The Instigator
dragonb95
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Typhlochactas
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Facebook does more good than harm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
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 2 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,273 times Debate No: 31822
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

dragonb95

Pro

We will be debating whether the benefits of facebook outweight the detriments. Burden of the proof is equal.

If you accept, you will be debating that facebook is bad. First round is for accepting only.
Typhlochactas

Con



Ave!


Firstly, I'd like to define what is means to be 'bad' in the context of this debate. 'Bad' means that it is overall detrimental to the well-being of conscious creatures. This should squash any potential objections over what the word means.

Secondly, I accept!

Vale!
Debate Round No. 1
dragonb95

Pro

Let us begin! I agree on your definition.
Rounds
1. Acceptance
2. Arguments (no clash)
3. Clash
4. Clash and Conclusion

Contentions

1. Facebook can boost self-esteem[1].

Facebook profiles are self-affirming and getting looks improves our sense of self-image and self-worth. Read the article in the source.

2. Facebook can be used for organ donation purposes[2].
275,000 people are tagged with organ donation status on facebook. This shows the enormous potential of social media. Facebook can save lives.

3. Facebook is a great way to connect with friends.
This is an obvious argument. Messaging and walls are a great way to meet old friends and new friends.

4. Facebook can be used to start movements.

Wael Ghonim, a google executive in Dubai, was scrolling through facebook one day when he noticed the image of Khaled Mohamed Said, a young man who had been beaten to death by the Egyptian police. Not only is this instance an example of using facebook to share information, Ghonim started a facebook page that protested against the Egyptian government for brutally killing this young man. The page had 300 members after two minutes! And three months later, a quarter of a million people had joined it. This page inspired many uprisings which eventually led to the famous Cairo rally, which caused Hasni Mubarak’s resignation. Facebook isn’t a trivial website, judge, facebook is a powerful tool that let’s people who have had their rights taken away fight back against the government. (nytimes)

5. Facebook is a strong way to promote and advance small businesses[3].

According to the Houston Chronicle, facebook does, indeed, help small businesses promote and expand. There are three ways it does this.

a. One, facebook pages allows companies to have profiles where they can interact with their customers. Not only does this help with mailing lists and informing customers of changes via status updates, it also gives the company an online presence without having to make their own website. Emily Durham of Rice University found that customers that liked a restaurant on facebook spent more money and more regularly visited the restaurant. Furthermore, facebook makes it easy to share a company to your friends if you like it. This increases publicity.

b. Two, companies can offer special deals to customers that like their page on facebook, increasing publicity and sales. Internal research done by facebook has shown that these special deals greatly increase sales.

c. And lastly, companies can advertise via facebook. Facebook advertising is one of the cheapest and most efficient advertising methods on the internet (houstonchronicle). Not only does facebook provide an easy and affordable way to set up ads, it allows companies to target individuals based on what they like and better their advertising experience.

Sources
[1]http://thestar.com.my...;
[2]http://www.npr.org...;
[3]The Houston Chronicle

Typhlochactas

Con

Ave!

Facebook and Mental Health
Facebook has been known to have adverse consequences on the mental health of its users. Users can feel envious of other users who have more active social lives, more friends, more pictures, more likes, etc. Users can also feel depressed about a ‘’lack of feedback’’ to the content that they post on the site. This has been demonstrated in research done by Dr. Hanna Krasnova in Germany. (http://www.worldcrunch.com...)

Quality of mental health can be harmed by the rampant cyber bullying that takes place on Facebook. One million children were harassed, threatened, or subjected to other forms of cyber bullying on Facebook in the year 2011. Users who attend middle and high schools can find themselves the victim of vicious rumors spread online by people who don’t like them. Insulting messages are frequent as well. (http://puresight.com...)

"Dr. Kathy Charles of Edinburgh Napier University released a study early last year, which showed that, of the 200 people she surveyed, a majority felt some type of stress in relation to the social network, and 12-percent said the site makes them feel anxious. Those with a large number Facebook friends experienced the most stress. Dr. Charles also found that many become stressed at the thought of missing out on something good posted to the site, a phenomenon now known as the “fear of missing out,” which has become so widespread it has its own acronym (FOMO).’’ (http://www.digitaltrends.com...)"

