Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

On the whole, social networking websites have had a predominantly positive impact on society in the United States. These platforms are currently at the forefront of contemporary communication, enabling individuals from all corners of the globe to interact by sharing photos, leaving comments and posts, instant messaging, and accessing personal information. Although these features of social networking sites may seem innocuous, sexual predators are exploiting these tools to assault and harass children and teenagers worldwide. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against these networks for neglecting to provide sufficient security and maintenance, as well as for failing to protect their users. Social networking sites can become a repository of private information that criminals can access and use for identity theft or to impersonate others. Moreover, these platforms can foster negative behaviors, as evidenced by the pro-anorexia groups on Facebook and the Juicy Campus gossip site, which led to a student's arrest. Information posted on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative consequences. Approximately 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are jeopardizing their future education and employment opportunities by leaving an "electronic footprint" that could harm their chances of securing college admission or jobs. Imposters pretending to be someone else can ruin reputations and cause job loss. Social networking can be a significant distraction for students and employees, as many find it challenging to concentrate on their work due to the allure of these platforms. In higher education, students often prioritize checking their profiles over listening to lectures. In the workplace, 233 million hours are lost each month due to employees wasting time on social networking. Sexual predation is a significant risk associated with social networking sites, as children, teenagers, and adults use platforms like Facebook and MySpace, which also attract sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly one in five children has received unwanted sexual solicitations online. The FBI reported that the number of known internet predators on social networking sites has tripled in a single year. Cyberbullying is also a major concern, affecting 40-85% of young people, with 5% experiencing severe harassment that threatens their safety. The anonymity of the internet emboldens bullies, as stated by BBC's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, who noted, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Viruses are rampant on social networking sites, often disguised as messages from friends, tricking users into clicking on links that

I appreciate the facts and figures you used to put in front your part, but at the same time I would like to mention this fact very clearly that if the crime rate has considerably reduced, then there are certain factors which have played a significant role in bringing down this rate. Better laws and their stricter implementation are the factors which have played a major role in reducing crimes. Therefore, television and internet cannot be freed from the blame of promoting violence in today's society. Today's society has been greatly influenced by these mass medias. And this influence can be widely seen on the younger section of the society. The presence of inappropriate content on the internet is one of the major causes of deviation of students. Long hours spent in front of TV and Internet is a major cause of irritation in the behavior of teens and a proven reason for lack of social ethics. The exposure of youngsters to Internet at a very young age makes wrong things tempting to them.

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.

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

Several mental illnesses can be seen biologically or chemically to exist. Clinical depression is something that is actually caused by some sort of mess-up in the brain. You can't say that society created this when there is evidence that there is something actually WRONG inside the brain. Autism, ADD, ADHD etc are illness" people are either born with or develop overtime how can someone create this. / Society has evolved and their are new ways of bullying like cyberbullying etc but their are also Most studies examining social media and mental health aren"t able to determine whether spending more time on social media leads to depression or anxiety, Or if depressed or anxious young people spend more time on social media.

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.

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.

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!!!

You are only repeating yourself and adding few arguments to your old arguments. round one: you say it brings prosperity and allow people to work at home (with no sources to prove it what-so-ever), I rebut with cyber-bullying and stalker/sexual predators round two: you say educated people can navigate it safely and it brings people together, as shown by debate. org, I rebut with trolls and spammers and possibility of children being affected, and hoaxes on the internet, showing the websites' untrustworthynessround three: you say the internet gives off information (which I already stated! ) and people can differentiate the trustworthy and biased articles. (Then why are the tips there for how to tell if a website is trustworthy or not? If people can differentiate, then there is no need for such articles! ) You continue stating "help bring people together". .. again? And then you say. .. "it brings the world together. .. ." You stated that twice. Just saying! Ok, so now, my final argument. Con has merely one source on his side (unless counting debate. org), so I will win sources wise. Conduct, maybe Con win, since he has "THANK YOU" in all caps. Spelling. .. .not sure, possibly tie. .. And finally, Convincing arguments. Well, I have to say, con did quite a nice job attempting to counter all my negatives effects of the internet. Because I do not want to lose the argument conduct-wise by bringing up a new point in my conclusion, I shall sum up everything I said in the previous rounds. The internet is not always credible, as people can post whatever they want, even if it's a lie. (One great example being the "fact" above. :P)The internet has cyber-bullying and predators, both which are very hard to stop. The internet has bad suggestive effect on children with its trolls and spammers. Children can also be effected by video games. (according to a newspaper article,a student was found dead in front of the computer for being to addicted to playing games) . http://content.time.com...The internet can invade your privacy (with cyber-bullying and the news) In conclusion, the internet brings more harm than good. It is because of the ever-changing nature of the internet that it harms many people.

