The Instigator
Adilet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Smithereens
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Internet addiction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 8/31/2012 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,057 times Debate No: 25380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

Adilet

Pro

Hi everybody, I've just created this debate and arguments are about 8.000 charaters long and it's my first debate topic. So I've divided it into 3 rounds,I would like to say thanks for my oponet in advance.
Smithereens

Con

Greetings Affirmative team.
I have noted that your topic is rather insubstantial and so If I may request that you reword the topic to make it more definite in your opening argument I would be thankful.

From what I think the topic is: 'Internet addiction is real.'
I'm not sure, it is up to pro to define the topic now.

In future, to make things easier, I recommend pro to state a topic in debates that are statements which can be agreed to or disagreed to, like: 'The earth is flat.' One can agree to it or disagree. In this topic: 'Internet addiction.' There isn't anything I can agree with or disagree with, so you will have to state what your intended topic is in round 2.

Please be reasonable, I don't wish to debate you if you make the topic something like: 'Internet addiction is the topic.' And secure your win like that.

My thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Adilet

Pro

So first of all I'm glad that you accepted my offer. I wish you good luck. Now let's debate this topic "Internet Addiction is a serious threat". Thus my point of view will be pro/for, I agree that it is a real problem of todays children, even adults.
Definitions
In�ter�net
noun
a vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide (usually preceded by the ). The Internet includes commercial, educational, governmental, and other networks, all of which use the same set of communications protocols.

ad�dic�tion
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
Nowadays the internet is getting more and more popular and peoples' life have changed since the internet exist. Mainly because it is very convenient, easy and there are lots of fun for instance online games, chatting. But there is one big problem "addiction".
According to the statistics we can see that how it has been growing up since 1995.There were 16 millions number of users, while presently it is significantly increased to 2,280 millions. It is therefore aparently seen that almost half of earth population are using the internet, regards with 32% WORLD POPULATION. Although, people are playing online games in the internet, which is lead to be addicted, consequently they are hurting their health, in addition they are wasting their time, while peers are physically and educationally developing themselves. Thus todays youth, living virtually life more than real,instead. They are suffering from shortage of physical inactivity, real social communication, psychological wellbeing, for many depression, self-esteem, loneliness.
To sum up, people have to pay more attention to this problem, 'cause it is also associated with dsease type.
sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.internetworldstats.com...
http://www.bbc.com...
http://www.internetworldstats.com...
Smithereens

Con

I accept the definition given by the affirmative team simply because it stumps his own claim, as I will point out later on.

Although my opponents arguments are rather unclear, I will proceed to attack them nevertheless. He talks mainly about Internet addiction from the viewpoint that it exists indefinitely, so my debate will mainly be about rebutting and putting forth the claim: 'There is no such this as internet addiction.' That will invalidate his entire case.

Addiction is observed to be a state where the affected person suffers from either physical or psychological dependencies on a substance[1]. This means an abuse of a substance that consequents physical or psychological harm to the affected person. The negative consequences can also be a certain level of tolerance to the material which causes withdrawal symptoms to the user.

My main problem with my opponents use of the phrase 'internet addiction,' is that he provides arguments to support his claim that are so weak, I have the right to dismiss them with a wave of my hand. The statistics he states are not linked with any of his arguments and do not support any of his claims. His assertions therefore, are unsupported. What can be raised without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But first, I would like to examine more closely what he is trying to say: 'half of earth population are using the internet, regards with 32% WORLD POPULATION.' This is where his chain of statistics end. Everything after this is just his arguments. Now, I must ask, how does the statistics brought up by the affirmative prove anything about statistics. ALL the statistics merely refer to the numbers of internet users in the world, but nothing when it comes to anything about internet addiction. These statistics are completely useless and irrelevant to this debate.

Note this statement made by the affirmative immediately after the statistics: 'people are playing online games in the internet, which is lead to be addicted...' Overlooking this rather poor grammar, (which I assume to be caused by his E.S.L.) the affirmative is claiming that playing online games leads to addiction. Evidence? None what-so-ever.

Online games are not addictive. Unless the affirmative can provide a case where it has been shown to be, that claim will stand. There have been no reports of people who suffer from the tolerance effect that is associated with every form of addiction. Furthermore, addictions are chemical by nature, they are only known to be caused by the activation of neurotransmitters that dictate a certain emotion or response.[2] This chemical which is released is called Dopamine, and causes the sensation of euphoria.[3][4]
Bearing this information in mind, note how gaming online does not fool neurons into releasing dopamine. The sensation of pleasure when shooting someone in FPS or any other game is actually completely genuine pleasure. No tampering involved.

'Consequently, they are hurting their health.' Unless my opponent will provide a shred of credible evidence to prove this I will assume it is false.

