The Instigator
Jyohe
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Are Social Networking sites good for our society's youth?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,041 times Debate No: 63625
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Jyohe

Pro

47% of American adults used social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Classmates.com in 2011, up from 26% in 2008. On social media sites like these, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.

Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
MonetaryOffset

Con

I accept.

Framework

The resolution poses a question as to whether social networking sites are good for our society's youth. My opponent has offered no framework analysis, and doesn't at this point have a chance to, so you need to accept mine. By "our society," we will be referring to the United States -- which is consistent with his opening remark, as he begins by referencing American adults. By "good," we will mean that the activity promotes or is conducive to promoting the summum bonum, or highest good, or at the very least, the benefits outweigh the costs. The burden in proof this will be on PRO, as he must be able to prove that Benefits > Costs. My goal is only to negate his claims. By the end of this debate, if the options that Benefits = Costs or Costs > Benefits are still on the table, you vote CON.

Plagiarism

Everything Pro has posted in his Round 1 has been plagiarized from this website: http://socialnetworking.procon.org..., the judges should disegard his opening remarks entirely, and vote him down on conduct. By virtue of this, he also loses arguments because none of his arguments stand and he has the burden of proof.

Rebuttals for Fun

For fun, I will rebut my opponent's plagiarized arguments. The first paragraph of Pro's is not an argument in favor of social networking. He starts by saying that more American adults use social networking sites in 2011 than in 2008, but this doesn't mean anything. Even if it were the case that this is a function of increasing favor among American adults, the numbers are outdated, and our resolution asks us, objectively, whther social networking sites are good for the youth, not the adults. The next statement discusses various things that people may do on social networking websites, but PRO fails to explain how these things are "good" for us or desirable, so the points can be disregarded.

Pro then goes onto several possible benefits. The first is increased interaction with friends and family. First, he doesn't demonstrate how this is so, or why this is good. Second, he fails to evidence the claim, but merely note that "proponents" say X. Third, he doesn't account for the fact that social networking websites, by way of addiction, may in fact isolate children from their families.

The second possible benefit he brings up is access to education support and materials. How? He doesn't explain what these materials are or why they're beneficial, or why the youth would be better off using Google, which is a more efficient use of their time, anyway. Any time they spend using social networking websites for eduational materials is a time they could've spent using other, more comprehensive and reputable sources. The opportunity cost far outweighs the benefits.

He claims that social networing websites facilitate social and political change. He fails to source this, or to demonstrate how social networking websites, rather than individuals, are responsible for facilitating change. Second, he doesn't account for how the youth are invovled in this. Third, he hasn't pointed to a single change that has come from social networking websites. I contend that the extent to which these websites facilitate "change" is libertarian hacks who live in their parent's basements screaming at each other about government tyranny and how the BLS cooks the books, or how inflation is oh-so-high right now.

He says that social networks help disseminate useful information rapidly. This may be true, but PRO doesn't explain how the benefits outweigh the costs in light of the fact that (1) some children may be excluded, due to relative popularity standings and (2) this could be used to spread rumors, thus alienating young children. Also, this could lead to the rapid spreading of FALSE information, that could lead people to act rashly and irresponsibly. The costs, in a number of ways, far outweigh the benefits.


CONTENTIONS

I've already won this debate because PRO has the BOP and plagiarized, but for fun I'll offer some arguments against the resolution. He can't rebut any of these, so you vote CON.


C1) Spreading rumors and false information, be it about the youth or otherwise

C2) Requires use of time learning how to use technology, and ain't nobody got time for that.

C3) Lack of privacy may have severe and irreversible impacts, especially on young people who may not understand fully the implications of their action

C4) Opportunity cost of time, instead of doing something productive, like studying

C5) Possibility of criminals and sex offenders using social networking websites to contact their victims






CONCLUSION

I'm the only one with arguments standing, seeing as PRO plagiarized. Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
JyoheMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con better arguments. PM me for more info.
Vote Placed by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
JyoheMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided an excellent textbook example of how one ought to noob-snipe. Well done.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
JyoheMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro was a plagiarizer, that's not good. S&G: Con's grammar was a little off. Arguments: Con cause, you know. Sources: The plagiarized sources were the only sources in this round.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
JyoheMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarised his entire round of debate, which is reprehensible conduct and disrespectful towards his opponent. Con gets the full 7 points for the following reasons: (1) Poor conduct from Pro. (2) No original arguments from Pro so no spelling &/or grammar to speak of, (3) no original arguments whatsoever from Pro, (4) Pro plagiarised without citing sources.
Vote Placed by jrodio 2 years ago
jrodio
JyoheMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No need for a reason... Its pretty obvious who better deserved my votes......