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

Hi. This is a 3-round, 72 hour, 10,000 word limit polite conversation whether homeschooling is beneficial or not. If you believe homeschooling is detrimental, then I want to hear why. If you've been around enough, you know how this goes. For the new guys, welcome, and the pattern is traditionally "The first round is the challenge and acceptance, the second round consists of the main arguments, and everything else after that is rebuttals." This is my observation from this very site. If it is done differently for anyone else here, no problem.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Social networking platforms significantly benefit society!

To clarify, social networking services are platforms designed to facilitate social connections among individuals who share interests, activities, backgrounds, or real-life ties. These services are advantageous as they produce favorable outcomes and are beneficial to communities. Here are several advantages of social networking sites:

1. **Enhancing Relationships and Friendship**: Around 70% of adult social networking users access these sites to connect with friends and family, which strengthens relationships. Furthermore, 52% of teens report that social media has improved their friendships, 88% maintain contact with friends they rarely see, 69% get to know other students at their school better, and 57% make new friends through these platforms.

2. **Disseminating Information Rapidly**: Social networking sites are the primary news source for 27.8% of Americans, nearly on par with newspapers and surpassing radio and other print publications. For instance, the 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting was reported on Twitter and YouTube before news crews arrived. The Red Cross also advised using social media to notify family members of one's safety.

3. **Improving Academic Performance**: 59% of students with Internet access use social networking sites for educational discussions, and 50% talk about school assignments. After implementing a social media program, George Middle School in Portland, OR, saw a 50% increase in grades, a 33% decrease in chronic absenteeism, and 20% of students voluntarily completing extra-credit assignments.

4. **Facilitating Employment**: 64% of companies use social networks for recruitment due to the larger pool of applicants and improved search capabilities. LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter have been used by job recruiters to hire employees, with 89% of recruiters finding hires through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credits social media for helping them find their current job.

5. **Connecting Senior Citizens**: The 74-year-old and older age group is the fastest-growing demographic on social media sites, with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010. Seniors report increased happiness due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online.

6. **Promoting Artistic Growth**: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the primary hit-maker for songs over radio or CDs. For

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.

