The Instigator
Natsu145
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
42lifeuniverseverything
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Cyber bullying isn't really that big of an issue

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 768 times Debate No: 93007
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

Natsu145

Pro

Hello there, today I will be doing another new argument. As you can tell by the title, it's about how cyber bullying is honestly not a big deal and won't seriously affect your life. Here's why,

-Most of the time when someone cyber bullies you, they don't even know you in real life

-Most of the time Cyber Bullying is literally just calling someone curse words or just insulting them in a very cliche'd and repetitive way.

-Most of the Cyber Bullying videos say how Cyber Bullying can effect your life. But most of the ways they portray this is pretty idiotic. They even think that Cyber Bullying can make you commit suicide? Unless if your a little 2 year old baby, then your probably aren't going to be affected at all at cyber bullying. Also if you seriously don't want to get cyber bullied, then all you have to do is not post some idiotic content on the internet and pretty much just don't act like an idiot. Which means just act like a normal person.

-Now some cyber bullying can occur around school. The way that people picture cyber bullying at school is basically like this; "OMG ALICIA IS LIKE SUPER DUMB LIKE OMG" Then the people who make anti cyber bullying videos think that everybody at school is really dumb and that there going to randomly think now that Alicia is Dumb. I'm sorry but this is not how the world works.

-There are even some people who dare to even compare cyber bullying to getting BEAT UP. I mean PHYSICALLY INJURED. Why would you even compare those two in the first place? No, just stop. I seriously have no idea why there even doing this.

-People take cyber bullying so seriously and think of it as a really huge problem. I'm sorry but there are much bigger problems in our world like hunger, poverty, terrorists, global warming, and depletion of natural resources. I don't think cyber bullying is even close to being compared to these ACTUALLY IMPORTANT problems.

Well here's my opinion. Nonetheless, I wish the opponent good luck.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for being willing to debate this topic and hopefully shed light on the universe we live in one debate at a time.

As agreed upon in the comments this will be a 4 round debate. My opponent and I will pass on round 5 and conclude the debate in the fourth round.

That being said, let us begin.

I will use this round for opening arguments.

Definitions.

1. Cyber Bullying: "Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles." I feel this to be a comphrehensive enough definition. https://www.stopbullying.gov...

2. Big: "large in size: large in number or amount: involving or including many people, things, etc." http://www.merriam-webster.com...

3. Issue: "something that people are talking about, thinking about, etc. : an important subject or topic" http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Contentions.

1. Cyber Bullying causes suicide.

According to cyberbullyhotline.com, Sam Laird posted a mashable article with these statistics on cyberbullying. "42% of teenagers with tech access report being cyberbullied over the past year. Of the 69% of teens that own their own computer or smart phone, 80% are active on social media. The average teen sends 60 texts per day - reducing face-to-face communication skills. Teen texting rate is DOUBLE the adult texting rate. Girls 14-17 text more - 100 per day. 7.5 million Facebook users are under 13 years old. 81% of teens say bullying online is easier to get away with. 3 million kids per month are absent from school due to bullying. 20% of kids cyberbullied think about suicide, and 1 in 10 attempt it. 4500 kids commit suicide each year. Suicide is the No. 3 killer of teens in the US. (Car accidents #1, Homicide #2)" http://www.cyberbullyhotline.com...

There are a couple conclusions that can be drawn from this article. First, the article is pointing out how many teens are active on places where cyberbullying is rampant. Also it is important to keep in mind that out of these millions of active teens, some of them are cyber bullies themselves.

But the statistic of this contention, is that 4500 kids successfully commit suicide every year over being cyberbullied. Suicide is NOT ACCEPTABLE. If it occurs and it could have been prevented, then someone was not paying attention to the problem. The problem, is cyberbullying itself. If we try to call a problem not a big deal, then we fall into the trap of ignoring it and letting it rule us. That is why the resolution must be negated.

2. Cyber bullying is a very large part of the internet, therefore it is a big issue.

"BullyingUK saw calls relating to cyberbullying increase by 77% over a 12 month period. Cyberbullying can and does have a seismic effect on the families concerned. In an online survey, BullyingUK also found that 43.5% of respondents aged between 11 and 16 had been bullied via social networks. 51% felt that blocking the bully from further contact or communication was a vital tool." http://www.independent.co.uk...

This quote should help illustrate this. Keep in mind this is just the UK. Not even the United States. Also notice that all these kids want the bullies completely blocked from communicating with them. This is because the issue has gotten out of control. No one seems to know how to control it reasonably anymore. The reason for that, is because Anonymity makes Cyberbullying easier than ever. So it is difficult to cut off contact.

In light of this, clearly, Cyberbullying is a growing issue, and one that is not small enough that an everyday person can easily ignore it.

3. Cyberbullying has become a popular sport.

On YouTube, there is a YouTuber named Leafyishere. He posts videos essentially roasting and bashing anyone. It can be kids, old people, or other YouTubers. All he does is find a video, and relentlessly and ruthlessly destroy his subject in a verbal assault. Because this is electronic communication, Leafy is a cyberbully. He is also someone who is subscribed to by almost 3.7 million people. He doesn't even make content that is about a subject. Instead he is a reactor to others content, and he only finds faults 98% of the time. I don't feel comfortable linking his channel because I don't wish to endorse him.

He is an example of how people think that sending hate on the Internet has become a sport or a funny game. But when 4500 people die because of it, IT IS NOT A GAME. This is serious stuff, and therefore the issue is big.

Once again, the resolution is negated.

4. Finally in a quick response to sum up my opponent.

My opponent so far is purporting the age old argument of "grow up" to people affected by Cyberbullying. Here is why that argument is faulty. Words have impact, and hateful words have more impact than positive ones. This is why Cyberbullying cannot be an issue that is ignored.

