The Instigator
marcusfexix
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
jedieglet
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is Facebook on it's way out in the next few years, as some have predicted?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
marcusfexix
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 45732
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

marcusfexix

Pro

Title says it all.

I'll take the "Pro" position that it will be mostly relocated to the same pile as other such sites.

R1- Acceptance
R2 - Statements
R3 - Rebuttal

No real win or lose here, but a friendly discussion about the fate of a website. :)
jedieglet

Con

i think facebook has way more then a few more years before it goes out. Socal nettworking sites like these just don't go out they get replaced like facebook did with myspace i mean come on whos been on myspace lately.
Debate Round No. 1
marcusfexix

Pro

I appreciate you taking this up, and good luck!

As has been widely reported, Facebook has seemed to reach some plateau of users, as a model recently demonstrated.

Link to Time Magazine here : http://business.time.com...
Link to the actual study from Princeton here: http://arxiv.org...

While it's been said that this could occur as early as 2017, personally I believe 2019 or 2020 would be more accurate, and for a few reasons.

With regards to the study itself, should it follow the same path, Facebook would likely suffer this fate. This, of course, isn't written in stone, but does deserve review.

With regards to Con's statement about the replacement of sites like Myspace, the exodus from that site was incredibly quick. Within 6 months of Facebook becoming more mainstream and accepted, Myspace was little more than a virtual ghost town. Such migrations to new, fun technologies and sites is often rapid, and when users migrate to other platforms, the departure is just as rapid. While there were some efforts to revive Myspace, such things have not come to pass, and it looks unlikely that any venture in that direction would yield a significant increase in their traffic.

Bearing this in mind, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that other, newer websites in the future (both ones not yet developed or active or even those that are currently active) would then come onto the scene and take traffic away from places like Facebook. There were/are contenders, including Twitter (who seek to replace it in multiple avenues), Google+, which so far has not yielded such strong influence, and others.

Link for Google+ replacing FB: http://socialmediagen.com...
Link for items which may do so: http://www.businessesgrow.com...

While I personally don't believe that Google+, or even Twitter, are going to accomplish this in the short term, it stands to reason than when the next "Facebook" of its time comes out, that there would be another exodus to such social media, leaving Facebook in the same situation as Myspace found itself.

Also, one must consider that the technology, social media, and internet landscapes change regularly. A decade ago, social media integration (as deep as it is now), wasn't something regularly considered. People are always looking to create the "next big thing", and going after giants like Facebook is a way to certainly do it.
jedieglet

Con

thanks you to. i think that we can not predict when ffacebook will die out because in order to die out it will have to be replaced by another.
Debate Round No. 2
marcusfexix

Pro

In responding to Con's Round 2...

It is certain that we cannot predict a specific date and time (such as it'll die out on April 12th, 2018, and so on). The study, along with other commentary, is meant for more of a guideline to a time frame where the demise of Facebook is likely.

With regards to the replacement of Facebook, since we're early into 2014, there's really no way to tell in the next 3-6 years if something can, or will replace Facebook and relocate it to the Myspace section of the internet. It's difficult to name sites, technologies, or other items which would replace it when they do not yet exist. This, however, does not mean that they -will not- exist, but only that right now we do not have something to replace it with.

As mentioned previously, the changing landscape of technology, social media, and the Internet make it anyone's game. A good example is World of Warcraft. While it's still standing at the top of the pile, companies are dead set to find themselves a "WoW Killer", and work diligently to make it happen. Eventually, it could, but so far WoW has managed to stand tall. I believe the same thing will happen with Facebook, in that it'll stand tall for a good while yet, but eventually, it could happen.

Between the changing landscape, people looking for the next and newest thing, as well people looking for sleeker (and honestly, less advertisement loaded) sites like Twitter, etc...I think we're only a few years from Facebook taking this 80% dive, though I'd conservatively estimate it at 50% personally.
jedieglet

Con

I don't think your comprehending what I'm saying my friend, I'm saying that to have something die like a social networking site you need to have another to help make it die out. We do not have very advanced tech do you see us tracking to another planet outside the solar system no I mean come on the farthest thing that we've launched just barley made it past Pluto in 2010. So we do not have very advanced tech just yet. Thes are my closing arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by marcusfexix 3 years ago
marcusfexix
Thank you Jedi, it was fun. Glad we had a chance, and I look forward to it again in the future. :)
Posted by jedieglet 3 years ago
jedieglet
THank you your arguments were very convincing to i hope to debate against you some other time.
Posted by marcusfexix 3 years ago
marcusfexix
For Con,

I do see where you're coming from, in that in order for FB to take the dive, that there needs to be something there which does it. I get that. My point was, because we can't see 5 years into the future, I can't name the thing you're asking for. Beyond this, my point was that sites like Myspace took the same route, and eventually were replaced with things like FB. Historically, sites like that are replaced in cycles, just like other internet items. For example, how many people can we name, between us, that use AOL for internet? I don't know anyone who does, though AOL was "the" internet company of choice.

Things change, and especially with tech and social media, sometimes very rapidly. It's not to be underestimated.

Good debate though, and thank you for participating!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
marcusfexixjediegletTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were backed by Sources. Con did not refute nor made much arguments but stated opinions of his own.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
codemeister13
marcusfexixjediegletTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a few spelling and grammatical errors while Pro did not. In terms of arguments, Con failed to refute many of Pro's points successfully and, instead, aimed to just make rather weak refutations instead of offering contentions of their own. Pro actually listed sources, including one to a study of this topic.