Technology is a progress, technology has made life easier and more comfortable. Recently for the few last decades technology has developed enourmously. Now it is one of the main part of our life. We use it everyday, everytime even now in this online debate we use it. Technology is the making, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, machinery, and procedures. Technology was with us human beings everytime since the stone age; the first wheel for example. We can't live without technology now, imagine if you isolate yourself from technologies. Than in modern world you wont be able to do anything. People can say that it is harmful, dangerous but technology cant harm by itself, it harms after people use it wrong or careless. In every accident there is always a Human Factor. Even weapons : again they harm only after human use it. Technology is a big benefit! It is in main use in many spheres like bussiness, educations , communication, healthcare. Healthcare: •Communication between patients and doctors has become easier, more personal, more flexible and more sensitive. •Personal records of patients are maintained, which makes it easier to study symptoms and carry out diagnosis of previously unexplainable conditions. •Several medical aids have helped people overcome many medical conditions which they had to live with earlier. •New medicines have led to the demise of many illnesses and diseases. •Medical research has become supremely advanced, and every ailment seemingly has a cure, or at least a prevention. •Costs of medical procedures and operations have fallen dramatically over the decades. Here are some more positive effects of technology on society. Education: •Personalized learning has come to the fore. Students can pick their own curriculum with ease, and set their own personal targets. •Distance learning has become much easier, and this has led to a rise in the number of people who receive education. •E-learning and online education has made it very simple and systematic for an individual to receive personal attention, so that all his specific needs are fulfilled. •Immediate response to queries and tests have made the whole education process a lot faster. •The use of computers and technology in classrooms has opened up a whole new method of teaching and effective learning. Read more on how has technology changed education. Communication: •The speed of talking to one another is instantaneous. •The mode of talking has become more personalized and can be done from just about anywhere. •The world has become a smaller place, since no one is out of reach anymore. •The clarity of communication has also improved with improvements in audio quality and video quality. •Information and news broadcasting has become more personalized as well. Moreover, it can reach more people at a faster speed, and people's response can also be felt immediately. Bussiness: •Costs of production have fallen dramatically thanks to automated processes. •Research and development has become far more advanced than ever, and this leads to the invention of ground breaking technology. •Company accounts and customer records can be easily stored and accessed, and this increases the market penetration of the business. •Global collaborations and partnerships are easier to start and maintain, and this benefits everyone involved with international business. •It has become easier to combat competition, and this has led to more choice for the consumer. These are some points of benefits in these spheres by using technology.

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.

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.

Social media is not the reason as to why there is an increase in mental health issues, Especially in the youth, Because it's not the media that is affecting them, It's actually the people behind the screens. Every problem on the internet can be traced to something and it is always a person. Say a mean text was sent, And a person falls into depression, Would you blame media or the person who was behind the text?

Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds.

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...

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

