The Instigator
JustinKalaveras
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Facebook rocks

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 7 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 56189
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

JustinKalaveras

Pro

Facebook helps people get in touch
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing against the following resolution:

"Facebook rocks."

There are several relevant definitions of "rocks" as a verb, but contextually I can tell that my opponent intends for the slang definition of "rocks."

From Merriam-Webster: "to be extremely enjoyable, pleasing, or effective." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]

My opponent then claims in his opening argument that "Facebook helps people get in touch." What he is effectively doing is suggesting that (x) criteria, in this case the ability to communicate with people, bears out the claim that Facebook rocks. His argument is as follows:

P1: If Facebook possesses (x) criteria, it rocks.
P2: Facebook possesses (x) criteria.
C: Facebook rocks.

The primary problem with Pro's argument is that he possesses the burden of proof to demonstrate to us categorically that Facebook rocks. This is an appeal to objectivity, with the implication being that (x) criteria will allow us to ascertain objectivity.

However, this is not the case, because there is no objective criteria for what rocks or not. Even though one person may find that Facebook rocks, we cannot say categorically that it "rocks" -- which Pro must be able to do in order to fulfill his burden of proof -- if only person disagrees with that assertion.

For instance, let's say that, because whether something "rocks" is subjective, I personally disagree with Pro's claim: even if I accept that Facebook allows us to contact other people, I may not find that this means that Facebook rocks. I could say, for instance, that this is actually a negative quality because it allows other people far too much knowledge into my personal life. Let's say that my Facebook contains pictures of my family and friends, and I don't want people from my workplace checking on me, which they are able to do by virtue of the ease at which we can locate people on facebook.

The argument comes down to this:

P1: If the notion of whether something "rocks" is objective, a single person disagreeing either that the software rocks or that (x) criteria bears out that it rocks, it does not objectively rock.
P2: I disagree that software rocks and that (x) criteria bears out that it rocks.
C1: Facebook does not objectively rock.

Because Pro cannot prove categorically, objectively that Facebook rocks, and it is possible for people to disagree with what he has stated, which is nothing more than a mere opinion, he cannot fulfill his burden of proof.

Therefore, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinKalaveras

Pro

I'm pretty sure the millions of people on Facebook prove my point.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent, instead of addressing my syllogism, has in fact dropped all of my arguments and instead is making an ad populum fallacy: this is a "popular appeal" or an "appeal to the majority," the "The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]

This argument that my opponent is making is effectively the following:

P1: If the majority thinks it is so, it is so.
P2: The majority think it is so.
C1: Therefore, it is so.
P3: If the majority thinks that Facebook rocks, then it rocks.
P4: The majority think that Facebook rocks.
C2: Therefore, Facebook rocks.

This isn't true, as the truth of a claim is never determined by how many people believe it. If something is objectively true, it is true irrespective of whether people believe or disbelieve it.

Therefore is also some very important context that my opponent is leaving out, outside of merely the argument of subjectivity which he has obviously dropped.

The number of Facebook users has in fact been declining.

This is a quote from an article published in April 2013:

"In the last month, the world's largest social network has lost 6m US visitors, a 4% fall, according to analysis firm SocialBakers. In the UK, 1.4m fewer users checked in last month, a fall of 4.5%. The declines are sustained. In the last six months, Facebook has lost nearly 9m monthly visitors in the US and 2m in the UK." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]


This decline is even relevant to this day. This is from an article published in April of 2014:

"[I]n the US, Facebook now adds only 1 million people per quarter, and that number itself is likely in decline. In fact, growth does not appear to be accelerating in any of Facebook's user regions." [2. http://tinyurl.com...]

My opponent has completely ignored these declining numbers. But even if they weren't the case, his unsubstantiated ad populum fallacy would not hold.
Debate Round No. 2
JustinKalaveras

Pro

Thank you. As you can see my opponent just said if the majority thinks facebook rocks then it rocks. Right there i am given the win.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

At this point the debate is over, as my opponent has dropped my arguments and has not fulfilled his burden of proof.

On top of it all, he has completely misinterpreted and manipulated my argument. I never once said that, if the majority believes Facebook rocks, then it rocks. I pointed out that this was his argument, and I explained why it was nothing more than an ad populum fallacy. This is an argument that he has dropped.

The point still stands: not only has he not actually proven nor provided any numbers on the majority -- whereas I have provided evidence that in fact the amount of Facebook users has been declining -- but I have proven that, even if it WERE the case that the majority of people use facebook (even if they think it rocks, which isn't necessarily true, either), it would not follow that his case follows.

The point is, he cannot prove objectivity and has provided no reason as to why his statement is categorically true. Therefore, he has not fulfilled his BOP.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lunalilo 2 years ago
Lunalilo
x=calm, logical intelligence
If con possesses "x" then con ROCKS.

Con ROCKS.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 2 years ago
ChadIrvin
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no real arguments.
Vote Placed by Nzrsaa 2 years ago
Nzrsaa
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually made a substantive argument and used sources. Pro did neither of these and as such, Con gets arguments + sources.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided no argument and a half as$ed rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were much more solid and were never properly engaged, I gave conduct because Pro more or less forfeited and I will not reward that.
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points were weak, and con blew it apart. Con used sources. Pro get conducts because Con used Comic Sans.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire argument was an appeal to popularity, which is fallacious, as Con pointed out. Sources to Con being the only debater to use legitimate sources.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
JustinKalaverasJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Conduct point goes to pro because Con noob swiped but arguments are given to con because Pro did not address his arguments.