Now let me clarify something. I am not saying that ignoring bullies is a bad idea. In fact in face-to-face bullying situations, as long as serious physical abuse is not happening, ignoring bullies is the best thing to do. But the reason for this is that when someone is ignored in person, it affects them much more than over the internet. This is because humans express complex emotions in person that are not brought to life through a keyboard or video camera as easily as in person.

This fact means that when someone is Cyberbullied, they feel helpless agains the bully because they cannot ignore them and make the problem go away. That victim may be the frustration vent for the angry person on the other end who is the bully. And if they are using that person as a frustration vent ad infinitum, then what can the victim do? Certainly not ignore it if their phone is blowing up. They need their phone for constructive conversations. But they also cannot fix the issue because the person can simply create fake profiles and stalk that person again. So clearly, it is not a solvable issue on the surface, and for those who are not that mature or smart, it can be a devastating situation where suicide feels like the only option. Therefore I would ask my opponent to be less insensitive to human life, and respect that people die over this issue.

With that I rest my case and eagerly await my opponent's responses.

- 42
Debate Round No. 1
Natsu145

Pro

Hello there, and today I will of course, be counter arguing your arguments and making some of mine as well

-Now you say Cyber Bullying does cause suicide. And yes, I know there have been reported cases of suicide for cyber bullying. But 20% of people who use social media(kids) do not commit suicide. Even though the "statistics" claim that 20% of kids do commit suicide. Now by kids they're referring to anyone between ages 11-12. But I know actual experience that, 20% of kids DON'T commit suicide. Here's some reasons why. First of all, 20% in the form of a ratio would be 1:10. So they're saying that 1 in 5 kids commit suicide because of cyber bullying? What complete idiotic crap. If that WAS the case, then CNN or some other news channel would've already reported this by now. And also you would see middle schoolers always look so sad and depressed all the time because their friends have died because of cyber bullying. OF COURSE NOT. You don't see little Jimmy across the street with 9 friends and ready to kill himself! (Just trying to create a visual representation of the ratio)

-I just wanted to point this out but you actually read the article wrong. It didn't say that 4500 kids commit suicide because of cyber bullying. It just said that 4500 kids commit suicide in general

- Also I know that cyber bullying has become a very large part of the internet. But people have honestly learn to just live with it. People have honestly been cyber bullied so much that they honestly don't care anymore. Besides, the fact is, cyber bullying is never going to stop. No one can stop cyber bullying no matter HOW many anti-cyber bullying videos people make. Heck, I honestly wondered if you ever played CS:GO. It's a game on steam. Cyber bullying is a hot spot there.

-To be honest, I didn't even think you've even ever heard of leafyishere. I love leafyishere and I think he's probably my favorite channel on youtube. Now, I think you SERIOUSLY over exaggerated about leafy "relentlessly and ruthlessly destroy his subject in a verbal assault." Now most of the people he does videos about actually kind of deserve to be criticized. Most of dumb are honestly completely ridiculous. His videos are mostly for comedic purposes. And I think they are HILARIOUS. I mean, not all of the people he roasted ever actually received any backlash at all. Here's an example,

https://www.youtube.com...]

-Leafy even calls himself a cyber bully. Now if someone is trying to call himself a cyber bully, then you know he's trying to be funny

-" they feel helpless agains the bully because they cannot ignore them and make the problem go away."
Yah they kinda can. Unless it's actually well deserved criticism, then they can just ignore it because most of the time cyber bullying is literally just insulting someone with cuss words or saying absolutely false crap that nobody with a brain would agree with. It's pretty easy if you the majority of people on the planet. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE PERSON WHO'S INSULTING YOU MAJORITY OF THE TIME.

-"Certainly not ignore it if their phone is blowing up. " WHAT. THAT'S NOT CYBER BULLYING. THAT'S CALLED BREAKING THE LAW. CYBER BULLYING ISN'T PHYSICAL AND MUCH LESS WOULDN'T INVOLVE EXPLODING SOMEONES PHONE. I'm pretty sure that's called hacking.

-"But they also cannot fix the issue because the person can simply create fake profiles and stalk that person again".
Then just ignore it again. Eventually the cyber bully well just get bored because your not responding and move on to another person. Cyber bullying is done mostly for the reactions.

-"Therefore I would ask my opponent to be less insensitive to human life, and respect that people die over this issue."
Ok look, I'm not a cruel warlock and I do know that people die for this and I'm really sad that they did. But people causing suicide because of cyber bullying is EXTREMELY rare. It's not like everyday you hear on CNN "ok now to see how many people commited suicide. This bar chart shows the amount of people in each age group that commited suicide this month." That doesn't happen. But look, I also understand that some people have very sensitive emotions and can be damaged by the slightest things, but if your going to go into the internet. Then you should've already prepared. Because cyber bullying is pretty much everywhere around the internet. It's impossible to avoid it. Cyber bullying is embarrassingly,
a HUGE part of internet. This also prove how cancerous humanity is as a society.

.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Ok so I want to start this off by pointing out that my opponent's conduct has been horrible as of late. My opponent has practically yelled in response to me, insulted my credibility, and taken my statistics the wrong way then yelled about it. As such I will strive to stay better than that standard of conduct my opponent has set for himself.

1. Statistics.

"But 20% of people who use social media(kids) do not commit suicide. Even though the "statistics" claim that 20% of kids do commit suicide. Now by kids they're referring to anyone between ages 11-12. But I know actual experience that, 20% of kids DON'T commit suicide."

So that is not what the 20% statistic said which proves you did not spend enough time to read it carefully. The statistic was that 20% of kids who are cyberbullied think about suicide. Not actually commit it. So you clearly did not read the point carefully and missed it.

"So they're saying that 1 in 5 kids commit suicide because of cyber bullying? What complete idiotic crap. If that WAS the case, then CNN or some other news channel would've already reported this by now."