To be honest I was expecting this to attract trolls like flies on Mabogi (Obviously I use comedy to deal) I'm excited! ! Round 2 Fight! !! "it has impacted billions of people's lives and given them an amazing sense of community"-pro Too bad they needed an Absolute Totalitarian Dictator to get there! Not to mention the friction caused by other "communities"! If it gives them comfort that's great! If you want to believe your mailman is an undercover FBI agent, you can do that to. The issue we face is that believing in that doesn't start wars, cause mass genocide, or warrant discrimination! Bottom line is their little club is not innocuous. Not even on a personal level. Ever had your father tell you there is a Demon inside of you? You may have seen this: "and has allowed them to live life believing that in the end they will spend the rest of eternity in endless bliss. "- pro Sounds great! I use to love believing in eternal life! I get the hype! Do you know what price we pay for this magic? A very high risk of eternal torture beyond our imagination! "I know what your thinking! I don't believe in hell. Well it's too bad it's still there and your still going- Every Christian ever Come on children! What you know for sure is that you die! No need to spend your entire life waiting for the next! Maybe even try to keep this place looking good for years to come. . together as one "community" without the silliness! Can I get a Hallelujah! ! Amen! ! " it allows them to live a higher quality life as they don't have to live in such an intense fear of death. " Maybe they just need to chill out a bit! Do you freak out about it? On the level where you are willing to stake your own sanity on it? I made my peace like 16 years ago! In fact. How the heck am I still alive? lol Either way I do know that Religion has a lot to do with fear of mortality! Its unhealthy to make up stories! The whole point of this is we all need to grow up and get off the tit! For the preservation of our health and safety! "Buddhism teaches people to not hate, but to love life and live their lives trying to find their true happiness. Buddhism also teaches people to not sink to the level of greed and lust and simply be happy with what they have. " I wont argue with Buddha! Ha! I have no problem with moral teachings from any source! Its the magic and monsters that people need to forget they "know" exists! I wish that I could fly and shoot fireballs doesn't mean you need to give me money (Yes I think the church is a business) "So if we can manage religion and keep it to having a positive effect on society it really isn't a bad thing at all. " Uggh Fine! Its not like anything is going to ever change anyways*storms out pouting* . .. .. Hey, yeah sorry about that, I got off a little bit on the low blood sugar high! Yeah lets keep an eye on them! If they are happy! Yay! Lets have a party for each and ever person that has been negatively affected buy these "happy" morons! (I told you i'm not polite) You may need to broaden your horizons! The Westborough Baptist church isn't the only blemish in Religious history! "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. " Steven Weinberg watch starting at 5:45 I love it! ! "Think about it like salami on a sandwich" Whoah! ! haha. . Whoah there buddy! You leave the analogies to me! ! haha You even went with a sandwich Haha1! ! No I'm sorry! The salami is actually a turd "You're right" "Your Right" This is why I got excited! ! Would you like to use this section to brainstorm a revolution? :) "Become aware. Take power. You can make a movement to make it to the top and stop the corruption. .. ." Let the revolution begin! !! All of it! ! Yes we are on the same page! ! Are you a leader? I'm a prophet! Been looking for a leader! Never really saw it till recently! The one thing we have to do is voice our complaints! Along with everything else you said! Remember when people use to say "If you don't like it move? " They are the enemy! They do not want to help! They want the government to do it for them while complaining about the government! I call for global participation! No more looking out for your own unless you recognize your own is EVERYONE! ! That will be our slogan! ! I am waiting to see what you come at me with! I have lifetimes more! ! Hope you are having as much fun as me! !


