there is onl one way of being social, and it is just talking. what about working together? playing a sport together? There are more ways of being social then just plain talking. I fell because you don't want to further the issue I will stop here.

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

If, in this debate, we are counting the government censorship as self-censorship, then I will no longer debate that topic. Thus, I will bring up another example of censorship that can be useful and positive. That example is libraries. Some books/films/other cannot be found within public and school libraries because they have been removed from the shelves for a certain reason. This is a form of censorship. When certain items are removed form the library it is for inappropriate content, or for content that would offend the general public. It could also be because of numerous complaints from community members, and those complaints could be for too many reasons to count. Censoring the content that is available to a community is a job given to a committee of community members, but since it does not represent everyone then it does not count as self-censorship. My other point is school libraries. The books that are removed form school libraries are chosen by parents and librarians. This is also not self-censorship because the people that are affected don't get to pick what is censored. Still, both are beneficial to the people they censor. Censorship in libraries helps protect the emotional state of all the people in the community, and keeps groups of people from being offended by certain content that is available within public places.

Society tends to get tired of it. However, many people don't have much of a social life and spend all their time online. Bullying is definitely a common factor of it, but it can happen anywhere. It is also helpful for those people who don't like to talk to people in person. They can say things that they couldn't say in person, due to nervousness or confrontations, etc.

Youtube should absolutely not be banned. You've said that it is integrating itself into our daily life and it's educating our youth. Where is the downside? Youtube is globalizing education and entertainment. It's a great way to spread knowledge and will probably lead education in 3rd world countries through the Google Loon. (http://www.google.com...) As far as I can see Youtube has only positive effects and will be incredibly beneficial to 3rd world countries.

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.

I do understand your point about how parents getting involved in social media is a good thing, but I only think to a certain extent. If the parent makes a social media page for themselves and is constantly posting or commenting on the child's page they will begin to feel like they are tracking their every move. The parent is not only using it as a form of communication, but to also check up and stalk their child's page. I do not believe that social media should be the main source of communication between the parent and child because that is not a healthy relationship. If the child or parents wanted to share a photo with each other, they could just show it to them in person. That way the child does not feel like the parent is over involved in their social 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

The internet has become such a huge part of our lives, Especially in adolescence, So big that people can feel symptoms of withdrawal as well as being unable to function normally without regular online contact from there devices because we put such a mental dependence on online activities. Researchers have also linked compulsive Internet use to a range of mental health concerns including low self-esteem, Loneliness, Depression, Social phobia, And even suicidal thoughts.

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

The principles of professional conduct should be prioritized over the liberty of speech on social media platforms. In line with the Dalai Lama's belief that happiness is the ultimate goal of life and that inner peace is the key to well-being, I support the resolution that states: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. This is because I believe that social contracts contribute to well-being and that the highest value in today's society is well-being, which is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence, characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is the best criterion for evaluating this resolution, as it defines the order of necessities to achieve well-being. Professional behavior on social media is crucial for achieving well-being because it enhances one's chances of being liked and respected by others. In contrast, inappropriate behavior can lead to negative consequences, such as job loss and legal issues.

Contingency 1: Users must be aware of the potential for their content to be divulged and exposed on social media platforms. For instance, a personal injury case could be affected by photos showing the litigant skiing or exercising after the accident. This could easily apply to other situations where a person's quality of life has been affected, and lawyers must explain to their clients that postings on social media sites may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit.

Contingency 2: Professional behavior is more sensible than inappropriate behavior. Behaving appropriately can lead to positive outcomes, such as representing oneself in a way that people find appealing, satisfying employers' expectations, and making a good first impression. In contrast, inappropriate behavior can result in negative consequences, such as giving a poor first impression, offending others, and potentially losing one's job.

Contingency 3: While individuals can choose to behave inappropriately, it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. The resolution states that professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social media sites, meaning it is in one's best interest to behave professionally. This is because professional behavior on social media can contribute to one's well-being, while inappropriate behavior can have negative consequences. Ultimately, behaving professionally on social media is a social contract that individuals follow for their own well-being.

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.