First this is a fine example of some of the conduct my opponent has done on display here. "Complete idiotic crap" is not appreciated. Also yelling at me "WAS" isn't either. Also, suicide rates are not idiotic, and while I will admit that the suicide rates are a little tricky to understand in this evidence piece, you cannot just dismiss my point as idiotic crap.

"I just wanted to point this out but you actually read the article wrong. It didn't say that 4500 kids commit suicide because of cyber bullying. It just said that 4500 kids commit suicide in general"

I apologize you are absolutely right that it did not specify cyberbullying as the cause of the 4500. However according to this source, "
  • 1 in 100,000 children ages 10 to 14 die by suicide each year. (NIMH)
  • 7 in 100,000 youth ages 15 to 19 die by suicide each year. (NIMH)
  • 12.7 in 100,000 young adults ages 20-24 die by suicide each year. (NIMH)" http://www.save.org...


Now clearly this is a much larger number than 4500 if you multiply it by the 100ks in the population. Also it involves more than just 11-12 year olds. So my educated guess, is that 4500 of these several thousand suicides by kids, most likely are due to Cyberbullying and the numbers are not unrelated. I would encourage my opponent to provide a source on this in order to respond correctly.


2. The reach of cyberbullying.

"Also I know that cyber bullying has become a very large part of the internet. But people have honestly learn to just live with it."

Two things, first my opponent conceded the entire merit of my point. Second, my opponent has issue with the mental ability of some folks to handle cyberbullies. This is A) unsympathetic to their suffering, and B) uneducated of an opinion. Sometimes cyberbullying leads to depression, which is not something one can simply mentally push through without some thoughts of suicide. As such, there is no reason to believe that cyberbullying should be ignored because the problem is large. My point still stands.

"Heck, I honestly wondered if you ever played CS:GO."

I have not because I have a life.

3. Cyberbullying as a source.

"To be honest, I didn't even think you've even ever heard of leafyishere."

This is a direct attack on my credibility. An ad hominem. Also it is a dumb argument. So I should win conduct and arguments on this one. Here is why the argument is dumb. If I didn't know who leafyishere was, then why would I know the channel name? I didn't hear of it from someone else, which must mean I have watched some of his videos.

"Now, I think you SERIOUSLY over exaggerated about leafy "relentlessly and ruthlessly destroy his subject in a verbal assault." Now most of the people he does videos about actually kind of deserve to be criticized. Most of dumb are honestly completely ridiculous. His videos are mostly for comedic purposes."

Now there are a couple things wrong with this. First, I don't think I over exaggerated how bad leafy was. He is pretty terrible of a person, and he knows that his videos can ruin YouTubers lives yet he keeps doing his roasting videos anyway. He could go back to his stories videos (which were much better honestly), yet the fact that he doesn't proves how horrible he is.

Second, the only person I ever thought needed criticizing from Leafy was Keemstar. That was it. I would ask my opponent to prove with evidence some people who deserved leafy's criticism, and for the voters to be able to decide for themselves. Finally, Leafy is not dumb, and he clearly has got more than just comedy in mind. Sometimes he does succeed at comedy, but rarely.

"Leafy even calls himself a cyber bully."

He sure does, but does that make it ok? Of course not.

Also a quick note. The fact that you think Leafy is hilarious, proves that cyberbullying has become a sport.

"Yah they kinda can. Unless it's actually well deserved criticism, then they can just ignore it because most of the time cyber bullying is literally just insulting someone with cuss words or saying absolutely false crap that nobody with a brain would agree with."

You didn't read my point. My point was, over the internet it is harder to ignore someone than it is in real life. You still have not responded to that yet.

"WHAT. THAT'S NOT CYBER BULLYING. THAT'S CALLED BREAKING THE LAW. CYBER BULLYING ISN'T PHYSICAL AND MUCH LESS WOULDN'T INVOLVE EXPLODING SOMEONES PHONE."

Whoa, no need to shout. You knew exactly what i meant, and if you didn't get the idiom, then that is your problem.

"Then just ignore it again. Eventually the cyber bully well just get bored"

Ok hold on. I have brought up evidence that highly suggests cyberbullies continue to harass to the point that the people they communicate with wish to block off contact. If that is the case, then clearly one cannot easily ignore a cyberbully. This point still stands.

"Ok look, I'm not a cruel warlock and I do know that people die for this and I'm really sad that they did."

You have been quite insenstitive to me up until now, so why should I believe you are sad that these people committed suicide?

"But look, I also understand that some people have very sensitive emotions and can be damaged by the slightest things, but if your going to go into the internet. Then you should've already prepared."

And what you are suggesting, is ignoring the problem and letting it fester in cesspools around the internet. Is that even a solution worth being proud of? Or would we all rather be the ones who said we stomped down cyberbullying. I would rather be in the second category.

"Because cyber bullying is pretty much everywhere around the internet. It's impossible to avoid it. Cyber bullying is embarrassingly,
a HUGE part of internet."

And by this entire quote, you 100% concede with and agree with my point that Cyberbullying is a problem that cannot be ignored. So this debate should end with a vote for Con.

Eagerly awaiting my opponents next arguments.

-42





Debate Round No. 2
Natsu145

Pro

Hello there, today I will be coming up with my new arguments. I'm also sorry for any grammatical errors as well. I'll try to review over my debate as much as possible in order for their to not be any errors. Alright then, let's begin.

-When I was capitalizing words in my arguments, I wasn't trying to yell at you, I was just trying to express each word so that you can get the point more clearly.

-"Second, my opponent has issue with the mental ability of some folks to handle cyberbullies. This is A) unsympathetic to their suffering, and B) uneducated of an opinion." There are VERY FEW people who honestly have the "mental ability" to be not able to withstand the harassment of bullies. As I said before, most people just learn to live with cyber bullying. Besides, the people with little "mental capability" are just little kids. Not even middle schoolers. Mostly just eight or nine year olds. And they shouldn't even be using social media websites yet. Of course THEIR mental capability isn't strong enough yet to be able to handle cyber bullies because their still too young. But middle schoolers aren't young at all. Most of them are hitting puberty or even already went through it(or going through it). I also disagree that saying people have learned to just live with cyber bullying is an uneducated opinion because I used something magical called logical reasoning to be able to come to this conclusion.