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial for Our Community?

It has been determined that social networking websites, on the whole, have a beneficial effect on the United States. Social networking platforms, such as Facebook, MySpace, Tag, and Zanga, are advantageous because they enhance communication possibilities. In today's world, making a phone call or sending a text message is no longer sufficient; there must be a form of rapid online communication, which is precisely what social networking provides. Additionally, they contribute to the stimulation of our economy. Social networking websites can target advertisements to their users based on what they or their friends appear to like. This is beneficial because it saves consumers money and creates new production opportunities. Furthermore, they allow individuals to broaden their social horizons. Typically, as humans, we tend to stick with our "cliques" or circle of friends. Social networking sites suggest individuals who you are not yet "friends" with in order to increase your social network.

Pro has ventured away from his original resolution that technology is making humans graceless by bringing up issues like global warming and climate change. These are red herrings, so I will therefore not address them. [1] Overpopulation: To be brief, overpopulation isn’t necessarily even an issue. It’s essentially a myth being perpetuated by the ignorant. [2] Social Media: “These things possesses a danger of sharing any sensitive information in a blink of eyes .“ -Pro Pro is referring to the potential of sensitive information being shared on social media. The issue with this is that users on social media have the choice to post as they please. It is their own fault and responsibility if their information is leaked, not the fault of technology. The cases of unwanted events being shared in the form of cyberbullying are so limited that it has virtually no effect on the human race in total. Pro fails to address that essentially ~75% of human beings don’t even use social media (not including bots or sockpuppets that have social media accounts, which I didn’t mention previously). [see previous figures in R1] Deadly Weapons & The Atomic Bomb: Whether or not the creation of deadly weapons and the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bad is both questionable and subjective. Not fact, as Pro claims in their conclusion. War: Simply put, war is perpetuated by human beings, not by technology. The complete removal of technology would not end war. If technology never even existed, war would still go on. That is human nature. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro’s arguments are flawed and my primary points remain virtually unrefuted. Pro’s conclusion states that his points are facts when in reality, most of them are extremely subjective and nothing more than opinions. Pro also used a strawman logical fallacy in the end of their conclusion in an effort to make some points I brought up earlier seem notably more ridiculous and unimportant. [3] Pro has not successfully defended their resolution that technology is making human life graceless and that social media is having the effect of turning the population into drones. Vote Con.[1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[2] https://www.pop.org...[3] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Once again, I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience; time just wasn't on my side. Well, really nothing was on my side for the past couple days, except maybe regret and defeat, and possibly "too much". But I believe I can still continue on with this. Now, going back to the debate, I do very much believe I have made my point here. What you're doing here is just looking at the cover of my arguments, a very common mistake that most people so often make. What I usually do when I am reading and listening to arguments is I actually think about them a lot more deeper and actually THINK about exactly which part of society the arguments would affect. Yes, I believe that I have stated some of the biggest benefits of having autism, but you see, that's just the thing. In order to determine whether or not autistic people are important to society, you need to think about all the benefits and differences that I have stated in my arguments, because in my mind, because some autistic people see the world in a whole different way, they have the opportunity to teach and let the other people know how they see so, so that maybe at least some other people can have a good idea how their views on the world can have possible effects to society and the general community, therefore making them quite important to so, if only they would just give us more CHANCES! I mean, LOOK at me! I've been stuck in the same school for the past eight and a half years, and I have absolutely no honest idea exactly how autistic people are treated and looked at in society, but I do know that right now, it's not good. Only in the movies are we treated in the good, most important way possible. And right now, I've been going through a few really horrible emotions, unable to recover from the quite drastic effects of cold, hard reality. If only people could appreciate us for who we are and just try to understand JUST how important we could be to this world. After all, it's the only world we have. By the way, that was mainly directed towards our viewers looking at this right now, who could maybe try to understand what I'm going through as an imaginative, out-of-mind autistic Brony. So, basically what I'm trying to say is that some things in this world require much more than thought of facts and history and all that. Sometimes, just SOMETIMES, it's the feelings inside, the personal opinions that we all have, and all that stuff. Also, sorry if I am not putting down too important things, Right now I am at a loss because of my emotions and my slight illness over these past couple days. You know, I guess I should probably just let the people think about this. I do very much believe I have made a few excellent points here, and I really can't do any more here right now. I just really wish that all the viewers here can try to understand the point I'm trying to make here. So to wrap up all that I have said throughout this debate, there's a lot more to autistic people than most people think. I just don't know if I can explain everything in words as to why and how they are quite important to society. To all the people out here seeing this right now, I really hope that you can somehow get the kind of vibe I am trying to create here. I will be waiting, slowly recovering from all of this hardship. Thank you.

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

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.