In this last round my opponent has simple restated his previous points and not defended them to the criticism I provided. My opponent also claimed I twisted his argument but provided no examples of deceptive uses of quote mining or the like. I would like to remind my opponent that this is a debate, I am obviously going to pick holes and 'twist' your points, if you haven't outlined them in such a way so that I can't twist them then this is due to your skills as a debater. I really want to emphasize this point to the audience, this is a debate not simply a 'have your say' section of a website. Please note how many times my opponents argument hinges of their personal opinion and personal anecdotes and also note the extreme lack of sources. Onto round 5. I would like to point out my opponents first contradiction. "Sorry, I didn't ignore them, I missed them accidentally, so here," My opponent clearly says they didn't provide a rebuttal but then goes on to say "You can continue to provide my sentences without a context, twist my words, and pretend I didn't give a rebuttal". I'm not sure if my opponent was confused or was purposely trying to lie. 1)"whatever you say" is not a concrete admission," Whatever you say is essentially a way of agreeing with me. Perhaps you shouldn't use slangy phrases that can be misinterpreted here if you don't want to be twisted. 2)My opponent claims they don't need sources because it was a hypothetical, I'm confused how my opponent can call it a hypothetical. A hypothetical would be an example of something that could happen (and not something that happens), therefore it is not a real example of positivity spawned from the internet but its potential. 3) "The ability to buy rare items is positive for people." This is not a worthwhile point in a debate you gave no evidence for this nor even basic reasoning. This is what I meant in my round 5 introduction, my opponent has simply ignored my criticism and restated their point. "I didn't say that Internet business profit more" If they don't profit anymore than when they don't use the internet then it's not an overall positive thing. It just happens to be a thing people use for what they were doing anyway. 4) You did not negate the fact that there have been more obese people since the popularization of the internet. 5)Your aim is to show that the internet has a POSITIVE EFFECT ON SOCIETY, you made the resolution not I. You have not shown how these relationships on the internet have a positive effect on society, nor how these relationships are actually superior to ones forged off line. This is the very point of the debate. You have simply said you can meet new like-minded people many of whom you are likely to never meet. 6) "OK, well, when I said that, I wouldn't have defined subject as broadly as you." You accuse me of twisting the debate, and yet you simply reject my dictionary definition and substitute your own so it will fit your point. "is that the Internet has the potential to provide us all with vast amounts of information, in depth or otherwise, on even the most obscure of topics." You have yet to say why accruing any information beyond basic survival level is positive to society. You are simply stating the functions of the internet not how they are positive on society. "Our schools choose to use it these day because they see it, and in fact the Internet as a whole, as a vital tool to education and, what will be our future adult lives." Out of 6 billion people on a small minority are at schools where the internet is used as an educational tool, how can this be a positive effect overall? 7)I don't know why you are ignoring the fact that you can't use anecdotes in a debate. Has the internet increased marriage rates and divorce rates? No. Are people happier than before with their relationships? No. Are relationships the same? Yes. Just because you are too socially inept to know how to meet people outside of the internet does not mean like minded people only exist on the internet. You can't choose who you meet on the internet and if you could this would be a negative because it would narrow your horizons because you'd never be introduced to new ideas or types of people, just those you are happy to have around. "And, by the way, my news article was not to show that it is a positive, but to counter what you believed, falsely, to be a negative." Your article said people who used the internet still have friends, my research showed that people who use the internet a lot become more socially inept. Yours does not negate or counter my research, they can have friends but be terrible at being social. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I) I did not say the theft of movies and the like was negative, I said turning quite a high percentage of people into thieves and criminals was a bad thing. For example smoking marijuana isn't bad or negative however it is illegal and so getting caught smoking it can lead to negative consequences later in life because having a criminal record is bad. Furthermore it was just your opinions that it is a just crime, it is my opinion that it isn't. See why you can't use opinion? II) I'm confused as to your point in this instance. You say laws against these things are justified so therefore the internet allowing these people to commit these crimes (easily and without fear of the law) is a NEGATIVE thing. I shouldn't have to spell out the obvious to you. Anyone who doesn't know how to surf the internet anonymously is an idiot, you have no sources for this so I have no reason to believe the government does crack down on lots of people. III) I can't believe you completely ignored my point. Porn is not a depiction of a healthy relationship it is abuse and children shouldn't learn from that. "It doesn't matter anyway - in Australia, here, teens are, at the very least given sex education as young as 12." Being taught how to have safe sex and how sexual reproduction works is not the same as being shown violent images of women being abused by men and teaching children this is normal. You say porn has no effect on children, however how many teenage girls do you see wanting to have blond hair, massive breasts and the body of a little boy? How many do you see dressing in a manner similar to that of a pornstar? Clearly teenage girls think this is how they should look because porn tells them to. They do no know it is not realistic. If that is their first visual experience of sex why would they think it were fantasy? "The interest in sex peaks long before many teenagers will lose their virginity anyway." Again no sources but regardless this doesn't mean that watching violent sex is healthy. "And they are certainly not so stupid as to ignore being abused by 30-year-olds. Even at 9." This is just plain idiocy on your behalf. Many girls aged 15 or so will have sexual relationships with men much older than them, this law is to protect them. If they don't have a law against 30 year old men having sex with 9 year olds how are we going prosecute them? It is very logical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout my opponent has ignored my points, used no evidence and ignored the resolution. Very little of their argument gave clear reasons as to why the functions of the internet were positive to society but simply what the functions were. By virtue of the fact that only a small minority of the world has access to the internet or can benefit from it at this time shows that the internet cannot have a positive effect on the whole. Many of the functions of the internet do little more than allow people to keep doing the same thing. Thank you for the debate.