"Dr. Larry D. Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, last year released a study that concluded that teenagers and young adults who spend much of their time on Facebook are at a higher risk of developing a cornucopia of psychological disorders, including mania, paranoia, aggressive tendencies, and antisocial behavior. Moreover, Facebook may add fuel to the fire in those teens who display narcissistic tendencies, by allowing them to broadcast their unhealthy self-love 24/7." (Ibid)

"According to a recent survey of 600 Facebook users, ages 16 to 40, by the Center for Eating Disorders at Sheppard Pratt, more than half say that seeing pictures of themselves and others on the site “makes them more conscious about their own body and their weight.” And it wasn’t only females who felt the burn; 40 percent of male respondents said they comment negatively about their own bodies on Facebook photos. On top of that, 32-percent said they feel “sad” when comparing photos of themselves to pictures of their friends. And 44-percent said they wished they had the same body or weight as their friends, when looking at photos on Facebook."

Facebook and Physical Health
'A recent study conducted by the University of Columbia has found a link between Facebook and obesity saying that using Facebook ultimately leads to increase in your waistline.' (http://topnews.ae...)

'Facebook may lower one's self-control and tempt him or her into excessive eating or spending, says a new consumer study.' (http://gadgets.ndtv.com...)

Obviously, being on Facebook prevents you from doing any serious physical activity. You sit down on a chair (unhealthy, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...) and type on a computer. There is nothing healthy about this at all. Given the consequences it has on your mental health, is it really worth the lack of exercise?

Facebook's Policies

Facebook has an age limit on registering for its website. This is supposed to protect underage children from accessing the website at an inappropriate age. Despite the good intentions, Facebook has been very poor at enforcing this policy, allowing millions of underage children to join an unsuitable environment. (http://abcnews.go.com....)

'In violation of Facebook's requirement that members be at least 13 years old to open an account, about 7.5 million users in the U.S. are under the age of 13, and about 5 million are under the age of 10, Consumer Reports said in a report released today. That's out of 20 million U.S. minors in total who actively used Facebook last year, Consumer Reports said.'

Some people have argued that Facebook can't be blamed because they have a large amount of users, and it's difficult to enforce the rules on all of those users. However, the problems with keeping underage children off of the site begin at registration. Jeff Fox, technology editor for Consumer Reports, criticizes Facebook:

"We all know how bright those folks are that run it," he said "I cannot believe that they cannot devise better systems for preventing kids under 13 than just asking for a birth date."

Fox also comments on why Facebook is bad for these underage children.

"There's a lot of dangers -- there's adults, there's bullies, there's malware," said Fox. "A 10-year-old is ill-equipped to deal with any of those things."

Facebook has created a registration system that is very easy for underage users to get through. Then, it does a poor job of removing these users from Facebook, allowing them to participate in a dangerous and harmful environment.

Contentions
1: Facebook use leads to anxiety.
2: Facebook use leads to depression.
3: Facebook use leads to unhealthy self-consciousness.
4: Facebook use allows the user to be bullied in ways that wouldn't be possible if they hadn't of signed up.
5: Facebook allows narcissists to broadcast their self-obsession.
6: Facebook allows underage users to enter a dangerous and unsuitable environment.
7: Facebook prevents physical exercise.
8: Using facebook on a computer has other detrimental health effects from siting.
9: Facebook is linked to obesity.
10: Facebook is linked to excessive over-eating.

Vale!


Debate Round No. 2
dragonb95

Pro

Thank you for posting your contentions. I will proceed to refute all ten.

Also, as to your definition, just to avoid semantics, the word "bad" is not in the resolution. Bad is an adjective. We are talking about harm and good. Which ever side presents more harm or more good wins.

Refutations
1. Facebook makes people anxious.
My opponet cited that 12% of people were anxious, but the debate is that facebook does more good than harm. You are showing a statistic where facebook did 88% good, which only helps my case.

2. Facebook leads to depression
His source for the depression point had depression percentages all lower than fifty percent. If you find a "harm" percentage over fifty percent, then you will be fulfilling the burden of the proof. As it is, those statistics all say that a large percentage of users did not feel those "harm" feelings.

