Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Teacher-student connections on social media platforms like Facebook can be beneficial. Digital relationships enable students who are struggling to seek help and support more easily.

**Question**: Should we invest in renewable energy?

**Documents**: Renewable energy is a long-term investment that will pay off in the future.
Investing in renewable energy sources is crucial for the sustainability of our planet.

**Similar Documents**: Renewable energy represents a forward-thinking investment that will yield benefits in the long run. Committing resources to renewable energy sources is essential for the long-term health and sustainability of our environment.

"'I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace. ' Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. " I am not sure this relates to the topic at hand, which is social networking. "Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. " That really didn't change much, so I accept your resolved premise. My opponent has failed to correctly source his information, so I will do it for him. Ought- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Well being- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I accept the definitions as provided. "The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. " Maslow's theory states that one of the last things needed is respect for others and respect from others. There are many other things in his theory needed more than these. " It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. " Why? You have not provided any information why this would be the case. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 1: "'Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday. " ~ . http://www.lockergnome.com...; Freedom of expression, according to legal precedent, does not include harassment. Therefore, this information is irrelevant. "Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. " What if someone is self-employed or doesn't represent a company? "Social networking sites are no longer private. " Social networks were never private. That is the entire point of a social network; For people to talk, mingle, share jokes, pictures etc. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 2: My opponent has stated two contentions for contention 2. They are: "Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. " and "Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. " My opponent also states the "benefits" of behaving appropriately. I will post a short rebuttal for each. "Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. " On a social networking site, many people will not find it appealing, but rather boring. "Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. " Only if you are an employee of a company. If not, the point is moot. "It may make a great first impression. " That also gives it the possibility of not making a great first impression. The "cons" of behaving inappropriately: "Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. " Once again, if you do not have an employer, then they can't be angry at you. "Giving a poor first impression. " It may not be a poor first impression. It may strike someone that I am a vibrant young individual instead of some dry, stagnant, static person. "People may NOT find you appealing. " Once again, it gives the opportunity to find you appealing as well. It is obvious that the "benefits" do not outweigh the "cons". REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 3: "Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " They can only do as they please as long as it is within the laws. "Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation" Obligate - to pledge, commit, or bind . http://dictionary.reference.com... Bind- to make compulsory or obligatory . http://dictionary.reference.com... I know, a bit of a circular definition, but my point is that when you have an obligation to do something, it is compulsory to do that obligation. Even with my opponents trickery, he has not proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that his resolution is true. He also keeps using social contract and has not yet defined it. Social Contract -the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... "You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. " Obviously, these statements are not related to each other at all. Once would cause death if not complied with. "It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? " No. You have not provided any information what forming a society has to do with social networking or freedom of expression. CONCLUSION PRO: "I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites," One random court case and an assumption about employers does not show me enough information about the contingency being divulged and exposed information. "that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately," Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. "and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " I have proven that they can not do as they please, but rather what lies within the laws. All contentions are refuted, therefore the resolution is negated. CONCLUSION CON: My opponent has provided little or no information for his contentions, and what little information he has provided has been refuted. Also, he has provided little information for the resolution. He barely mentioned social networking and did not mention freedom of expression. Therefore, we can clearly conclude that standards of professional behavior ought not to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites. It was a tad bit hard sorting through your argument, but I did the best I could. Best of luck in the final round. I look forward to your reply. PS I really wanted to say more, but I was limited to only 8000 characters, of which I have none left after this sentence.

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

I'm sorry if my argument wasn't clear. I am arguing that it is wrong and very unfair to judge a person for how they view the world and how they feel about something. It is wrong to view someone as a bad person if they do not share our opinion on religion, media, culture, superstition, tradition, art, etc. I have seen many people excluded because of their lack of interest in the latest news, celebrities, games, and for being of a different culture and tradition. I am pro for emotional expression and having the ability to express your true self without fear of judgment, exclusion, or bullying.

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.