**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.** REBUTTAL I believe that children aren't getting other needed things because of all of these technologies, and their are many dangers to these devices. 1)Invisible Radiation from Wireless"Technology and Electricity Inhibits Your Oxygen Supply https://www.scienceoflight.org... 2)Electrosmog can cause brain fog & electrosensitivity (ES)."Symptoms include: ~ Mental confusion ~ Headaches ~ Disruptive sleep patterns ~ Chronic fatigue ~ Depression ~ Hypersensitivity and erratic blood pressure ~ Skin complaint ~"Behavioural patterns in children 3)Cell phones are addictive. A)One of the worst things with this technology is it allows young minds to have unlimited access to sexually graphic images and pornography. It has been proven that when kids are exposed to sex at a young age, they have future problems with identity, intimacy, and successful relstionships. B)There are studies that link large technology use to anxiety disorders and depression. https://www.google.com... 4)Studies show that too much texting and Social Media affect social skills and growth in a negative way. It's like learning a language. A child is grasping for ways to communicate, and absorbs whatever is there. If the child hears Spanish, they absorb Spanish. If they hear English, they absorb English. If they are in social situations, they learn social skills. If all they primarily see is a device, they absorb communicating through a device, rather than through face to face human interactions. This is not helpful with interacting with kids, adults later, or being successful at work as an adult. https://m.huffpost.com... ----- http://www.dailymail.co.uk... https://www.webmd.com...

There is a reason we have technology in the schools, it has brought the world outside of the classroom to us. I am still in school, I am in seventh grade, I have learned so much about different religions and different cultures that I did not know about. My opponent is against technology in school, but the definition of technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. So this eliminates most, if not everything, of the things in our schools.

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

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...

You didn't really respond to any of my points, and I already described how the massive benefits outweigh the cons. There isn't anything else I can say, since you didn't add any new material to the debate.

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.

The US constitution protects our property rights. The US constitution considers our personally owned businesses to be our private property. Facebook and other social media sites are privately owned businesses. Facebook and other social media sites are private property and are protected by the constitution. Facebook and other social media sites are not publicly owned, therefore the public has no say in how these social media sites are run. If you, the reader have any qualms with Facebook or other privately owned social media sites, you are free to start your own site.

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial for Our Community?

Resolved: Overall, social networking websites have a beneficial impact on the United States.

According to a study by Neilson/Netratings, the top 10 social networking sites experienced a traffic growth of 47% over the past year, with Myspace witnessing a remarkable 367% increase in users. As more individuals log onto these sites annually, social networking is becoming an integral part of life. These platforms contribute positively to the economy and education (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/).

