The Instigator
Raiutkarsh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

More the means of communication the less we communicate

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 2 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,243 times Debate No: 44981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Raiutkarsh

Pro

When was the last time you had a proper face to face conversation with any of your distant friends or relatives? And when was the last time you texted an email or a message even to a friend sitting next to you? Compare the answers of both these questions and you will get to know, what or precious electronic means of communication are doing to us.
Technological advancements have dramatically changed the way people communicate. With all the powerful social technologies at our fingertips we are more "connected" but potentially more disconnected than even before....
xXCryptoXx

Con


Communicate – To share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas. [1]



Now, my opponent’s argument seems to be rather incoherent. After all, the very debate resolution he supports is almost contradictory.


I want my opponent to state that he truly believes that people communicated more one hundred years ago than we do now.


Communicated with others has increased exponentially with the scientific breakthroughs humanity have been experiencing over the course of the last twenty years.


My opponent brings up a point of the last time I communicated with a distant relative of mine as if that question works against me. Fact is, with so many means of communication I could send a message, or give a phone call to nearly anyone in my family right now. This opposes to a time when just a simple message to someone who didn’t live in your area could take weeks to reach them and weeks to be given a response.


Now we have the internet which allows mass communication throughout the entire world! Hell, you and I right now debating; this is a great example of the kind of scientific advancements in communicated allowing people to socialize across great distances.


News media has taken over and allows mass information to flow throughout the world like never before.


It doesn’t matter how humans socially communicate, rather what is priority is that humans are always socially connected with anyone from anywhere, which is something we can do now that we couldn’t do just a few decades ago.


I await your response.



[1] https://www.google.com...


Debate Round No. 1
Raiutkarsh

Pro

First of all, what my opponent has said clearly highlights his misinterpretation of the topic and also of my argument. I have not started this debate just for the sake of criticizing such technological advancements that help us to connect with each other.

My stand is very clear. I totally agree that social technology has broken all the geographical barriers enabling us to interact with more people than even before. But like any revolutionary concept, it has also spawned a set of new barriers and threats. Is the focus now on communication quantity versus quality? Superficiality versus authenticity? In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social which we need to understand.

The fact is that we have become so engrossed in social media that we are left with very little time to spend with our parents and friends. Moreover if a person primarily communicates 'virtually', he is never able to build meaningful friendships or relations. We are no longer the deep thinkers we used to be. Who has the time to think?

My rival gave the example of us debating right now to prove his point. But I would like to ask him a question. Don't you think that this debate would have been far more successful and worthy if going on face to face? I know its quite hypothetical since you hardly know me......but, if I would have been debating with any of my known friends, then wouldn't it have been much better if we directly conversed sitting opposite to each other?

I am certainly not blaming the technology for all this. What we need to understand is that technology is meant to be our slave, we are not meant to be enslaved by technology. Friends, I seriously doubt whether we are still able to talk to someone that skillfully as earlier with full expression of our non verbal-cues!!!
xXCryptoXx

Con


The problem isn’t that I have misinterpreted the arguments, rather you are not arguing for the debate resolution. The resolution isn’t whether communication has reduced in quality over time; the resolution is that the more means we have to communicate the less we communicate. All I have to argue is that not only is this resolution untrue, but that the reciprocal of the resolution is true. Rather, the more means humanity has to communicate the more humanity communicates.


This being said, most of my opponent’s response is entirely irrelevant to the debate topic and he does nothing to refute my own arguments I presented.


“The fact is that we have become so engrossed in social media that we are left with very little time to spend with our parents and friends.”


Why? You have to remember that social media isn’t just “you” and the world. It is “you,” those around you (friends, family, ect.), and then the world.


Just take a look at social networking sites such as Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. All of these allow me to spend time communicating with friends and family that I can’t see at the moment in person. It allows even more communication with those I care about then I could traditionally have. In addition it allows me to socialize with others whom I don’t even personally know, allowing me to build relationships I would have been able to have.


“Moreover if a person primarily communicates 'virtually', he is never able to build meaningful friendships or relations.”


Eharmony.