It was very kind of you to take me into consideration. Video games can benefit people in various ways, and therefore, are not bad for all people. Video games can include exercise, like on the Nintendo Wii, and can actually help people in school if they are educational games. Different games can help in different classes.

The negative side to community service when it involves AP classes and other advanced courses is that when the student starts to do community service, it will interfere with their study time and their grades may go down. I also feel like community service should not be forced upon students. Not only students, but to other people. I believe that true volunteering lies in an individual's will and drive to help others and enforcing it eliminates that drive. Another things is that even though we can pick what service we want to do, when you volunteer, you have to deal with people. Some people are pleasant to deal with and some are not. When you find yourself working with individuals you do not like or cannot get along with, it can be a very unpleasant experience.

I will offer my rebuttal below. My task, however, is to offer proof that libertarianism can be beneficial to society. One example will be sufficient to disprove my opponent. So, following the example of my opponent, I will offer an example that shows how libertarianism can be beneficial to a society. My example will be a famous one: the society of George Orwell's 1984 - as a placeholder for any authoritarian society. It is obvious that a society that bans creativity and independent thought is in many respects inferior to a society that supports creativity. For reference, I refer to a number o studies on that topic:"When you’re building an innovation team, it’s a given that you need creative people. ". http://hbr.org... "conformity pressures tend to elicit kinds of motivation in the individual that are incompatible with the creative process. The second general point, for which empirical evidence will presently be provided, is that high susceptibility by the individual to conformity pressures tends to be associated with certain personality traits that are detrimental to creative thinking. ". http://psycnet.apa.org... "of course politicians are fighting over the middle ground, of course most TV programmes are the same and of course all our high streets are identical. People are social animals who work in groups and, especially with the advance of globalization, the number of groups that govern or control our world has shrunk. These groups naturally kill creativity, or at least redefine it as conformity. ". http://www.spring.org.uk...The society of Orwell's 1984 is doomed. The arrogant government assumes to have all strings in their hands. But without creativity, there will be no innovation. Without innovation, society will not adapt to outward threats. Without that, they will be overrun. Now let us add Libertarianism: all the people content with serving the government will still be allowed to do so, keeping the state stable and running. Because the book clearly shows us that there are many people who just love the new Ingsoc system. They willingly speak "newspeak" and love the "Big Brother". Others, like protagonist Winston Smith, could develop their individual talents and create new ideas and concepts, furthering society. This is corroborated by studies. If people wish to be conformists and serve, they would be allowed to. And such people exist:"We studied 41 radical-innovation teams in R&D and manufacturing units of a large defense contractor. The groups had varying proportions of three types of people—extremely creative, detail oriented, and highly conformist—along with more-general thinkers, typically the largest component. Our most surprising finding: Conformists, though they may be useless at generating breakthrough ideas, dramatically increase a team’s radical innovations. ". http://hbr.org...As we can see, creativity and innovation - hence progress - are "dramatically" increased by the cooperation of three types of people that exist naturally. Libertarianism allows all of theses three types of people to put their talents to their best use. An authoritarian society - like Socialism - requires a centrally planned economy. Which cannot take into account each individual person's strengths and talents, nor their type as classified above: creative, detail-oriented or conformist. Centrally