Resolved: In general, social networking sites have a favorable influence on the United States. For this debate, I define 'on balance' as the net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) and 'positive' as something that is irrefutable and admits no doubt (American Heritage Second College Edition).

1. Rape, Suicide, and Identity Theft are Preventable
The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented and avoided. Resources on these sites include privacy settings, enabling users to restrict their profiles from public view and ensuring that only friends can access personal information and photos. Engaging only with known individuals can prevent unwanted contact. Users should avoid posting identifiable images or personal information that could lead to dangerous situations. As Josiah Charles Stamp once said, "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." If users are not responsible, they must accept the consequences of their actions. Those wary of these sites can simply choose not to use them.

2. Social Networking Sites Foster Educational Development
Social networking sites have evolved beyond a teen-centric domain; many colleges are now utilizing these platforms for educational purposes. Universities like Berkley are posting lectures, campus tours, and athletic events on YouTube. The population on YouTube is expanding, with more institutions using it for health outreach, such as Women's Health Today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, popular in today's culture. Women's Health Today videos have garnered over 300,000 views, indicating the increased reach of these valuable programs (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube).

3. Social Networking Sites Enhance Political Engagement
Users gain political knowledge by visiting candidates' social networking sites (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com). Chris DeWolfe, CEO of Mys

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.

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

Hello! I suppose that face-to-face communication is considerably better than online chatting. I don't say that online commucation is bad; however, there are more advantages of face-face talking than that ones of online chatting.

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.

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.

The Internet gives millions of people access to information they would not otherwise have had, which is a huge benefit. People who read the news, offline or online, are not inherently dupable, they like all people do not simply accept messages, they are, to varying degrees, critical of what they read and not simply passive. When people spend a lot of time reading online content they can differentiate between trustworthy articles or extremely biases online who carefully refer to legitimate sources. The problem of bad information is not unique to the internet; there are lots of trashy articles that are poorly researched as well. We learn in formal education to double-check our sources and not believe in everything we read, and we can apply that skill while surfing the internet. **************************************************************************************************** The internet helps to bring communities and the world closer together. With the ability for anybody to easily and quickly share rich information online, via a whole host of tools, the internet serves to bring people together. People can maintain and even create friendships without the barrier of geography using the internet. Additionally, social networks have a capacity to distribute news in a timely and targeted manner, directed at the people whom it mostly concerns, that is far greater than that of traditional media cannot compete. For example, ****http://fillthathole.org.uk...**** provides a nationwide portal for U.K. citizens to report road potholes. The internet DOES NOT bring more harm than good since it brings the world together by not only encouraging direct communication with other people from other countries, but also by being able to share and distribute information in a way which traditional forms of communication could not do. THANK YOU FOR THIS DEBATE

Although technology has many useful features it serves more as a petty distraction in a school environment. SInce the pro is arguing her statement that "Media and Technology use in the setting of a classroom should be more accessible " It is expected of her to use viable facts and sources to thoroughly support any evidence that she wishes to use. I will conclude my opening argument by saying that we are not inno need to use something simply due to its popularity because it is not always the best choice.

Mobile Technology creates advantages in various situations in every day life. Those areas education, communication, employment, and leisure-time fun. The use of cell phones and other mobile technology (iPads, iPods, tablets, laptops, etc) hase expanded the capacity of social gatherings, personal connections (over long distances), and educational activities.. It has also largely increased self-education access, and decreased information illiteracy. Due to these issues, mobile technology has largely impacted human life in a positive way.

In the sense of safety for teenagers, the cellphone actually causes more problems for them they are consistently looking at there phones all day because at any moment something could be said about them causing problems and being mean, which is where cyber bullying comes in. In connection with education if a student is in class and has a choice between learning about anything or what people are saying about them, they are going to choose the one about what people are saying because they are at the age that connection to each other is so important. I feel teenagers focus way to much on each other rather than on themselves. Teenagers use their phones to ridicule one another and that is not in the best interest of the victims of bullying.

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.