3. Facebook leads to unnecessary self-consciousness.
Again, percentagewise, most people see the good in facebook and not the harm. I need, and the voters need substantial evidence that the harm of facebook is greater than the good. Technically, all of these people like facebook, because they must like facebook for a reason. Most of the 1,000,000,000 people on facebook are there because they clearly think that the benefits outweigh the detriments, and that it does more good than harm. You might say, by that logic all of the people who aren't on facebook must think the detriments outweigh the benefits, that it does more harm than good, but this is false becuase you can't assume that all the other people have taken an active stance in their opinion on facebook. Ergo, facebook does more good than harm according to popular thought.

4. Facebook enables cyber-bullying
My opponent has cited no reason this wouldn't occur on any other website or program, like AIM, Twitter, tumblr, instagram, etc. If you have ever taken a logic course, you would know that the purpose of any object with no feelings is to fulfill it's purpose. When it fulfills its purpose satisfactorily, it is "good", but when it does not fulfill its purpose, or when it does bad things, in the case of facebook, we must look at facebook's interface and see if there is any flaw that makes people more prone to cyber bullying on this website. Since there isn't, facebook is not bad, rather, the people doing the bullying are to blame here. LOGIC TO THE RESCUE!

5. Facebook allows narcissists to broadcast their self-obession.
Again I turn to the refuation of percentages. It is really worth noting that these people are on facebook because they think that facebook's benefits outweight the detriments (does more good than harm).

6. Kids under 13 can cheat the system.
There is no good way to enforce an age restriction. There is so single solution for implenting these restrictions. If you can think of a better way than I would be very interested. http://www.zdnet.com...)

7. Facebook prevents exercise.
Let's be honest. If the people who are on facebook a lot weren't a facebook, do you really think they would be exercising? No. They would be on another social networking site or playing a video game or texting. We can't blame facebook for them not wanting to exercise. They clearly just aren't the kind of people who exercise a lot.

8. Sitting on a computer is bad for physical health.
See last refutatation. If it's not facebook, it's some other website. This website itself is pretty addicting.

9. Facebook is linked to obesity.
There are many other things that contribute to the justification of binge eating. We cannot blame all of need for self-esteem issues on facebook. A friend saying "you look good today", or anyone complimenting you can be a reaffirmation of self-esteem.

10. Facebook is linked to binge-eating
See last refutation. These two points are the same.


Sorry if some of my refutations are similar. Clearly his ten contentions can be grouped in to some basic contentions (i.e. facebook is bad for mental and phsyical health, facebook has policy issues, etc.".
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave!

The Drug Analogy
I think that Pro’s metric of harm is useless for any meaningful analysis. He argues that if something causes harm, but it doesn’t cause harm in most people, then it’s fine. This is a patently absurd way of thinking.

Consider the recall of the drug Baycol. This cholesterol fighting drug was linked to the deaths of thirty-one people, and adverse health effects in many others. If Pro’s metric of harm is correct, this drug shouldn’t be recalled. We should continue to allow people to purchase a drug that can lead to their death, so as long as it doesn’t lead to death in the majority of the people who take it. No, I argue. It’s obvious that such a drug should be recalled before more people are hurt.

My main point is this: the fact that something does not cause harm in the majority of people who use it does not mean that the thing is harmless. Pro seems to think this about Facebook, but it’s a complete non-sequitur.

Facebook and Mental Health
Pro points out that it’s only 12% of people who reported feeling anxious, so therefore, the other 82% must be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, Pro glossed over a very important detail in that citation.

“Dr. Kathy Charles of Edinburgh Napier University released a study early last year, which showed that, of the 200 people she surveyed, a majority felt some type of stress in relation to the social network, and 12-percent said the site makes them feel anxious.”

It’s not that the 88% are doing fine. In fact, the majority of them report stress in relation to the social network. Some people might argue that there’s a difference between correlation and causation, but this doesn’t matter because the people interviewed explicitly stated that Facebook was the cause.

Pro argues that because somebody has joined Facebook, they must automatically think that the benefits are more than the risks. This is irrelevant to the topic. Somebody may think that Facebook provides more benefits than harm, but that does not mean this is the actual case. A subjective feeling has no relation to objective fact in this subject.

Why would it matter if people could also be cyber bullied on other social networking sites? The important point is that it happens on Facebook frequently. Pro’s logic doesn’t add up here. If I saw a lion at a zoo in North America, is the proper response ‘’Oh, you could get bit in Africa too, so let’s go pet him!” Clearly not. The fact that you can get cyber bullied in other places does not mean you’ve solved the problem with Facebook.