planned economies are regulated by a small group of people who believe thy have a brilliant plan, but must ultimately fail, as they cannot possibly comprehend the interactions of the countless variables that make up an economic circle. So far, Communism and Socialism have mostly failed. China, as the largest communist society on our planet, is right now literally suffocating and dying of thirst in its own pollution. So, Libertarianism CAN definitely help societies. In fact, conformist societies, especially socialist ones, have a tendency to SPARK Liberalism:"There are many examples of the way regulation and control by the State contributed to unanticipated and often very creative outcomes in the performing arts. These include:the dissident play-writer Václav Havel, the future president of post-communistCzechoslovakia, who satirized communist bureaucracy and worked with one of the keyunderground bands ‘The Plastic People of the Universe’; Karel Kryl a protest songwriter who became an icon of the anti-communist movement and had to escape prosecution by living in West Germany; the comic duo Lasica & Satinský who usedwell known plays such as ‘Waiting for Godot’, which became ‘Not Waiting for Godot’,to comment on the day-to-day struggles of ordinary people – struggles which in theofficial communist propaganda only existed in capitalist countries. ". http://www.academia.edu... "Unanticipated" - "dissident" - "anti-communist": it is clear that these are UNWANTED in a socialist system. It is thus established that a Libertarian system allows for creativity and innovation, while an authoritarian system would inhibit those, trusting the judgement of their government above that of the sum of the people. Rebuttal:My opponent fails to argue why a libertarian system would cause the fishermen to wait. This is totally improbable. No man knows the future. Hence the fishermen will not know - in a libertarian system - the fish will be worth 2 dollars next year. Some may hope for an increase, but others will fear the price will drop, catching fish right away, to sustain their families. As a result, fish will become rarer, and the price will THEN increase. Other fishermen will have read the famous prophecy of the Cree and catch as few fish as possible to sustain their families for the longest possible time. Libertarian systems allow for everybody to act as they wish, hence conformity would be very improbable to happen. My opponent's example is thus wrong, as it does not pertain to Libertarianism. The second example I don't understand. If each fisherman has four fish of his own and there are four fish in the lake, why does that change anything? The place where the fish dwell in the first example did not make any difference. Does having the fish nearby magically change the time when the fishermen catch the fish? Why do they catch the fish in the public lake? In extension of the first example, they would surely still wait for the second year, when the fish will be more valuable. How did the fish get into the ponds? They must have come from the lake. Transferring them requires catching them. which is what fishermen do. So, the fishermen caught the fish a year before, and decided to keep them for a year, then they do or do not catch the fish in the lake to sustain their families, selling the previously caught fish two years after catching them in the first place. This is the exact same scenario as example one, then. The fishermen have access to fish and wait a year before they sell them. The only difference is this: in this example, the fishermen hungered for an additional year - after catching the fish they now keep in their ponds. None of this makes sense. In Libertarianism, people with fewer resources become resourceful by innovation and cleverness. If the fisherman with the most advanced equipment waits for a year to catch the fish - his fault if the others are there first. I assure you the little fishermen will catch the fish, unless the government forbids them to. Which is a problem with the USA. The government intervenes with taxation, license fees etc. , which is what keeps little businesses down. That's not Libertarianism. In case you haven't noticed: the Libertarian Party is only the third largest party in the USA, while the Republican Party holds the majority in Congress. What you are describing is "free market", maybe "Liberalism", but not Libertarianism.