-I also wanted to add that the majority of the time, cyber bullying doesn't affect people at all. It's a common misconception that cyber bullying usually causes depression and unwanted feelings. There are several reasons why people don't take cyber bullying seriously and don't think of it as a big deal. One reason is that most of the time when someone is cyber bullying you, they don't know who you are. The normal human being honestly wouldn't care that a random person is calling them a b**ch. Another reason why humans don't care about cyber bullying is because the cyber bully is usually saying something completely false and idiotic about them. The average human being ignores this because they KNOW it's completely false and idiotic and because everybody else with common logic would KNOW that it's also completely false and idiotic. Another reason, is because of adaptation. Think of the internet as an environment and you are a part of that environment. Cyber bullying is a major part of that environment that potentially threatens your existence. You can't take cyber bullying away but you still want to be part of the environment. So in order to survive in the environment, you must adapt.

-me: Heck, I honestly wondered if you ever played CS:GO
you: I have not because I have a life

First of all, hundreds and thousands of gamers play CS:GO. So your saying that hundreds of thousands of people need to get a life? YOU CYBER BULLY ;)

- Me: To be honest, I didn't even think you've even ever heard of leafyishere

you:"This is a direct attack on my credibility. An ad hominem. Also it is a dumb argument. So I should win conduct and arguments on this one. Here is why the argument is dumb. If I didn't know who leafyishere was, then why would I know the channel name? I didn't hear of it from someone else, which must mean I have watched some of his videos." I think you either misunderstood what I meant or your just trying to make yourself win by twisting the meaning of what I was trying to say. Either way, what I meant was that I was just surprised that you've heard of leafyishere and you've actually watched his video. I'm not trying to attack your credibility, I was just shocked that you knew about him. Kapeesh?

- "First, I don't think I over exaggerated how bad leafy was. He is pretty terrible of a person, and he knows that his videos can ruin YouTubers lives yet he keeps doing his roasting videos anyway." Yes you actually did over exaggerate. He doesn't exactly ruin youtubers lives, he just provides them with some well deserved criticism for a GOOD reason. Here are some examples.

Dog F**cker
https://www.youtube.com...

Insane Vegan Boy
https://www.youtube.com...

Racist Feminist(No further explanation needed)
https://www.youtube.com...

Musically kids
https://www.youtube.com...

Jacob Sartorious
https://www.youtube.com...

You see what I mean. Here are people who actually DESERVE criticism. And the're plenty of more.

-me: Ignore the cyber bully. He'll just eventually get bored

you: "Ok hold on. I have brought up evidence that highly suggests cyberbullies continue to harass to the point that the people they communicate with wish to block off contact" How in any way does this suggest that cyber bullies continue to harass the person until a person decides to "block off" him/her? First of all, there are a few social media websites that don't even have block off and second of all, the block off contact can also be used to block annoying people in general. I also know from experience that cyber bullies love to get reactions. That's why a lot of cyber bullies mostly target immature little kids. Because their most likely to scream and cry rather a big hairy middle aged male.

-"You have been quite insenstitive to me up until now, so why should I believe you are sad that these people committed suicide?" WHAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK I AM. OF COURSE I'M SAD THAT THIS PEOPLE COMMIT SUICIDE. Besides, I haven't been "insensitive" to you at all. A lot of people like to argue like this, expressing their feelings more than other people in a debate. And even if I was "insensitive" to you, that doesn't mean I wouldn't care if let's say 100 people died because of suicide. Every human being has emotions. Saying that I wouldn't feel anything if someone killed themselves is actually defamation of character. It's also horrible conduct.

-Me:"Because cyber bullying is pretty much everywhere around the internet. It's impossible to avoid it. Cyber bullying is embarrassingly,a HUGE part of internet."

You: And by this entire quote, you 100% concede with and agree with my point that Cyberbullying is a problem that cannot be ignored. So this debate should end with a vote for Con.

Ok, there are SOME major problems with what you just said right here. First problem is that this is horrible conduct. You've actually displayed horrible conduct throughout this whole entire argument. And you say "conduct is definitely a win for me". You have quite the nerve. Also, you pulled that sentence right out of my paragraph. You want to know what I said before this? " But look, I also understand that some people have very sensitive emotions and can be damaged by the slightest things, but if your going to go into the internet. Then you should've already prepared. Because cyber bullying is pretty much everywhere around the internet. It's impossible to avoid it. Cyber bullying is embarrassingly,
a HUGE part of internet. This also prove how cancerous humanity is as a society." So not only your saying false information, your also desperate to be able to counter my arguments BECAUSE you provided false information. 42 is exposed.

Anyways, I can't wait for my opponents next argument to come. And as always, I wish my opponent good luck.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

My opponent in the comments has numerous times bemoaned my calls to vote for conduct in favor of me. As such, I want to make it clear for the record that I leave the conduct point up to voter discretion like it always has been on this website. So I do not wish to force voters to vote a certain way. However I can and will control my responses to my opponent's arguments, and point out my opponent's flaws in conduct when possible. Now that I have clarified this, let's get into my second to last response.

The first thing I would like to address is my opponent's lack of sources. Because we are now in the second to last round of debate and my opponent's next argument is in the final round, I would question why my opponent has not given a single source the whole debate? Is it because my opponent does not want to look up facts? I am not sure but I wish for the voters to keep this in mind.

Now I will respond to my opponent's arguments.

"When I was capitalizing words in my arguments, I wasn't trying to yell at you, I was just trying to express each word so that you can get the point more clearly."