'they are wasting their time.' This is my opponents opinion on the matter. He thinks that online gaming is a waste of time. Maybe he will start a new debate on this matter, I don't know, but I honestly couldn't care less as it is irrelevant to the current topic.

His summary seems to contain some arguments, ill state them here.
'[Today's youth is] suffering from:
-shortage of physical activity
-real social communication
-psychological well being
-depression
-self-esteem
-loneliness'

Ill rebut them in that order,
-shortage of physical activity.
The affirmative team provides no link between this and internet addiction, no evidence to back it up, and no reasoning to show why it is relevant to his main argument.

-real social communication
Here, he is working from the assumption that we agree that socialising online is somehow inferior to every other form of communication. I disagree, but I will not pursue it as it is irrelevant to the topic, maybe if he provides a link from this argument to his main argument I will rebut.

-Psychological well being
The affirmative team is now making an unsupported claim that using the internet negatively impacts a person's well being. That argument would normally hold up if internet addiction actually existed as will be discussed soon

-depression
Again, no evidence at all to support this.

-self-esteem
I assume he means, lack of it, due to cyberbulling, which has nothing to do with internet addiction.

-loneliness
I judge this to be my opponents strongest argument, abuse of the internet (too much of it) causes you to be lonely. It will be covered by my first argument.

My arguments are:
1) There is no such thing as internet addiction.
2) If there was such thing as internet addiction, it does not harm us.
3) If it were to harm us, it is not a serious threat.

There is no such thing as internet addiction. As mentioned earlier, it is not physically possible to be addicted to the internet. I've mentioned how gaming causes the neuro-transmitter dopamine to be released for the sense of pleasure. This applies wherever euphoria occurs. As far as I'm concerned, there are no known cases where people are addicted to any other neurotransmitter.

An addiction requires dependency and tolerance to be present. Neither are present in terms of internet overuse. So how can you call it an addiction when its not?

Lets give my opponent the benefit of the doubt for a moment, assume there was such a thing as the ability to become addicted to the internet. The affected user suffers from dependency and withdrawal symptoms. (ridiculous as it sounds) I challenge my opponent then, to state how this addiction would be harmful to us. In addictions to drug use and alcohol, the person is harmed by the substance being abused. But if a person is addicted to the internet, there is nothing there that can harm him. He may have to forfeit a strong presence in the immediant social life, but such an addiction would cause him/her to replace it with an online social life. The user would therefore be a completely normal person, who just uses the internet much more than what is considered appropriate.

Furthermore, I also wish to argue that an internet addiction is beneficial to some people. The internet is the worlds largest cache of information, I'm not going to look for a source to back that up since it is obvious, my opponent can feel free to find evidence against that claim though.
The benefits of an internet addiction would be that:
a) The addicted person is extremely knowledgeable in his interested areas/topics
b) The person has a strong understanding of the internet and thus can find employment via that skill
c) The person has a strong presence online especially in social networking sites like facebook. This may give him/her a life.

My final point is that, giving my opponent even more benefit of the doubts and assuming it is possible to be harmed by an internet addiction, (which I have shown that it doesn't exist) then this harm ministered to them does not fit my opponents general argument that 'Internet addiction is a serious threat.' A serious threat is a threat that is serious, obviously. Its a threat that needs our immediant attention or else we will all suffer dire consequences. Assuming there is such thing as internet addiction, and assuming it is harming us, we don't need to say it is 'dire' or a 'serious threat' to us. That is just over-the-top. Its melodramatic, and doesn't need to be here in this debate.

Concluding, There is no such thing as internet addiction, my opponent did nothing to further his claim. Have a nice day.

[1]Angres DH, Bettinardi-Angres K (October 2008). "The disease of addiction: origins, treatment, and recovery". Dis Mon 54 (10): 696–721
[2]http://teens.drugabuse.gov...
[3]http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[4]http://www.utexas.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Adilet