. . . I merely have to show how my opponent's arguments fail to affirm the resolution that Facebook is stupid. ~~~~~~~~ Definitions ~~~~~~~~ Facebook - This: . http://www.facebook.com... Stupid - lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Facebook is repressive. .. /// For this point to be valid my opponent will need to show why being repressive is in and of itself stupid. ~ ///Facebook is opposed to direct experience in friendship because if they didn't then there business model would collapse and people wouldn't waste there life on corporate surveys! /// One can interact face-to-face with those they interact with on Facebook. There is nothing that prohibits this. ~ ///Facebook is authoritarian. .. /// For this point to be valid my opponent will need to show why being authoritarian is in and of itself stupid. ~ ///Facebook teaches ignorance because people use it to believe they have 500 friends. .. /// Facebook does not claim that every Facebook Friend that you have is actually your friend. Any assumption made otherwise is te fault of the user's not Facebook. ~ I look forward to my opponent's response.

I'm not sure where you get the notion that technology hurts society. While you may be able to point to isolated incidences of technology harming society, I can demonstrate numerous technological developments that have immeasurably helped society - far more than any other pieces may have hurt it. Let's first address your argument, which doesn't deal with society, but rather with business. You present several areas where you believe technology has hurt business: 1) Phone Menu Choices 2) Reduced Staffs 3) Incorrect Automated Responses 4) Meaningless E-mail 5) Cell phones These are all inventions with the POTENTIAL to harm society. But then again, most all inventions have that potential, so this is really nothing special at all. Let's examine the actual technology these utilize, not the abuse of it. 1) The telephone allows instantaneous communication over very long distances, allowing business transactions, personal communication, government business, etc... to take place. Hardly a detriment to society. 2) Reduced Staffs? Those aren't technology! Perhaps you could enlighten me as to who invented reduced staffs? 3) Automated Responses allow for tedious work to be handled by machine. It's not a flaw in the technology that produces incorrect responses - it's a flaw in the people that programmed it. And still, we have the further reduction of this technology to the telephone (see #1). This allows for employees to be much more efficient - instead of 50 phones and people, now there are 5 people monitoring automated systems. Hardly a detriment to society. 4) E-mail allows for (basically) free textual communication anywhere in the world. Abuse of technology (mass e-mails) is nothing new. If an e-mail is an automated response, it can also be automatically deleted. I utterly fail to see any harm to society in e-mail. 5) Cell phones are basically a step above the telephone - same benefit, no cord. How many people's lives do you suppose have been saved by cell phones? I see a significant IMPROVEMENT to society here. "Obviously, for all the above reasons and more, technology hurts society more than it helps it." I see five improvements to business practices above that come from technology - no harm done. Now let's look at some pieces of technology that have historically helped society... The Printing Press The Steam Engine The Light Bulb Indoor Plumbing The Microprocessor The Battery Penicillin The Internal Combustion Engine The Clock The Radio The Locomotive The Electric Generator The Electric Motor One can CLEARLY see that pieces of technology have been an IMMENSE benefit to society, not a hindrance. I see no possible way to claim that technology hurts society when there are so many benefits to be reaped by these inventions. I await your rebuttal - and please address society like your topic says, and not exclusively business.

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social networking platforms

They serve as an effective means to stay connected with others, however, individuals often become accustomed to communicating online, which can make face-to-face interactions challenging. Moreover, some individuals express sentiments to others online that they wouldn't dare say in person, which can lead to bullying issues.

**Question**: Is it better to lease or buy a car?

**Documents**: Lease
Leasing a car is better because you have a lower monthly payment, you get a new car every 3 years, and you don't have to worry about maintenance. However, you can't make any modifications to the car, and at the end of the lease, you have to return the car.

**Similar Documents**:

Opting for a lease is advantageous due to lower monthly payments, the opportunity to drive a new car every three years, and the absence of maintenance concerns. Nonetheless, you're restricted from making any customizations to the vehicle, and upon lease termination, the car must be returned.

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.

While parents being involved in a child's social media can seem intrusive, it can be used to bring a family closer. Often in this day and age kids interact more over social media than they do in person. If parents want to interact with their kids more often then a good way to do it would be over social media. And if that parent is involved in their child's social media life, this can be easier. It could take the secretive element out of social media between parents and kids and make it a place for them to further grow their relationship. For example parents and kids can share photos with each other, recommend them new pages to follow and discuss current issues. If parents become involved in their child's social media it can redefine the use of social media from kids hiding things from their parents to inviting them to look at new posts and invite them into their world of social media. This can help parents to bond with their children and keep up with their lives in this faced paced society that revolves around social media. Also the reverse effect is possible, and kids can keep in touch with their parents easier through the use of social media. They can get photos from their parents, ask about their opinions on current events and ask them any question they please.

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

Hi there, It's very simple. Society would benefit from the regulation of citizens' speech. That much is plain to see. Only an idealist would suggest that society could flourish in an environment whereby any person could say whatever they wanted to, regardless of the truth, sensitivity, or confidentiality of what is being said. I will be arguing that absolute freedom of speech conflicts overwhelmingly with core Liberal values, and in support of this argument I will refer to the work of John Stuart Mill. I will also draw upon modern-day examples of how regulation of speech has been calculated and introduced, so as to aid social development and safety. I welcome your response.

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

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.