Not too much here but when you YELL, you yell. Because all I have is words, I have to assume that all caps means putting emphasis on every letter, thus the yelling. You were not over emphasizing so yelling seemed to me to fit the description of your behavior.

"There are VERY FEW people who honestly have the "mental ability" to be not able to withstand the harassment of bullies."

You can say this, but without evidence, you cannot prove it. I provided evidence that many people in the UK cannot even cope with cyberbullies, so I have a source.

"As I said before, most people just learn to live with cyber bullying. Besides, the people with little "mental capability" are just little kids. Not even middle schoolers. Mostly just eight or nine year olds. And they shouldn't even be using social media websites yet."

Once again no sources. Not only that, but not all Cyberbully victims are in the 8-9 range. Adults are cyberbullied as well. So are you discriminating? Also it is not my opponent's call to be determining the age at which social media is appropriate.

"I also disagree that saying people have learned to just live with cyber bullying is an uneducated opinion because I used something magical called logical reasoning to be able to come to this conclusion."

But in some cases, magical logic requires facts to support assumptions and presumptions made in the logic. Without those facts, the point is illogical.

"It's a common misconception that cyber bullying usually causes depression and unwanted feelings."

Well it seems Reuters would disagree with you.

"Jing Wang, Tonja Nansel and Ronald Iannotti of the NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development analyzed data from an international survey from 2005/2006 that included 4,500 U.S. preteens and teens.

They were asked specifically about feelings of depression, irritability, grouchiness and ability to concentrate, and also asked specifically if they had been hit, called names, shunned or sent negative messages via computer or cell phone -- or done any of these things to other people.

"Unlike traditional bullying which usually involves a face-to-face confrontation, cyber victims may not see or identify their harasser," Iannotti's team wrote in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

"As such, cyber victims may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack."

Physical and verbal bullies are often depressed themselves. But while there was little difference in depression between physical bullies and their targets, the NIH team found that cyber-bully victims reported significantly higher levels of depression than frequent bullies." http://www.reuters.com...

So considering this evidence, my points are supported. My point that cyberbullies have more impact than face-to-face bullies is proved. My argument that cyberbully victims is proved. My point that face-to-face confrontations allow for easier resolution is proved. So my opponent is left with no source to prove their points, while I have a credible source to prove mine.

Everything past the last quote from my opponent is negated by my evidence, and also is false because my opponent probably cannot prove it factually.


"First of all, hundreds and thousands of gamers play CS:GO. So your saying that hundreds of thousands of people need to get a life? YOU CYBER BULLY ;)"

Uh poor conduct alert? Also why the wink? Why am I suddenly a Cyberbully? You discriminated on the ages of cyberbullied victims, which is worse than me discriminating CS:GO players who willingly choose to be jerks in that game. So I fail to see how I am the Cyberbully. Also if you have played CS:GO before, then wouldn't that mean you talk with Cyberbullies all the time? So doesn't that make you in league with Cyberbullies? There are just too many things wrong with this statement by Pro.

"I think you either misunderstood what I meant or your just trying to make yourself win by twisting the meaning of what I was trying to say. Either way, what I meant was that I was just surprised that you've heard of leafyishere and you've actually watched his video. I'm not trying to attack your credibility, I was just shocked that you knew about him."

Understood, but based on your previous all caps arguments against me, I could not take this argument from you in a joking manner. I was sure you meant that I was clearly talking about things I didn't know about. So yes I watch LeafyisHere and that should be that right? Why did you say Kapeesh?

"Yes you actually did over exaggerate. He doesn't exactly ruin youtubers lives, he just provides them with some well deserved criticism for a GOOD reason. Here are some examples."

Terrific! Sources from my opponent! Unfortunately each video has no synopsis so you expect us to watch all the videos? I don't have time for that. So why should these sources be considered higher than my quoted ones?

"How in any way does this suggest that cyber bullies continue to harass the person until a person decides to "block off" him/her?"

You are not those people who wanted to block contact. So do not act like you can question their line they draw. But to answer your question, the study simply found that Cyberbullying is worse than face-to-face bullying for the reason that one cannot ignore Cyberbullies all the time like one can with a real life bully. That was the point. Because I have evidence and you do not, once again, I must conclude that Pro does not have facts to back up their arguments.

"That's why a lot of cyber bullies mostly target immature little kids. Because their most likely to scream and cry rather a big hairy middle aged male."

So now we have delved into stereotypes huh. This debate went downhill.

"WHAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK I AM. OF COURSE I'M SAD THAT THIS PEOPLE COMMIT SUICIDE. Besides, I haven't been "insensitive" to you at all."

This yelling is what I consider insensitive. I just wanted an honest discussion. I seem to not be getting that. I'll take your word for it that you are sad that people commit suicide. I honestly apologize for ever questioning it.

"Ok, there are SOME major problems with what you just said right here."

No there are not. Listen, the resolution is and I quote "Cyber bullying isn't really that big of an issue." That resolution when affirmed, means that Cyberbullying is not a big issue. Because my definition of Big in the beginning is "large in number or amount" If Pro admits that the internet is full of Cyberbullies, Pro concedes the resolution. This is because the initial resolution was poorly worded, and Pro never chose to fix it. So it is Pro's issue if Pro fails to uphold the resolution, not mine.


"Also, you pulled that sentence right out of my paragraph. You want to know what I said before this?"

Actually I did something called responding to arguments in clumps. I had already responded to the argument on insensitivity and living with Cyberbullies, so I felt the need to also address that particular slip-up by Pro.

"So not only your saying false information, your also desperate to be able to counter my arguments BECAUSE you provided false information. 42 is exposed."

Well I guess I'm exposed huh? I guess you all figured out I was a nifty debater huh? Listen, I didn't say anything false, I was making a semantics argument. Please note voters, semantics in this debate was never outlawed in the rules of the debate (because there were no rules). So all the arguments I am making are legitimate. I also have not provided a single bit of false info the whole debate. Everything that required a fact, has a fact. The voters can check me on this as they please.