First off, I'm sorry I will link it next time to make it more convenient for everyone. Secondly, yes I agree school could be a huge factor in the growth of these traits as well. But it's more than just a coincidence that these traits for teens are becoming more prominent as social media grows more popular. Bullying is a massive problem in our world today and often causes depression and worst of all suicide. Bullying is prominent in schools, I get what you are saying there, but with social media, others can go even more behind people's backs and spread rumors like never before. I have had first-hand experience with this, my friends don't often use social media. But once my friend got Instagram and learned that people at our school had been spreading intense rumors about her in comments. They knew that she had not been on it before, so they didn't even bother to hide it. This caused her anxiety to peak and she has only come down a little since. Her parents made her delete it within the next few days. Taking away social media will not get rid of this problem entirely, but it will take a huge portion of it out. Cyber-bullying is often underproportioned for what it can do, I am not blowing it out of proportion. Many people think very little of it compared to bullying within schools. Cyberbullying can do lasting harm to anyone who has had it happen to them. The article http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... doesn't just state what I have said before, that it can lead to depression, and suicide. But it also states that when things are posted on the internet, they never actually go away and can be reused by cyber bullies over and over again. This article also states that "Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online." Considering how many people there are out there in the world, this is a great number. Getting rid of social media will help prevent this. Considering how successful getting bullies to stop is at this point in our society, which is very rare trust me I know, I think this is one of our best options as of right now. Before social media came to be known, there was less bullying, still much more than there should be but less than right now. Social has helped to skyrocket these numbers, causing more and more death to teens. Self-esteem is not as simple as social media did it that is correct, I agree. But I'm not just saying that. With social media, it is even easier to spread VERY photoshopped photos of oneself or another person. Social media is not the one who did this, but the platforms are allowing these photos on and ruining self-esteems. I understand that people should be able to show what they want on their accounts, but if it's hurting someone should they really be allowed to? These issues could be easily seen in schools though it would take a lot more to do this. Yes, you might see a prettier girl in school than you and want to change, but really these people take just as long to get ready as you if you actually listen to them. But on social media, you can't always confirm this. Self-esteem issues, depression, and suicide will not be solved just by taking social media away, but it could be the first step in a long process. If we go down first to the bullies, then they may actually take more to social media and do what they can before they get caught. By taking away social media they will be limited to schools, and people tend not to want to confront someone face to face. Social media has brought many great things to the world, I have even gained some internet friends with it. But I have also found my share of horrible people who are simply looking for trouble. Websites have been able to prevent suicide a lot more, but we also have suicide hotlines for that. I am not saying I am not grateful to these websites for helping so many people, but if we did not have social media we would not need these websites as much. Social media has provided a lot more bad things to my friends who already had depression and anxiety than good. They have taken a downfall, leaving me and my other friends to try and help them back up, even coax them back into therapy. This is also why we have therapists, some people do not like the thought of talking to some random person. But these people are meant to help you, they have the training for it. Social movements have been helped a great deal by social media, but do you remember Martain Luther King JR and his marches? They did just fine without social media and caused one of the greatest social changes in history. In my history class we just recently watched the movie, Selma, about Martain Luther King JR and his work on the town of Selma. The things that they were able to accomplish there without the use of social media and just with their words and letters and announcements they sent out was amazing. Long-lasting friendships developed by social media are amazing, and I personally have two myself. But the option of talking with complete strangers brings about a whole different can of worms that I am going to lightly talk about. This website http://www.chroniclet.com... talks about just one of the dozens of abductions that have been linked with social media. Kids have been proven to feel better about sharing personal information online to people, even when they have been reminded hundreds of times not to. My friend also had a run in with this, nothing happened to her but something could have. One day she was playing around with an app called QuizUp! and suddenly this person messaged her saying "hi." she went to the profile and determined it was a guy (from the looks of it). She responded with a "hi?" already cautious. He asked how old she was (she was 14 at the time) and since she knew that she shouldn't give out the real age she said 13, she was going to show her parents that this guy was talking to her. He responded with "You're too young for me. I'm going to have to stop talking to you now or something bad will happen." Social media has helped to bring about many child abductions, even though some lasting friendships can be made. Another bad thing about social media is the fact that continuous use of it, like 12 hours a day, like every teen nowadays has been linked with lower GPA. Source: http://www.browndailyherald.com... As for your experience, I am sorry that you feel that you are on the cutting edge of depression. But this means that you should get help and medicine. Social media probably won't be able to "cure" you forever. My mother has depression as well, and her medicine does not cure her either, but it helps a great deal.

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

C1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. C2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. C3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Value: Well-being Criterion: Decent Portrayal/Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

I appreciate the facts and figures you used to put in front your part, but at the same time I would like to mention this fact very clearly that if the crime rate has considerably reduced, then there are certain factors which have played a significant role in bringing down this rate. Better laws and their stricter implementation are the factors which have played a major role in reducing crimes. Therefore, television and internet cannot be freed from the blame of promoting violence in today's society. Today's society has been greatly influenced by these mass medias. And this influence can be widely seen on the younger section of the society. The presence of inappropriate content on the internet is one of the major causes of deviation of students. Long hours spent in front of TV and Internet is a major cause of irritation in the behavior of teens and a proven reason for lack of social ethics. The exposure of youngsters to Internet at a very young age makes wrong things tempting to them.