Social skills- You can still learn social skills by talking with neighbors, hanging out at a mall or park etc. Summer isn't a hiding time, now is it? Bullying- Well it could have went the other way around for you, you may have became a bully or allowed yourself to be run over. And this is used as an excuse by our teachers for not taking adequate action against bullying. 'deal with it yourself' sometimes doesn't work out. Talking- So, if teachers stop us from talking in class, then the time talking with friends is reduced. I would have met my people somewhere else rather than school. Homework organization- You may be lucky then. Our subject teachers give time for homework according to the time needed only for 'its completion', and so if we get more assignments that day from other classes its humanly impossible not to skip one of them. I can't give myself 45 minutes, I have to make do with 10, for I return at home 4-30 pm and sleep at 9, so I have approximately 4 hours, out of which I need to do other things like eat, change, debate on this site(lol), play football etc. which reduces my study time. 'also, the curriculum 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.' No, every child has a different level of intelligence, and also a different level of interest. I think that interest is like pouring 1 liter of water into 10 glasses. Sure, some may have 1.5 capacity and more want to learn, but I think that for each subject you are a bit more interested in, give a bit more effort you reduce the effort you will put in another subject. All of the work is forced upon us, we really can't choose subjects yet, and its impossible to be wizard at all subjects unless in primary. How can you be sure the curriculum is made keeping in mind the average ability when no student's opinion is taken upon it?? ' 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 a lot in giving you time to enjoy. I told you, most subject teachers don't co-ordinate with each other when giving homework, and thus we get overburdened. As for choosing subjects in year nine, I saw that our form was rigged( it required us to choose at least 13 subjects) and we are already studying only 17 subjects. I certainly dislike more than 4 subjects, what shall I do?

So what I see is your only real concern to debate here is basically the definition of privacy. Depending on the way you look at it you can consider it either as outdated or not outdated. To try and get a good definition of what privacy is, it's important to consider why privacy is so valued. Privacy comes about because people want separation between themselves and the rest of the world. This can be likened to the walls of a house; what is you is on one side, and what is not you is kept on the other side, without overlap. While the extent of material that someone considers private can vary person to person, each individual has their own clearly defined barriers which constitute what is and isn't private for them. Material like your cellphone number isn't private sometimes and public sometimes, you either make it available to everyone who wants it or you don't. Now what new inventions such as the internet do is they break down the clearly defined barriers by creating overlap between what is your private information and what isn't. Social media does this by collecting your personal information and feeding it to corporate entities. Websites do it by requiring your information to create accounts, and often using it to send you products and updates. Ads do it by looking at your details and search history to show you things you might like. This is all before you consider the possible effects of hackers or computer viruses, or what happens when something goes wrong. Because of all of this, the barriers between our personal lives and outside society have become blurred, and this counteracts the core concepts of what privacy really is. As such, the norm of privacy is totally outdated.

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

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


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial for Our Community?

Social networking platforms are detrimental to society. I understand that online harassment is a significant issue, but educational institutions globally have been instructing adolescents on how to combat cyberbullying (visit this website: http://cyberbullying.org... for more information). This has increased young people's awareness of the potential dangers of social media and reduced the likelihood of them being victims of cyberbullying. It's an individual's decision to be more communicative through social media (with people who live far away) rather than interacting with those around them.

However, the argument can also be made that social networking sites have numerous benefits for society. These platforms have allowed people to connect with others who share similar interests, regardless of geographical location. They have also provided a space for individuals to express themselves and their opinions, which can lead to the spread of important information and ideas. Additionally, social media has been used as a tool for activism and social change, allowing marginalized communities to have a voice and organize movements. It's important to acknowledge the potential negative effects of social media, but we should also consider the positive impact it can have on society.

Question: Should college athletes be paid?
Documents: College athletes should be paid
College athletes generate a lot of revenue for their schools and the NCAA, but they don't receive any compensation for their hard work and dedication. These athletes often have to balance their rigorous training schedules with academics, leaving little time for part-time jobs or other sources of income. It's unfair that they don't receive any financial compensation for their contributions to the success of their teams and the athletic programs as a whole.