With that, I await my opponent's response.

-42







Debate Round No. 3
Natsu145

Pro

Hello there, today I believe we have some MAJOR points to go over. I also would ask of my opponent to please extend this argument to 5 rounds because I feel like there would still need to be even more points I would have to go over with you. With that said, lets us being. I also will be countering some of your arguments in the comment section as well.

-"My opponent in the comments has numerous times bemoaned my calls to vote for conduct in favor of me. As such, I want to make it clear for the record that I leave the conduct point up to voter discretion like it always has been on this website. So I do not wish to force voters to vote a certain way" Well there are reasons that I have bemoaned you of your calls for conduct.But for the sake of word space, I'll just post it in the comment section.

-"The first thing I would like to address is my opponent's lack of sources. Because we are now in the second to last round of debate and my opponent's next argument is in the final round, I would question why my opponent has not given a single source the whole debate? Is it because my opponent does not want to look up facts? I am not sure but I wish for the voters to keep this in mind." You want to know why I didn't really put many resources. It's because I myself have experienced cyber bullying. Experience is like your own source of resources. I used experience combined with logic to come up with my answer. I am now going to come up with a scenario on how you act and on how I act.
Little Jimmy and his friend Ben were walking down the street when suddenly they found a dead bird lying out on the middle of the street. The two rushed over to the bird. They saw claw marks on the bird. Now little Jimmy remembered a time when he got scratched by a little cat. The scratch marks look exactly as the same as he remembered it on him in comparison to the bird."Hey Ben, I think this cat got killed by a stray cat." "But Jimmy, there's no proof what so ever that it did. It could've been killed by a car for all we know." "Yah but Ben..." "Jimmy there"s no exact recording that he did they from a cat." "BUT THEY LITERALLY LOOK LIKE STRATCH MARKS FROM A CAT. I BET YOU COULD EVEN FIND A ANIMAL EXPERT AND HE WOULD SAY THE SAME." "There's still no 100% proof that the bird did die from a cat though." That's basically how you acted, with no logic what so ever. I haven't seen one time that you actually have showed logic for that matter either. And wouldn't you agree that logic is also important as well?

-I myself also want to add that me or any of my friends have actually seen someone get really down in the dumps because of cyber bullying. Nor have my parents or even my older brother and his friends have. I also want to know if YOU have ever seen someone affected by cyber bullying but I also want you to say how old they are and if they have a disability or if they have very soft emotions.

-Me:"There are VERY FEW people who honestly have the "mental ability" to be not able to withstand the harassment of bullies."

you":You can say this, but without evidence, you cannot prove it. I provided evidence that many people in the UK cannot even cope with cyberbullies, so I have a source." Ok already gone over the logic and experience thing. Also, I never once saw you even mention the UK. I scrolled through the previous debates of yours and never once saw you mention the UK. Once again, the con is providing us with false information.

-"Once again no sources. Not only that, but not all Cyberbully victims are in the 8-9 range. Adults are cyberbullied as well. So are you discriminating? Also it is not my opponent's call to be determining the age at which social media is appropriate"

I know that not all victims of cyber bullying are not 8-9 years old. I should've said MOST victims are 8-9 years old or just little kids in general. People with disabilities(autism) and very soft emotions are pretty much it for the adults and teenagers. "Also it is not my opponent's call to be determining the age at which social media is appropriate" Your right it's not my call, BECAUSE THE CALL HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. People everywhere agree that little children shouldn't use the internet. I'm pretty sure either the con is unaware of that fact or chose not to mention it because his argument would be pretty useless if he did.

-"But in some cases, magical logic requires facts to support assumptions and presumptions made in the logic. Without those facts, the point is illogical." Again, this is where experience plays a role plus common knowledge as well. I have already repeated in my previous arguments why people have gotten used to cyber bullying. Remember the environment example?

-I just wanted to point out that other than the fact that the con says I don't have enough evidence to support my claims, it doesn't seem he really is putting up much of an argument for this round. For the most part that is.

-"Jing Wang, Tonja Nansel and Ronald Iannotti of the NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development analyzed data from an international survey from 2005/2006 that included 4,500 U.S. preteens and teens. They were asked specifically about feelings of depression, irritability, grouchiness and ability to concentrate, and also asked specifically if they had been hit, called names, shunned or sent negative messages via computer or cell phone -- or done any of these things to other people." But the con didn't say what the results where. All he said was that the a certain sector of the health department asked kids about how they were feeling via computer or cell phone. The results could've been "Oh yah it's not a problem what so ever." But the con doesn't provide any more information. I would also like to add that this survey was done in 2005/2006. Back them social media wasn't a very popular thing and there weren't many cyber bullies. But eventually people learned to adapt against cyber bullying in order to over come it. Remember the environment thing again?

-" Unlike traditional bullying which usually involves a face-to-face confrontation, cyber victims may not see or identify their harasser." I actually think of this as a good thing because in traditional bullying, you can actually both emotionally and physically injured. Both you can't get physically injured in cyber bullying. Plus, in traditional bullying, you actually know who's bullying you, making the bullying have more of an effect. But in cyber bullying, you don't know who's bullying you, making it have less of an effect. This is because the bully can have more of an effect on your personal life than a cyber bully ever could.

-"As such, cyber victims may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack." Now I think we can both agree that report abuse doesn't work. BUT you can tell your local police about it since they can actually track were you live via IP address.

-"Physical and verbal bullies are often depressed themselves. But while there was little difference in depression between physical bullies and their targets, the NIH team found that cyber-bully victims reported significantly higher levels of depression than frequent bullies." I fail to see how this honestly is supposed to prove your point more.

-I also just want to add that if you really think that my information has no real evidence, then you can literally just search my information on the internet. Thus you can actually still see the evidence yourself. Voters can do this as well.