All jokes aside, there is absolutely no empirical reason to believe that you can’t build relationships starting off in the virtual world and building to a level as personal as with the people directly around you. Stop thinking of people as some sort of virtual thing, and start thinking about them as people. Once you have done that you can understand that it doesn’t matter how the relationship was built.


“We are no longer the deep thinkers we used to be. Who has the time to think?”


Lolwut. Have you SEEN DDO? This is a social site that is chalk full some of the smartest people you will ever meet.


“Don't you think that this debate would have been far more successful and worthy if going on face to face?”


You’re thinking about it wrong. Imagine if DDO never existed. That would mean we never would have had the chance to debate this at all, depriving me of this social experience. That is an example of how advancements in communication have allows more social opportunities. Again, this isn’t an argument about the quality of communication; it is about how the more means we have been given to communicate, the more we communicate.



I await your response.


Debate Round No. 2
Raiutkarsh

Pro

Well, I am bound to repeat to the same thing again. Actually the thing is that we both are having entirely different perspectives of the debate resolution. By saying that "more the means of communication, the less we communicate", I obviously don"t mean that we have stopped communicating or even began to do that!

What I mean is that, with such a whopping increase in the communicating mediums, our ability to socialize in person has declined drastically. It has been even proven by many scientific researches, so you can"t just blow it up in the air.

"It doesn't matter how humans socially communicate" "".This is what you said in the first round. But my friend, it matters and it matters a lot. As I have previously said, these advancements have made us connected to a lot of people which earlier was nearly impossible to do, but, it has also made us potentially more disconnected. We have stopped socializing in person as much as we did before.

You yourself gave the example of Facebook as a wonderful way of socializing. Right? So tell me, out of all your Facebook friends, how many of them have you talked once? For God"s sake how many of them are even known to you?...... So does it still sound to you as an "amazing" way to build meaningful and long-lasting relations?

I totally agree with you that DDO is a probably the best platform to interact with some of the smartest people on earth. But at the same time, I don"t consider it as a viable option to build friendships when compared to meeting such people in person. (Again it"s hypothetical, but try to consider it on a much smaller geographical scale!)

Finally I would like to conclude by saying that technology has changed our lives forever in quite an amazing way. Now we are able to interact with anyone and anywhere. But we have to understand that it is not and can never be an alternative to personal socialization (that is communicating face to face with someone).

I really think that in today's era, we should take advantage of every opportunity to practice our communication skills, so that when important occasions arise, at least we will have the style, the sharpness and the emotions to affect other people!!
xXCryptoXx

Con

The resolution was that the more means we have to communicate the less we communicate.

You cannot change the resolution by saying "Oh well I meant that." No, that does not fly here.

Communicate – To share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas.

So reworded, the resolution reads:

The more means we have
to share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas, the less we
share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas.

This is what we are arguing. you cannot change the resolution to be about the quality of communication when the resolution has nothing to do with that.

You continue to argue from your point of view when your point of view is entirely irrelevent to the debate topic at hand. You even go as far as to concede my arguments and continue arguing about the quality of communication in this modern day.

If that was what you wanted to debate you should have worded the resolution something like:

The more means we have to communicate through technology, the more the quality in communication decreases.

I cannot fall victim to something you did not clarify in the resoution, and because of that I win this debate.

Otherwise, you could win this debate because of your own misunderstanding of the resolution you made.



Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 3 years ago
Matt_L
RaiutkarshxXCryptoXxTied
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's arguments are the only ones that make sense with regard to the debate. Con also listed the only source.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
RaiutkarshxXCryptoXxTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not uphold his own resolution, which was that more available means of communication results in less communication. He acknowledged that more communication occurs today than it did in the past, trying to salvage his side of the debate by stating that this communication is of inferior quality and that social media can inhibit face-to-face discussion. However, no definitions or nuances to the resolution were presented in the opening round that would allow such a change of stance. Con gets source points for giving the only source, but I award them hesitantly. In the future, please link to an actual dictionary website or cite an actual dictionary. Google's definitions tend to be somewhat mediocre. Both sides should have used far more sources. Pro loses S&G points for obvious reasons.