Pro

I really appreciate and accept your arguments.
So you concluded that "There is no such thing as internet addiction" , I don't agree with you, because internet addiction is a really threat and it exists.
Ms Parker-Pope writes about various reports highlighting how technology is changing people. In one, she quotes cyber-psychologist Dr. Elias Aboujaode who says: "More and more, life is resembling the chat room." He said we are living in "virtual lifestyles" which is negatively affecting our real-life relationships. Nicki Dowling, a clinical psychologist from Melbourne University in Australia, concluded in a recent study that ten per cent of young people had what she called "Internet dependence".(10th June, 2010)
To start with, yeah I agree online games in some point of view are useful, but don't you think that adolescents more inclined to spend their time in front of computers and we can call it virtual life, don't we? In addition there were surveyed several youngsters who suffered from virtual gaming(internet) addiction. Thus 17 years-old young boy said that he felt like online games were "pulling him" away from the real world. Others said they had contemplated suicide or played for up to 20 hours per day. The obsessions came with real consequence for these young men. Some had damaged relationships with family members; one found himself unemployed and unable to dig out of a rut. So from this points of view we can clearly seen that firstly it affects negatively to peoples' health, they hurt themselves mentally because of the vioence in games, besides, it is harmfull for their eye to sit too many hours in front of the computer. Secondly they destroy their real-life, because of the internet they are willing to stay at home online, instead of going outside to communicate with friends (virtual communication is more different than the real communication, sometimes for virtual people run a really life communication is very difficult).Although CNN asked on of the scientist O'Brien about his opinion of the internet addiction, in general and he said "We think (Internet addiction) is something. I even went to Beijing to visit a hospital that is dedicated to what the Chinese call Internet addiction, and it was full of young men who had been brought in by their parents because they had been spending hours a day and neglecting their studies and their health, even, playing these various games. Typically it's "World of Warcraft" that they're playing. But they don't really have what we consider to be evidence (that this is a disorder)." Thus from his words we can see that it ruins youngsers regard to study, so can't we call that a type of addiction? Besides, let me give one dire example of internet or online game addiction "in China was a terrible case that was in the newspapers last year in South Korea, where this couple who had a real baby were so involved with the virtual baby and doing things with the virtual baby that they neglected their real live baby and the baby died. To me that's the most dire, horrible thing that I've ever heard of. These people were clearly obsessed with it but that doesn't tell me that they had a disorder that we could define scientifically." added O'Brien.
To be honest, the study of Internet addiction is still relatively new, but it really exist. The conception of this believes to be very similar to that of other common types of addictions. For the first time sitting online seems to be all right, but after several times it becomes a habbit, so little by little a person's unhealthy relationship become substituted substituted for their healthy ones.
In conclusion, we have to be aware that internet addiction does exist, so we should restrict ourselves sitting online, playing games and so on. If we don't barrier ourselves from virtual-life our life will be neither lifely nor meaningful.

So, by the way I sincerely respect your point of vision and thank you very much for accepting I mean for everything ^_^
Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com...
http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com...
http://news.legalexaminer.com...
Smithereens

Con

My opponent has failed to produce an valid argument.

He has not proven that internet addiction exists. What he says is that people show symptoms of addiction to the internet. Or else their actions are similar to people who have an addiction.

Since I do not have anything to rebut, I will further dismantle his attempts to show why internet addiction exists, which has already been thoroughly refuted by my previous post.

In his second paragraph, Pro cites and quotes various people who have commented on the issue of internet over-use in younger generations. Note how the closest to internet addiction these 'professionals' come is to admitting that there may be something called 'Internet dependence.' My opponent uses this as proof to say that internet addiction exists. Well, the obvious truth is that these people never once mention the ability to be addicted to the internet and do not give any information at all that backs up my opponents claim that internet addiction exists. These quotes are all completely useless to him!

In his main body of text, my opponent quotes a study that was conducted on people who he believed to be suffering from an addiction to gaming. He then goes on to say how these people suffered all sorts of negative consequences to their health due to spending too much time in front of a computer. He also says that these people contemplated suicide at times. But through all this he has failed to prove how this is internet addiction. These are simple stories of people who didn't use their time well at all. There are stories of this that relate everything imaginable that have nothing to do with any sort of addiction. This is no different.

From the way my opponent argues, I am given the impression that he believes 'addiction,' is any case where the affected person is constantly using a substance or performing an activity. I must remind him to re-check my arguments on what an addiction is, unless he wants to refute them, they will hold over the course of this debate.

His next big blunder was to take a quote from an interview of Mr. O'Brien and use it as proof to state that internet addiction is real. In his words: "We think [Internet addiction] is something." Now, you don't need to know anything about debating to know that this is an invalid source of evidence. For a start, Mr. O'Brien starts by saying 'We think,' implying that he has insufficient evidence to prove his claim. Secondly, the opinions of this gentleman do not hold any credibility in this debate and do not advance my opponents case at all. Thirdly, Mr. O'Brien makes the same mistakes as my opponent, (or else my opponent has learned from him). He works from the assumption that internet addiction is a scientifically asserted fact. In this case actually, Mr. O simply treats internet addiction as a description. So these people who he mentions use the computer so much it looks like they are addicted. He never provides any reasoning to show why the internet addiction exist. He never even attempts to. My opponent yet again cites useless sources and people in the vain attempt to support his case.

In the last part of his main body of text, My opponent explicitly states that internet addiction exists: 'the study of Internet addiction is still relatively new, but it really exist.' This study he refers to is not the study of internet addiction but the behaviour of people who over-use the internet. He makes no attempt to back up this claim but instead just refers to it as a habit, which is completely in league with my arguments. Thank you Pro for finally waking up.