Facebook’s Policies
I already answered Pro’s objection in the last round. Yes, it’s hard to keep track of billions of users and enforce the rules every time. I didn’t hold Facebook accountable to that. I did hold Facebook accountable to the fact that their registration process is laughably easy to bypass if you’re underage. They can’t stop every underage user, but they can do something about fixing their registration process to make it harder for underage users to get online. This is the point I made in my last round, and it goes untouched.

Facebook and Physical Health
I return to my lion analogy: the fact that the negative effects of using x can also be experienced while using y does not mean that the harm of using x is somehow mitigated.

Contrary to Pro's claim, a link to binge eating and a link to obesity are not the same exact points. To think that is just categorically wrong.

Pro's Case: Facebook can boost self-esteem
Pro's source for this claim is broken, so there's no way for me to answer this argument.

Organ Donation
Sure, some people have pledged to donate organs on their Facebook profile. But what is the actual effect this has had? Considering that most social networking websites decline after a while (the evidence shows Facebook is on the decline), will Facebook even be around by time its users die in any large amount? For this to work, Facebook has to be around when the person who agreed to donate their organs dies. The evidence shows that Facebook won't be around this long. (http://bgr.com...)

Facebook can start movements
This is a double standard on Pro's part. When someone does bad things with Facebook, he says the user is to blame, not Facebook. Yet, when someone does someting good with Facebook, he's quick to give Facebook credit for it. Why is this the case?

Facebook promoting business
Conceded, but is money more important than the harm Facebook does to its users?

Vale!
Debate Round No. 3
dragonb95

Pro

Thanks for posting so soon! It's time for....... COUNTER REFUTATION AND RE-AFFIRMATION OF REBUTTALS!

Rebuttal Reaffirmation

My first set of refutations were aimed around the fact that a minority of people experienced mental issues etc. etc. He refutes this by talking about a life-threatening drug. See the difference here? A media website that one billion people love, where sometimes they feel sad because others are living good lives, versus a very popular drug with a hidden side effect capable of killing thousands. This analogy is irrelevant.

My opponent also said that a majority of users recieved some kind of stress out of their experience, however this is minute compared to the good that they can experience on facebook.

My opponent argues my logic on how all the people on facebook think that it does more good than harm, however his refutation weak and confusing. Nobody is forced to be on facebook, so we can safely assume that most/all of the people on facebook want to be on facebook. You can deactivate your account if you want to, and if you think that something is doing more harm than good to you, anybody would stop doing that thing. Ergo, most/all of the 1,000,000,000 people on facebook think facebook does more good than harm.

My opponent refutes my point about the logic of cyber bullying and who to blame by saying something about a lion. The truth remains: Bullyers are to blame for cyber bullying. If a normal bully insults someone, do we blame the language for providing a mode of them to insult him? Clearly not, because the langauge (facebook in this analogy) does so much good for us.

My opponent refutes my point about how hard it is to create a proper registration system by failing to answer my question, which was, "What would you suggest?" There is no clear way to do that, so we can't persecute facebook for having a "laughably easy" regristration process.

Counter Refutations

Sorry about the broken source. The article talks about how getting likes increases self-esteem.

My opponent said that many people will still be alive by the time facebook is done. First of all, he says facebook is on the decline and points to a source, but this source is merely pointing out a possible trend. There is no evidence that facebook will end soon, if ever. Secondly, even if some people are alive when facebook burns out (which I doubt it will), some people have still gotten to donate, so there is still a lot of good being done.

My opponent says that I am giving a double standard with my point on starting movements, however he fails to recognize a necessary part in the logic process, what about facebook's interface makes this good thing happen. In your example of cyber bullying, it is not due to facebook but rather to the bullyer, because there is no fault in facebook's system that lets bullying happen. In the case of facebook starting movements, the fact that there is no proxy for facebook, the fact that facebook pages provide information so quickly, and the fact that pages can be created so quickly all point to facebook doing good.

My opponent concedes on two points: connecting with friends and promoting businesses.

Conclusion
In conclusion, some things to remember and then a weigh of the debate.