Similar Documents: Student-athletes deserve to be compensated for their efforts. College athletes are responsible for generating substantial profits for their universities and the NCAA, yet they don't receive any monetary rewards for their hard work and commitment. These athletes frequently have to juggle their demanding training schedules with academic responsibilities, leaving them with little time for other sources of income. It's unjust that they don't receive any financial compensation for their significant contributions to the success of their teams and athletic programs.

However, the debate over whether college athletes should be paid is complex and multifaceted. Some argue that providing monetary compensation to student-athletes could disrupt the amateurism of college sports and potentially harm the NCAA's reputation. Others suggest that compensating athletes could lead to a pay-to-play system, where schools with more resources could offer higher salaries to attract top talent. It's important to consider all perspectives and potential consequences before making a decision

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

Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of "social gaming". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with "Killing in the Name", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.

Internet is an ADDICTION that is DRAINing the SOULS out of people. Peoples lives are being destroyed by their inthernet addiction and families are being torn apart. No one cares about family values and society is falling apart. All the porn on the internet is turning people into drones... b/c everyone has access to 1000's of pages of porn from the time they are 6 years old. It affects our minds and makes people believe that they should be think porn stars. everyone is the same. The internet is destroying world cultures and languages. Making everyone the same. It is evil and destroying the world. it must be stopped. Facebook is "BIG BROTHER!" the government is taking over with the internet!!!

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

In our century the technology takes a huge place, if at the time when that "tech" industry was just at the beginning point all people weren't depend on it as it happens now. For example, most of us has iPhones, iPads, smartphones and so on, and everyone (I am not an exception) loses their time on social websites and on different kind of games, which makes everybody think and do things like a zobie. Yes, Those really cool and innovative things, makes everyone think in one direction and lose time on useless things. So I think one of the biggest current problems is technology.

So the topic is pretty straight forward. Rednecks are dangerous to the community. Most rednecks are usually always drinkning in their spare time. They could easily go into town and kidnapp yo kids and start a fire. But you could also prevent that by hiding yo kids and hiding yo wife. Also when they are intoxicated they are attracted to fire. When they catch a house on fire, then Sweet Brown will call for Lord Jesus to help her with his belly full of water. (i saw Jesus in a vision and he had a belly full of water) Therefore rednecks are dangerous to the community.

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.

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. . .

I'm sorry if my argument wasn't clear. I am arguing that it is wrong and very unfair to judge a person for how they view the world and how they feel about something. It is wrong to view someone as a bad person if they do not share our opinion on religion, media, culture, superstition, tradition, art, etc. I have seen many people excluded because of their lack of interest in the latest news, celebrities, games, and for being of a different culture and tradition. I am pro for emotional expression and having the ability to express your true self without fear of judgment, exclusion, or bullying.

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Technology should not supplant human labor in society.

Section 1: Technology often undermines education and cognitive development more than my opponent suggests. In this section, I will outline eight ways technology negatively impacts education. Smartphones and computers emit blue light, which can disrupt the production of melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. This disruption can lead to poor sleep patterns, which may result in bad attitudes, decreased focus, memory loss, and brain tissue degeneration. These issues can harm social relationships as people may become less desirable company. Technology can also make it easier for teenagers to get distracted. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center, 87% of teachers believe that digital technology creates an easily distracted generation with short attention spans, while 64% agreed that it does more harm than good to students' education. This can negatively impact careers as the same generation enters the workforce with a short attention span, leading to more time spent on devices rather than work, resulting in job loss. When seeking new employment, this history of termination may deter potential employers, contributing to higher unemployment rates. Technology can also hinder memory retention and formation. Nicholas Carr explains in "The Shallows" that there are two types of memory: transient working memory and long-term memory. Information must be transferred to long-term memory to be remembered, but checking emails or texts can erase that information from the mind. Additionally, excessive information intake from technology can overwhelm the brain, making it difficult to learn and remember new information. Technology can also outsource cognitive functions, leading to reduced brain usage and thinking. Instead of consulting friends for information, people now rely heavily on technology. In 2013, a Trending Machine Survey revealed that technology was the primary cause of forgetfulness among the population, as stated by Patricia Gutentag, a family and occupational therapist. She noted that "This is a population that has grown up multitasking using technology, often compounded by lack of sleep, all of which results in high levels of forgetfulness." Even when distractions are eliminated, reading online can still hinder information retention. Hypertext, or clickable links, can overwork the brain and leave less energy for reading, leading to diminished comprehension. According to a 2010 study, people who rely on GPS systems for navigation have less activity in their hippocampus, a brain region responsible for memory and navigation. The use of a GPS-operated car, such as the Google car, can cause memory problems later in life. Another study in 2