Patents should trust their children and hold a strong bond with them, but children often do not want to tell their feelings on things or problems that they are having. Children are more apt to tell their friends about their problems or the struggles that they face. Now with the large use of social media some children take the option of posting about their feelings or whatever is happening in their lives. This is something a parent may not know because the child does not want to tell their parents, but the parent could help the child through this difficulty. If the parent in this situation monitors their son or daughter's social media then the parent can help out the child and that problem would be gone. It eliminates the telling and being nervous aspect of children not wanting to tell their parents certain thing, because they are nervous to ask. As you mentioned children start using social media in middle school, which can be defining years of a child's life before becoming a teenager and then an adult. If a child is having a problem with growing up or increased responsibilities and want to talk about it, but does not wish to directly notify their parents, then the parent being involved in their child's social media can talk to the child about their struggles or things that they are unsure about.

Introduction: To begin, I would like to take the moment to give a word of appreciation to my opponent for setting up this debate. Since Pro has not provided a structure for Burden of Proof, I presume that it is equally shared. Similarly, since Pro has not put forth a definition of the terms, I shall do so myself. Definition and Terms of Debate: While I am fairly certain that we all agree that media has an influence on minors, each side must either affirm or negate the claim, respectively, that media influences the young too much, which I shall, for the sake of this debate, define as exerting an influence that is, on balance, more harmful than helpful for childrens' social, physical, intellectual and moral health. Can my opponent agree to these standards?


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

It is resolved that social networking websites, on the whole, have a beneficial effect on the United States. This viewpoint adheres to the principles of Public Forum debate. However, it is argued that social networking platforms can lead to physical harm, as numerous instances of fatal outcomes have been attributed to their use among teenagers and adults. They do not contribute positively to our society. Moreover, these sites often result in emotional harm, as individuals tend to express themselves irresponsibly online, leading to unnecessary and unwanted emotional distress for others.

Good point. I would also like to point out that there is also a great chance for teens to get school projects done without getting together. I find it unsafe to give out addresses to irresponsible students who only need to get the school project done. They shouldn't have to get together to do a project, when they have social media. It is also easier to communicate if the two partners for a project don't feel comfortable in person.

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.

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.

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

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.

Social media is not the reason as to why there is an increase in mental health issues, Especially in the youth, Because it's not the media that is affecting them, It's actually the people behind the screens. Every problem on the internet can be traced to something and it is always a person. Say a mean text was sent, And a person falls into depression, Would you blame media or the person who was behind the text?

This site also shows the greatest flaw of the internet: trolls and spammers. Although other websites might have some, this website is extraordinarily packed with them, whether it's troll debates, or trolling in the forums. Children who see trollers and spammers might actually think it "fun", or "funny" and be affected by it, becoming trollers or spammers themselves. "being offline the threat of crime can never be entirely eliminated." Con says. That's actually a bit false--being offline means no one can anonymously post danger messages or deliver massive hoaxes to the people, one infamous hoax being http://dhmo.org.... While this site might work online, it fails to do so offline, and people have to physically deliver them using papers, which is much easier portrayed in a website. My point is, the internet makes everything easier--including bad things. Furthermore, the internet is relied upon as a source of information. Before the internet existed, everyone had to read magazines, newspapers, or borrow books from the library. You might argue the internet is much much faster, but I rebut back with the fact that not all sources are credible--the grand "mother of all" being Wikipedia.org. Even its own website claims it can make no guarantee of validity, and the site is usually number one on google.com searches! https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... This is only one example of a website or source that is not credible. Even people who know this fact can still stumble upon unbelievable websites, which is why people post tips to tell if a site is credible or not, one such as this: http://www.usg.edu... If the internet was really credible, nobody would have to post such things online. I doubt people have to test the credibility of non-fiction books or encyclopedias, or post tips for seeing if a book is credible or not. All books are reviewed heavily and edited many many times, but a website, on the other hand, is usually not. In conclusion Websites aren't credible as books or newspapers, and thus they bring more harm than good. (What good is "all the knowledge in the world" if some knowledge is invalid and some are valid, but you have to evaluate which?)