If a knife cuts well, it is good, if it is blunt, it is bad, but if a robber stabs with a sharp knife, the robber is bad. Likewise, if facebook does good things, it is good, if it does bad things, it is bad, but if someone uses facebook to bully someone, the bullyer is bad. Also, remember blaming facebook for bullying is like blaming a language for insults.

Since you join and leave facebook at free will, all of the members of facebook must think that it does more good than harm.

The percentages my opponent has cited for anxiety etc. have all pointed to a amount lesser than 50% (except for one which I have refuted). Thusly, an opposite amount to a minority percentage is a majority percentage. Ergo, most people are fine with facebook.

My opponent has conceded two of my arguments.

So, let's weigh this debate.

Pro

Facebook boosts self-esteem

Facebook can be used for organ donation purposes->Most people will be alive when facebook goes away->That's still a lot of organs being donated.

Facebook is a great way to connect with friends.

Facebook can be used to start movements->Double standard->Clarification of logic

Facebook promotes businesses


Con


Mental health->Low percentages

No exercise/chair problems->People who won't exercise/get up out of their chair because of facebook are the kind of people who don't exercise and stay in their chair all day

Cyber bullying->Flawed logic

Justification of binge-eating->This could happen with anything

Kids can cheat the system->No way around this


This was a great debate! Thanks so much for accepting I had a blast and learned a lot :)
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave!

The Drug Analogy
I think Pro misunderstood the point. I was trying to show that we can get rid of something even if it only causes harm to minority of people. My example of this was to point out a drug that was recalled for harming a minority of people who used it. If we followed Pro's logic on this, the drug shouldn't be recalled because it only harmed a minority of people who used it. But that would be absurd! On the same token, why not think Facebook is bad just because it only harms a minority of people? The whole point was that his metric of harm was untenable.

The '1 Billion People' Argument
I already pointed out the fatal flaw in this argument. The effects of using something do not depend on popular opinion. One billion people could think that shooting yourself in the face is a good way of treating cancer, but that wouldn't make it true. So why think that Facebook is good just because a lot of people believe it? Popular opinion is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides, it's entirely possible that people would go on Facebook and know it's harmful. It could be the case that Facebook is psychologically addicting to that person, so they go on it even though they know it's bad for them. I once used Facebook and I always got sad when I saw other people with social lives. Yet, it took me a year to deactivate because I felt compelled to log in every day. Point is, there's nothing stopping someone from using something, even if they know it's bad for them.

Two examples of this: smokers and fast food.

Facebook and Stress
'My opponent also said that a majority of users recieved some kind of stress out of their experience, however this is minute compared to the good that they can experience on facebook.'

Think about these words clearly. A majority of users received some kind of stress out of using Facebook. Given that, why think there is something good they could get out of it? We've already established they had a bad experience.

Facebook and Cyberbullying
'My opponent refutes my point about the logic of cyber bullying and who to blame by saying something about a lion.'

My response was this: the fact that you can get cyber bullied in other places does not mean you’ve solved the problem with Facebook.

The point was to show that Pro's refutation was a non-sequitur. Pro never ends up responding to this point, and instead he just mocks it. So, this argument is on my side when it's time to vote.

'The truth remains: Bullyers are to blame for cyber bullying. If a normal bully insults someone, do we blame the language for providing a mode of them to insult him? Clearly not, because the langauge (facebook in this analogy) does so much good for us."

Pro is just setting up a straw man. I never said that Facebok was to blame for its cyber bullying problem. I said that cyber bullying is a frequent way that millions of people are harmed when using Facebook. This debate isn't about whether the staff at Facebook are responsible for cyber bullying on their website. This debate is about whether harm can come out of Facebook. Maybe the staff isn't to blame, but that's ultimately not the point.

Facebook's Policies
'My opponent refutes my point about how hard it is to create a proper registration system by failing to answer my question, which was, "What would you suggest?" There is no clear way to do that, so we can't persecute facebook for having a "laughably easy" regristration process.'

It doesn't matter about what I would suggest. I don't to have a solution to a problem in order to recognize that a problem exists. That's a non-sequitur.

Does Facebook help self-esteem?
'Sorry about the broken source. The article talks about how getting likes increases self-esteem.'

I don't care what Pro's interpretation of the article is. I care about the actual text of the article, and since no useful source was provided, this claim should not be considered a win for Pro.