My rebuttals end here, and normally I would defend my arguments or raise new material, but he has made no attempt to attack my second and third arguments, and my first I have defended in the rebuttals. So I guess I'll close up by again stating my arguments.

There is no such thing as internet addiction. As mentioned in round 2, it is not physically possible to be addicted to the internet. I've explained how gaming causes the neuro-transmitter dopamine to be released for the sense of pleasure. This applies wherever euphoria occurs. As far as I'm concerned, there are no known cases where people are addicted to any other neurotransmitter.

An addiction requires dependency and tolerance to be present. Neither are present in terms of internet overuse. So how can you call it an addiction when its not?

Lets give my opponent the benefit of the doubt for a moment, assume there was such a thing as the ability to become addicted to the internet. The affected user suffers from dependency and withdrawal symptoms. (ridiculous as it sounds) I challenge my opponent then, to state how this addiction would be harmful to us. In addictions to drug use and alcohol, the person is harmed by the substance being abused. But if a person is addicted to the internet, there is nothing there that can harm him. He may have to forfeit a strong presence in the immediant social life, but such an addiction would cause him/her to replace it with an online social life. The user would therefore be a completely normal person, who just uses the internet much more than what is considered appropriate.

Furthermore, I also wish to argue that an internet addiction is beneficial to some people. The internet is the worlds largest cache of information, I'm not going to look for a source to back that up since it is obvious, my opponent can feel free to find evidence against that claim though.
The benefits of an internet addiction would be that:
a) The addicted person is extremely knowledgeable in his interested areas/topics
b) The person has a strong understanding of the internet and thus can find employment via that skill
c) The person has a strong presence online especially in social networking sites like facebook. This may give him/her a life.

My final point is that, giving my opponent even more benefit of the doubts and assuming it is possible to be harmed by an internet addiction, (which I have shown that it doesn't exist) then this harm ministered to them does not fit my opponents general argument that 'Internet addiction is a serious threat.' A serious threat is a threat that is serious, obviously. Its a threat that needs our immediant attention or else we will all suffer dire consequences. Assuming there is such thing as internet addiction, and assuming it is harming us, we don't need to say it is 'dire' or a 'serious threat' to us. That is just over-the-top. Its melodramatic, and doesn't need to be here in this debate.

Concluding, There is no such thing as internet addiction, my opponent did nothing to further his claim. Have a nice day.

(An after thought, my opponent used material which was copied straight from an exterior website without actually indicating that he got it from there. -'This 17 years-old young boy said that he felt like online games were "pulling him" away from the real world. Others said they had contemplated suicide or played for up to 20 hours per day. The obsessions came with real consequence for these young men. Some had damaged relationships with family members; one found himself unemployed and unable to dig out of a rut.' From http://edition.cnn.com......
Depending on what country you live in, this may not be legitimate. For the purposes of this debate, I ask you to refrain from copying directly from a website or exterior source without permission or without indicating that it is someone else's material).
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 4he11y 1 year ago
4he11y
wow. Wish i could debate like con. so good. but pro did a good job too. wow wow wow.
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
I hate it when no one votes
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
Lets vote Con people! :D
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
If pro has difficulty with the English language then I apologise for talking about neuro-science. But since its not rocket science, im sure you will cope quite nicely.
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
My last argument had 2 characters to spare :P
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
I am aware that you sent me a message via something, but the page doesnt exist anymore. Not tottaly sure, cuz im not a computer whiz, but ah well
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
Oh, it would be polite of me to say hi?
how are you doing?
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
If its ok with my opponent, i would like to debate 'Internet Addiction is real.'
Please dont feel obliged to make that your topic, but I just find it interesting. I fear however, that such a topic may lead to a brawl ove the definition of addiction. So, you choose whatever you wish.

Good luck.
Posted by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
"con would have to 'debate' that internet addiction is not bad for you"

One could debate that.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Adilet, message me if you want some help with debating at all, but in short your resolution is inexistent. Compare it to the common ones (or some major debates done):

September/October 2011 - Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.
November/December 2011 - Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
January/February 2012 - Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
March/April 2012 - Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
2012 NFL Nationals - Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.
2012 NCFL Nationals° - Resolved: The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations.

Notice how they all start with "resolved". That is the first thing that comes to mind. This isn't necessary, but it helps structure a resolution to some degree. "This House Wants/This House Believes That" is also a common way of structuring debates in British Parliamentary (my debate type).

Second, note how it is very clear and explicit what you argue. Take "Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool." If I was PRO, I would be saying that is true. If I was CON, I would be saying that is false. Very clear-cut. Your resolution, however, is very unclear. At first glance, I would assume it is whether internet addiction exists. However, it could easily be whether we should be addicted to the internet, whether addiction to the internet is good, whether we should do something to prevent/promote intervention, etc.

So have a look again at your resolution, and try to somewhat edit it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.