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.

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.

The main argument I will by replying to, is your one about Specialized networks. You continue to not believe that such a thing can exist. I offered up a few suggestions, and here is one more: http://sermo.com... -- A specialized OSN for Doctors. They talk about the field of medicine, and things of that nature. This is neither spread out nor useless, as it shows that people who's career involves saving lives, can talk to their peers about what they do. This certainly isn't a waste of time. Like I've said before, it's just one of many, and I'd like to reiterate again, that your saying that OSNs are useless, is your opinion. I'd just like to clarify that I know many things on Debate.org are opinions, but, this is where it actually matters, because your statement is that it's a waste of time to pretty much everyone. On the subject of debate.org, while it isn't as vast as Facebook or Myspace, it's closer to an OSN then you think. While we don't have a messaging system, we can still create a pretty deep profile. We can upload a personal picture as well, and can browse other people's profiles. This brings me to another point. People may browse other's profiles just for the heck of it, but it's also could teach them something. At a place like this, someone could learn more about a parties political views, or find a lot of new quotes. At a place like sermo, people can find what methods work for what doctors. When I said "it comes with the territory" I was mainly making a figure of speech. A lot of users know about the dangers of putting information out on the web, whether they learn it from the news, from their peers, or just from reading something on their respective networks. I understand that bad things will still happen, but again, as bad as it is to say, it's not a real significant problem. There are millions of profiles out there, and there aren't a significant amount of crimes reported each year. I'll close this debate by saying this, and this is not just for the sake of winning or losing, but for taking away a lesson: What is a waste of time to some, is a lifestyle to others. We're in an age where someone can have a life online, whether it's through an OSN, or an MMO, like Warcraft. It's not anyone's place to judge which is which, for each person. Thank You. -BBE

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.

Do you think gaming is harmful to our youth. Well if so your WRONG gaming gives us something to do on free time and I also believe it encourages young people to have new ideas to do more than the impossible it makes them want to create a game there self and to do anything they put to there young mind and to study how to create one there self this is my claim I am i 13 year old and not all gaming IS HARMFUL.

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 :)

Mobile Technology creates problems in various situations in every day life. Those areas concern mental health, cancer, distractions, addiction, stress, cyber bullying, and social disorders. The use of cell phones and other mobile technology (iPads, iPods, tablets, laptops, etc) has defeated the purpose of social gatherings, personal connections (face-to-face), and physical activity. It has also largely decreased self-esteem levels, increased mental health issues and stress levels. Due to these issues, mobile technology has largely impacted human life in a negative way.

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

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

The ease of communicating the message usually has little to no bearing on the accuracy of said message. Yes, technology can make it easier for us to communicate across greater distances and at a greater speeds, but where is the interpersonal communication? Would you rather be speaking to a relative or spouse across the nation over the phone or be right next to each other? To understand the point I'm trying to make you first have to look at what being social really is. Dictionary.com states that to be social one must seek and enjoy the company of others, so what do we perceive as company? Being miles apart or being right there next to the person? Technology is slowly disconnecting these interpersonal bonds and replacing them with bonds that contain little to no empathy or realism. That is where technology is not making us more sociable, quite the opposite actually.