Organ Donation
'My opponent said that many people will still be alive by the time facebook is done. First of all, he says facebook is on the decline and points to a source, but this source is merely pointing out a possible trend'

It's not a possible trend of Facebook's decline. It's an actual trend. That is, users are actually leaving in the website in large numbers. Why would we think of this as possible, when it's actually happening?

'There is no evidence that facebook will end soon, if ever. Secondly, even if some people are alive when facebook burns out (which I doubt it will), some people have still gotten to donate, so there is still a lot of good being done.'

Pro never tells us how many people actually end up donating organs. In fact, his article about organ donation is also a broken link, so this unsourced claim cannot be considered when voting.

Conclusion
Let's review Pro's arguments.

(1) Facebook can boost self-esteem.
Pro's source for this is a broken link, so there's no reason for us to consider this true.

(2) Facebook can be used for organ donation purposes.
Pro's source for this is broken.

(3) Facebook is a great way to connect with friends.
This is a subjective claim, not a factual one.

(4) Facebook can be used to start movements.
Pro says this was in the NY Times, but he never gives us any way of finding his source.

(5) Facebook is a strong way to promote and advance small businesses.
Pro cites the Houston Chronicle, but like contention four, he never gives us any way of finding his source.

Pro's arguments aren't based in fact because we're never given any sources to think they're true. Therefore, they're bare assertion fallacies, and should not be counted as reasons to think Facebook is good.

Vale!

Debate Round No. 4
dragonb95

Pro

Final round! I derped and thought that the previous round was the last, but I was wrong. Ave!
Final Refutations
1. The drug analogy
The difference between facebook and the drug is that the drug poses a serious harm to people and they are unaware of the physical side effects. These two things cannot be compared.

2. One billion people think facebook is good becuase they are members
My opponent said that 1 billion people could think shooting yourself in the face is good, that doesn't make it good. This is a non-sequitur. It is totally random and does not pertain to the discussion. One billion people, who are on facebook because of their own free will, do not leave facebook because they think it does good in their life. As to addiction, there is no such thing is facebook addiction. Maybe getting in to the habit of checking your facebook is a thing, but the difference between facebook and fast food/smoking is that fast food and smoking causes a physical addiction in your body, because of chemicals that replace similar chemicals in your organs. That does not happen with facebook.

3. Stress on facebook
"A majority of users received some kind of stress out of using Facebook. Given that, why think there is something good they could get out of it?" Because they are still on facebook of their free will. If they thought that the stress was actually being detrimental to their lives, they would immediately deactivate their accounts. Ergo, they think that facebook does more good than harm. I covered addiction in my last refutation.

4. Cyberbullying
I apologize if I came off as rude about the lion thing. I did not think it directly related to the discussion.
Let me refute my opponent's semantics: The topic is "facebook does more good than harm". Thus, facebook is not doing the harm to these kids, bullies are doing the harm to these kids.

5. Age restriction policies
My opponent says he does not need to provide a solution to the age restriction problem. The fact is, there is no way of making these regulations tighter. Also, my opponent has never discussed why this is bad. Give us an example of a kid being harmed because he was so young on facebook.

6. Facebook in self-esteem
Here I found the link, http://www.cnn.com...
Try refuting it now please.

7. Organ donation
It is just simple logic that people have donated organs on facebook. Is my opponent saying that of the 275,000 people tagged with organ donation status, none of them have died since the feature launched? It is still a number, and that is lives being saved.

I don't know why my links keep breaking. Here is the source http://www.npr.org...


Here are all the sources you wanted. Remember if the source is broken try deleting the stuff around the % in the URL. If not, I don't know what the issue is sorry.

1. Self esteem on facebook

2. Organ donation
http://www.npr.org...
3. Facebook helps you connect with friends
http://www.briansolis.com...
4. Facebook starts movements
http://www.nytimes.com...
5. Facebook helps businesses
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
I couldn't find the houston chronicle source. These articles cover the main things though. Also, that argument is not really reliant on a source... you and me can easily see that facebook has advertisments and that facebook has a "pages" feature. Just log on and see yourself.

Vale!
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave! I think I should perform a final review of the major points that I gave in this debate. If I can show that my points were well-defended during the debate, then a Con vote is the most justified. So, let's check it out!