-Me:"First of all, hundreds and thousands of gamers play CS:GO. So your saying that hundreds of thousands of people need to get a life? YOU CYBER BULLY ;)"

- you:"Uh poor conduct alert? Also why the wink? Why am I suddenly a Cyberbully? You discriminated on the ages of cyberbullied victims, which is worse than me discriminating CS:GO players who willingly choose to be jerks in that game. So I fail to see how I am the Cyberbully. Also if you have played CS:GO before, then wouldn't that mean you talk with Cyberbullies all the time? So doesn't that make you in league with Cyberbullies? There are just too many things wrong with this statement by Pro." Wow dude seriously chill out. There's a reason why I put a winky face on that statement. It was because it was meant to be taken as a joke. Also I want you to read another response you yourself wrote in the comment section.

-"To this my response Natsu is F*CK OFF. I am getting sick of your attitude." Uh poor conduct alert?

-"Terrific! Sources from my opponent! Unfortunately each video has no synopsis so you expect us to watch all the videos? I don't have time for that. So why should these sources be considered higher than my quoted ones?" I'm pretty sure a synopsis doesn't really matter in this situation as long as you prove the point. Also once again the con is counter arguing the most useless thinks so that it could appear to the voters that he has convincing arguments.

Unfortunately, the amount of words I can put into this debate is almost depleted so after I post this debate. I'll be immediately right after that post my other points in the comment section. So make sure to watch out for those. Anyways I wish my opponent good luck.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

TO THE VOTERS.

I have very little to add. I feel like I offered good reasons why Cyberbullying is a large issue, and my opponent has not sufficiently negated those reasons. I have stopped asking for conduct because a conduct vote at this point is a nightmare to explain. So I would simply ask for a fair assessment of how well I did on my arguments and sources. That being said.

TO MY OPPONENT.

You may not create new responses during round 5. To do so would be to forfeit the debate over a rules violation. You agreed at the beginning of this debate to my clause that this be a 4 round debate (you agreed in the comments before I accepted the challenge, when I was allowed to request rule changes). As such I expect you to honor this. If you do not, you forfeit.

Also, because you never made a rule stating that arguments could be made in the comment section, all arguments in the comment section cannot be used to vote on the debate. DDO has a policy that comments are comments, and arguments are arguments unless the debaters agree otherwise. Because we never agreed to this, your comment arguments are not valid to a vote.

RESPONSES.

"I believe we have some MAJOR points to go over"

We do not.

"Well there are reasons that I have bemoaned you of your calls for conduct.But for the sake of word space, I'll just post it in the comment section."

So I guess those reasons will never be known. Comments are comments.

"You want to know why I didn't really put many resources. It's because I myself have experienced cyber bullying. Experience is like your own source of resources. I used experience combined with logic to come up with my answer."

I am sorry that you have had to experience such a terrible thing. According to logic, however, your experience is not the only evidence that is valid. Evidence on a large scale is also required to make the logic stronger. Let me present two examples to illustrate this.

If you are fighting a war with an alien enemy to humanity, your personal experience up until then is the only valid evidence on how to fight the enemy.

However, if you are fighting a war against the resurrected Roman Empire and wish to know the best battle strategy, and say you have a little personal experience (its year 3 of the war) you would still need to combine your current experience with past history to come up with the most effective strategy. The second scenario is the type of situation we as a society face with Cyberbullying. Many people have experience, and we also have facts based on those experiences. So one persons individual experience counts for less than 500,000 individuals personal experiences. Hence, my argument on evidence still stands.

"Also, I never once saw you even mention the UK. I scrolled through the previous debates of yours and never once saw you mention the UK. Once again, the con is providing us with false information."

Evidently you do not read. Round 1, point 2, paragraph 1.

"Your right it's not my call, BECAUSE THE CALL HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. People everywhere agree that little children shouldn't use the internet."

If you say everywhere, you need facts.

"Remember the environment example?"

I do, I remember it was a good example with no facts to support it.

"-I just wanted to point out that other than the fact that the con says I don't have enough evidence to support my claims, it doesn't seem he really is putting up much of an argument for this round. For the most part that is."

Whatever.

"But the con didn't say what the results where."

*were, and yes I did. The quote below it that is bolded is the unanimous result of the three authors of the study. Also do not nitpick my study if you did not bring up your own. That is playing defense with no offense.

"I would also like to add that this survey was done in 2005/2006. Back them social media wasn't a very popular thing and there weren't many cyber bullies."

Where are the facts.

"I actually think of this as a good thing because in traditional bullying, you can actually both emotionally and physically injured."

True, but didn't you also agree you could ignore bullying easier face-to-face because you failed to respond to that argument during round 4? So I don't see how traditional bullying is a) good, and b) worse than Cyberbullying. I'm arguing both are equally terrible, but is easier to ignore. I guess you are trying to put words in my mouth.

"Plus, in traditional bullying, you actually know who's bullying you, making the bullying have more of an effect. But in cyber bullying, you don't know who's bullying you, making it have less of an effect."

What effect are you even talking about.

"BUT you can tell your local police about it since they can actually track were you live via IP address."

But can they track the cyberbully's IP? Because if not the Police are just spying on you without being able to help, which is pretty dumb.

"I fail to see how this honestly is supposed to prove your point more."

Cyberbully victims have it worse than real life bully victims. That was the point and I'm sure when put that way, you understand why it helps me more.

"I also just want to add that if you really think that my information has no real evidence, then you can literally just search my information on the internet."

You have evidently not read the debate guide for DDO. VOTERS. For this I ask for a loss of sources. My opponent blatantly admits that they do not wish to take the time to show us where their information comes from. This is laziness, and should be punished accordingly.

"Voters can do this as well."

Well they are not supposed to ok? Remember that for the future. We are supposed to provide the info. Not the voters. If you let them fill the gaps, you let their bias possibly be introduced into their judgement, resulting in bad feedback. Also they are already writing you an RFD. So do them a favor and make that easier.