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

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.

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.


Question: Are Social Media Platforms Beneficial to Our Community?

Resolved: That, overall, social networking websites contribute positively to society in the United States.
However, we must adhere to policy debate guidelines - these sites can lead to physical harm. Countless young people and adults have tragically lost their lives due to the negative effects of social networking platforms. Parents have been forced to mourn the loss of their children because of these websites, which is detrimental to our society. -They can also cause emotional harm. Online, people often make irresponsible comments that lead to unnecessary and unwarranted hurt feelings. The majority of social networking website users are teenagers, who are still developing and may not have the maturity to discern true friends from false ones. As a result, they may end up associating with the wrong people, and reevaluating their friendships won't necessarily help them. Given that the resolution states "That, on balance," meaning the negative must outweigh the positive, or vice versa, to win the debate, maintaining connections with friends cannot compare to the loss of lives. Therefore, I conclude: That, overall, social networking websites have a detrimental effect on the United States.

In conclusion, I believe that parents should be involved in their child's social media for protection and for the enhancement of social media for both the parent and the child. For protective purposes, a parent should be involved in their child's social media because it can prevent a child from being cyber bullied. Cyber bullying is a huge issue and can lead to depression and often suicide. If parents get involved in a child's social media this horrific event can be prevented. Also if the parent of the bully monitors their child's social media, then the bullying can be stopped at that point and little to no damage will be done. Also to protect their child, a parent can prevent a person who is an imposter on the internet trying to reach their child. Kids often do not notice these false accounts and can umfortunaey fall for the other persons tricks. If the parent is involved, this can once again be prevented. Lastly a parent being involved in their child's social media can be used for more than just preventing the bad. It can create a further bond between the parent an the child, because children often use social media more than face to face communication. When the parents are involved, they can communicate more often with their child and build a better relationship as well as enjoying the many features of social media sites.

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. . .

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.

C1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. C2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. C3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Value: Well-being Criterion: Decent Portrayal/Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

**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...

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.

This site also shows the greatest flaw of the internet: trolls and spammers. Although other websites might have some, this website is extraordinarily packed with them, whether it's troll debates, or trolling in the forums. Children who see trollers and spammers might actually think it "fun", or "funny" and be affected by it, becoming trollers or spammers themselves. "being offline the threat of crime can never be entirely eliminated." Con says. That's actually a bit false--being offline means no one can anonymously post danger messages or deliver massive hoaxes to the people, one infamous hoax being http://dhmo.org.... While this site might work online, it fails to do so offline, and people have to physically deliver them using papers, which is much easier portrayed in a website. My point is, the internet makes everything easier--including bad things. Furthermore, the internet is relied upon as a source of information. Before the internet existed, everyone had to read magazines, newspapers, or borrow books from the library. You might argue the internet is much much faster, but I rebut back with the fact that not all sources are credible--the grand "mother of all" being Wikipedia.org. Even its own website claims it can make no guarantee of validity, and the site is usually number one on google.com searches! https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... This is only one example of a website or source that is not credible. Even people who know this fact can still stumble upon unbelievable websites, which is why people post tips to tell if a site is credible or not, one such as this: http://www.usg.edu... If the internet was really credible, nobody would have to post such things online. I doubt people have to test the credibility of non-fiction books or encyclopedias, or post tips for seeing if a book is credible or not. All books are reviewed heavily and edited many many times, but a website, on the other hand, is usually not. In conclusion Websites aren't credible as books or newspapers, and thus they bring more harm than good. (What good is "all the knowledge in the world" if some knowledge is invalid and some are valid, but you have to evaluate which?)

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

. . . I 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.

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.