Axiom: The Drug Analogy
The purpose of this analogy was to demonstrate a rebuttal to Pro's point. Pro argued that the harm Facebook causes to its users doesn't matter because it only happens to an (alleged) minority of people. I pointed out that something can be considered harmful even if it only causes harm to a minority of people who use it. My example of this was the drug Baycol. It was pulled from the market because it lead to death and ill health in some people who used it. Did most people who use it get harmed? No. But doesn't it feel absurd to argue that the drug wasn't harmful! Yes! Why wouldn't we apply the same logic to Facebook?

Pro's response to this was to argue that the drug Baycol has effects that Facebook does not have, so the analogy is invalid. But, this seems to miss the point. It's not about the type of harm. The point was that it caused harm in a minority of people, yet was thought of as being harmful. This criticism wasn't engaged by Pro in the next round, and instead he tried a different way of disproving the analogy.

This time, Pro argued that the analogy doesn't work because the drug causes serious harm to people, while Facebook doesn't. You'll notice that this just begs the question: why doesn't Facebook cause serious harm? I, for one, think of binge-eating, depression, stress, anxiety, and cyber bullying as serious issues. Maybe Pro doesn't think the same way.

In conclusion, I believe that I upheld this axiom to be true for the debate. Therefore, Pro's points about how the effects of using Facebook only occur in an (alleged) minority of people are not valid. If that's the case, then my points about anxiety, depression, self-consciousness, and stress all count towards my side when it's time to vote.

Facebook's Age Policy
In my opening round, I pointed out that millions of underage children are creating Facebook accounts. The sources I provided indicated that this is dangerous to the well-being of underage children. So, Facebook is causing harm to millions of children because it's not doing enough to keep them off their site. Why isn't it doing enough? Because it's registration form is trivially easy for underage child to bypass. All they have to do is select a DOB different from their real one in order to sign up.

Pro's response was to say there is no way good way to enforce the age restriction. I think this is clearly false. At one point in Facebook's history, nobody but college students were allowed to sign up for their website. Clearly, they understand how to keep undesireables off their site. Yet, they can't even fix the fatal flaws with their registration that I pointed out above. It almost seems like they're not even trying to keep underage kids off the site. Considering Mark Zuckerberg's public statements about removing the underage rule, this doesn't seem too implausible.

Pro also argued that there's no reason to think it's a bad thing for underage kids to be on Facebook. This is wrong, as I provided quotes from a cyber security expert on why it's dangerous for underage kids to be on Facebook. I'll repost the quotes.

"There's a lot of dangers -- there's adults, there's bullies, there's malware," said Fox. "A 10-year-old is ill-equipped to deal with any of those things."

Pro also said there was not one solution to fixing the underage children problem. My question is: who said there was?

I think my arguments on this point outweighed Pro's.

Facebook and Organ Donation
After four rounds, Pro finally gave us a source for his claim about Facebook and organ donation. Sadly, his own source shows that this isn't as beneficial as he's making it sound.

'But, in an op-ed recently published by the Hastings Center, Sadler argued that much more needs to be done to realize the power of social media networks like Facebook.

He cited data from Donate Life California, the official organ donor registry in the state. On a normal day around 70 people in California register with Donate Life. In the 24 hours following Facebook's announcement on May 1, almost 4,000 registered.

However, those numbers came back down just as fast as they shot up. By May 6, the number of Californians registering with Donate Life was back to its usual level.

For social media campaigns like Facebook's to work, people need to be continuously prompted, Sadler said. "This is not a top of the mind thing that people think about," he told Shots. 'I'm not surprised that it didn't have the staying power only because the prompts and the cueing weren't repeated. There weren't reminders.' '

I think that's enough said.

Facebook and Movements

I agreed with Pro that Facebok can start movements. The problem is that Pro never demonstrated the frequency of these movements, how much good they did, etc. It's pointless to argue that this is a benefit from using Facebook when he never shows why it's actually good.

One billion people use Facebook

Pro argues that if Facebook was harmful, so many people wouldn't use it. I think that this logic is overtly invalid. Just think about the number of things that people know are harmful but use anyways. People know fast food is bad for the body, yet they eat it. People know heart attack burgers are bad, yet they eat. It seems clear that people can know something is bad for you and do it too.