"Wow dude seriously chill out. There's a reason why I put a winky face on that statement. It was because it was meant to be taken as a joke."

Well Natsu, I mean this in all seriousness. I did not come to debate this topic with you, in order to be the subject of jokes. So I am sorely disappointed by your behavior.

"Also I want you to read another response you yourself wrote in the comment section."

See above but this response doesn't count. It's a comment. Also I apologize for making it, it was immature and wrong of me.

"I'm pretty sure a synopsis doesn't really matter in this situation as long as you prove the point."

It does matter. It lets us know how you want us to perceive the evidence you have presented. Remember all of us have a unique perspective. Why not share yours? I have wanted to know it this whole debate, which is why I have continued to debate you.

"Also once again the con is counter arguing the most useless thinks so that it could appear to the voters that he has convincing arguments."

Well until you fully rebut my arguments, I actually do have convincing arguments.

"I'll be immediately right after that post my other points in the comment section. So make sure to watch out for those."

Once again, they do not count.

I want to congratulate my opponent on a well fought debate. I have been enlightened some, and hope that we could maybe debate in the future.

I will be posting that I extend all my current arguments in Round 5, true to my promise at the beginning. I will not add new responses. I would ask my opponent to do likewise.

-42









Debate Round No. 4
Natsu145

Pro

Natsu145 forfeited this round.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

42lifeuniverseverything forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 10 months ago
ThinkBig
Will vote soon
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 10 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Wow. I completely agree Bire and thanks for sharing!
Posted by Bire 11 months ago
Bire
I am totally against cyber bullying. It happened to me at least twice. O Had people that I trusted with all your heart post staff that I did not ask them to post. One of them to be as old as senior in this country made himself a good friend of mine and asked me how i overcame all my trials and tribulations. He then would add all the story that I told him to his church website for his personal and church benefits.
It felt almost as if someone came to my home and robbed everything i had and that I only was left with clothes that i had on.

I eventually did not bring anyone of them in court but i endured the pain. I was being looked at the way that i was not. I graduated college and i moved away from the city and i contacted the website administrator to put down the story which they finally did.

Charity cases are around the world but give me a break, if i made it in college, i did not need your help. When an individual graduates college, he or she is not going to go heaven or have a bag full of money for the rest of his or her life.

If i needed to be popular, i could have skipped college and do the talk just like you were doing it to me.

I hope with the increase of computer and internet access comes with increased cyber security and severe laws to penalizing trespassers who intentionally post content that are inaccurate or the person who is being talked about does not necessary agree with.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 11 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
ok I will not post anything then.
Posted by Natsu145 11 months ago
Natsu145
How about we just don't post anything on round 5
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 11 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
I wasn't going to counter your arguments. I was specifically going to say this round 5. "I am extending all my arguments through this round, and congratulating Pro on a good debate". That was going to be my round 5, and that is what I meant by extending arguments and not arguing new things. So if you counter arguments of mine, you forfeit.

42
Posted by Natsu145 11 months ago
Natsu145
I want to clear a few things about this. First of, comments do count as an argument. To say they do not would mean that your trying to ignore an opponents argument, which means you yourself are implying that you can't counter my arguments. I would like to say sorry for making you angry. I would also say that you yourself are breaking your own promise by actually saying stuff in round 5. So if you get to write stuff on round 5, then I would like to as well. Your basically saying that your going to break your own vow. Then I ask the same if I can perhaps break the vow as well because I honestly want to debate more. But if you decline, then I'll still write my arguments in the comments since that isn't breaking any of the rules we started on this debate in the first place. So either way I intend on counter arguing your arguments. I also ask of the viewers to not just vote based on their own personal opinions but with neutrally. I also want to apologize for my actions as well, because I know I haven't especially been acting like a saint neither. And yah, for now, that's all I have to say. I also hope that the con agrees with me on this.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 11 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
I apologize for my conduct in this debate. This is not typically my style, but my opponent angered me, and I couldn't snap out of it. Thank you to everyone who ends up voting on this debate. I highly appreciate the feedback.

42
Posted by Natsu145 11 months ago
Natsu145
information your also desperate to be able to counter my arguments BECAUSE you provided false information. 42 is exposed."

continuation of previous comment
Posted by Natsu145 11 months ago
Natsu145
"Well I guess I'm exposed huh? I guess you all figured out I was a nifty debater huh? Listen, I didn't say anything false, I was making a semantics argument. Please note voters, semantics in this debate was never outlawed in the rules of the debate (because there were no rules). So all the arguments I am making are legitimate. I also have not provided a single bit of false info the whole debate. Everything that required a fact, has a fact. The voters can check me on this as they please." First of all, I never really cared about semantics and that wasn't even the thing I said that you had false information on. Second of all, you didn't pull up my argument to saying that you DID have false information because if you did, your argument would again be useless. Here's what I said that you did provide false information.

Me:"Because cyber bullying is pretty much everywhere around the internet. It's impossible to avoid it. Cyber bullying is embarrassingly,a HUGE part of internet."

You: And by this entire quote, you 100% concede with and agree with my point that Cyberbullying is a problem that cannot be ignored. So this debate should end with a vote for Con.

Ok, there are SOME major problems with what you just said right here. First problem is that this is horrible conduct. You've actually displayed horrible conduct throughout this whole entire argument. And you say "conduct is definitely a win for me". You have quite the nerve. Also, you pulled that sentence right out of my paragraph. You want to know what I said before this? " But look, I also understand that some people have very sensitive emotions and can be damaged by the slightest things, but if your going to go into the internet. Then you should've already prepared. Because cyber bullying is pretty much everywhere around the internet. It's impossible to avoid it. Cyber bullying is embarrassingly,
a HUGE part of internet. This also prove how cancerous humanity is as a society." So not only your saying false i
No votes have been placed for this debate.