It's also possible that somebody can know Facebook is harmful, but can't bring themselves to stop using it. Pro's response to this is to argue that Facebook isn't psychologically addictive. This is just silly, because in theory, anything can be psychologically addictive. Why arbitrarily exclude Facebook?

Facebook and Physical Health

Pro more or less concedes that Facebook has a bad effect on physical health. He just argues that you could experience that in other places too. Like I showed with my analogy, this is a poor way of reasoning. Should I let a lion bite my hand because I could have the same experience in North Africa as well? No! The fact that the harm caused by X can be experienced in situations Y, Z, and A, does not mean that there is no harm caused by X. Pro's response is a non-sequitur.

Conclusion

I didn't give a point-by-point answer to Pro. Why? Because many of the things he said in response to some of my arguments were also said to others. So, I've just attacked the general idea behind them rather than waste time on all of them. An example of this? The 'only a minority were harmed' argument.

My opinion is that my case outweighed Pro, and that he didn't really meet his BOP.

Vale!










Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Willhelmes 11 months ago
Willhelmes
Everything you say and do on Facebook is watched by the government and by employers after your job interviews
Posted by AntieChrist 11 months ago
AntieChrist
FAAAAACCCCCCCEEEEEEEE BOOOOOK
onece whan i wus reeeal cool i wis on da facesbok an i thownd it relly bad an ip waz actally nut da bess buut dem i hads ideer an gotted all da intnetz am than gop da rael chil3d myspeyce
Posted by rotana.chey 11 months ago
rotana.chey
I personally think Facebook has more advantage than disadvantage. Until almost whoever on the web had an account on Facebook which clearly means that Facebook has benefit and influence on us. Of course Facebook has a bad side but as you may know Facebook's good side might have outweighed it. So basically speaking, those good side are world wide communication , sharing information, creating new experience and so on --- just to name a few. Due to these advantages I believe that Facebook has more good side than bad side.
Posted by nerdygirl188 11 months ago
nerdygirl188
Call me a pessimist, but I'm shocked no one talked about online predators....
Posted by nil 11 months ago
nil
You know about every thing has an advantage side & and a disadvantage side.so, Facebook has also. at1st I would like to justify both sides,then I go for my preferable side.we all knw that Facebook is a social networking site which is invented by Mark Zuckerburg.through FB we can found our very old friends who were our nursery friend,or teenage friend.etc.another thing is we may get news of many kind of Ads,Upcoming TV shows,Movies etc.we may follow our favourite Actor,Actress etc.ww
Posted by TheSlenderMan 1 year ago
TheSlenderMan
Great debate, both of you! I believe it's up to the individual experience and maturity of that person. Just like with alcohol. For some it's a horrible addiction that ruins their lives. For others, it's a way to relax in the evening while sipping a glass and watching a television show.
It's all in how one allows it to control them. The better you know the thing you're dealing with the better you can control it instead of it controlling you.

If I were to say if it was all around more harmfull than good I would say harmfull. This is one reason it should be used by already matured people who are mature enough to not let it control them...if used by immature kids (or immature adults) then they are likely to continue that way allowing it to cause them harm.
Posted by staraa 1 year ago
staraa
Facebook is most awful thing it just deviate us from moral values and society or the world in which we live. As people doesn't have time to talk with their families but spend hours in talking with persons they didn't even know,so what is the meaning of such a thing which takes us away from our families in a world where there is no place for them. Moreover it wash up the minds of the teenagers. So Facebook is awful.
Posted by dragonb95 1 year ago
dragonb95
can you vote please?
Posted by jimcapalbo123 1 year ago
jimcapalbo123
I beilieve the instigator won this debate. His information seemed more credible and his reasons were supported more indepthly than the contender. Both sides had great points and it seemed like a good quality debate, but in the end the instigator made a stronger argument.
Posted by jimcapalbo123 1 year ago
jimcapalbo123
I beilieve the instigator won this debate. His information seemed more credible and his reasons were supported more indepthly than the contender. Both sides had great points and it seemed like a good quality debate, but in the end the instigator made a stronger argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
dragonb95TyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt Con won in arguments decisively. Conduct to Pro for doing a good job.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 1 year ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
dragonb95TyphlochactasTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought this was a different debate to say the least. Both did well but I think Con won. Sorry.