The Instigator
favored101
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.

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 8 votes the winner is...
Johnicle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,303 times Debate No: 6107
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

favored101

Pro

Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA...
- They are good because they increase communication opportunities
Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does.
- They stimulate our economy
Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities.
- They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons
Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our "cliques" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not "freinds" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.
Johnicle

Con

Thanks for this debate and good luck:

DEFINITIONS:

-Impact
-From: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
-"To have a direct effect or impact on."

Resolutional Analysis: The burden of proof lies with pro.
-Within this debate, it is pro's job to prove that there is some sort of positive impact on the United States. Therefore, if I prove negative effect or neutral effect, I ought to win.

-Therefore, my claim is simple: That social networking websites have a NEUTRAL impact on the United States.

A. Social Networking Sites are simply a tool.
- Since Social Networking Sites are generally meant for friends meeting up with each other and sharing information, you will see that these sites are simply a tool for people to use. Thus, this debate asks the question, does the tool have an impact? And the answer is no. You see, it is the PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL that determines what kind of impact exists. A person could use these sites well and nothing bad could happen, OR someone could anonymously abuse someone to the point of suicide on these same sites. For example: A hammer is a tool. A person could use the hammer to build a house. But a person could also use the same hammer to murder someone. Do either of these actions determine the impact of the tool? No… Therefore, it is the PEOPLE that determine whether it will impact anyone positively or negatively.

B. Definition (of impact) places no impact on Social Networking Sites.
-How can something have a ‘direct effect' on something when it doesn't have a brain? It doesn't think. And it therefore can't positively or negatively impact anything.

In the end of this debate, ask yourself…

Does a hammer build a house or does a person build a house with a hammer?
Does a hammer kill someone, or does a person kill a person with a hammer?

Does a gun kill someone, or does someone kill a person with a gun?
Does a gun protect a family from a robber, or does someone protect a family from a robber with a gun?

Since the answer to all of these is the latter of the two, you will see that it is the PERSON that has the impact, not the tool.

Therefore, I urge you to vote CON!
Debate Round No. 1
favored101

Pro

Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States.
Without it,
-our economy would not be where it is today
-communication opportunities would be smaller
-socially we would be closed to trying new things

Going on to refute my opponent..
- although social networking sites are just a tool, without them..
businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish
advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers
the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently
- because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect

Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present

As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote
Johnicle

Con

Line-by-line:

"Our economy would not be where it is today"-->
1. There is no evidence for this. Or analysis for that matter. But if you think about this logically, you will see that the advertisements that ‘increased the economy' would have been used in other places.
2. This would only show that in THIS case, it was used properly. So the hammer built the house (if you will), but you're forgetting about the people who have been cyber-bullied or even pushed to the point of suicide. This just shows how it can be used good and bad and therefore it can't be determined if it is a positive impact or a negative impact.

"Communication opportunities would be smaller"-->
1. All tools have their benefits. Even a gun. EVEN A NUCLEAR WEAPON. But that does not mean that there is an automatic positive effect.
2. I'm not advocating elimination of Social Networking Sites.
3. You can still call someone! This debate just goes to show that with great power comes great responsibility. But you can not just up and vote PRO because some people use that responsibility properly.
4. Communication increase in a computer to computer basis increases blatant bullying. This is because it is easier to type what you think rather than to say it. Look to the girl that was pushed to suicide because of social networking sites. And this was all made possible by an ‘increase in communication.' AGAIN, it is how you use it.

"businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish
advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers
the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently"

-Businesses can always assemble over the internet OR in real life (sorry if I come off as old fashioned.)
-TV advertisements still exist.
-The efficiency is as good as it can be bad. All it takes is a click of the send message before I just told someone how much I hate them. AGAIN, it is how you use it. No direct effect (impact) happens from something that doesn't have a brain.

The people with the brains have the actual effect. Whether they call someone, or use a social networking site, or whether they make fun of someone on facebook, or in real life. It is the PEOPLE with the impact.

Therefore, vote CON!

Thanks for this debate!
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ProspectLearning 8 years ago
ProspectLearning
The CON arguments are bordering on a Kritik and those aren't allowed in Public Forum debate.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Pro - I gave this point to Pro because I thought Con's arguing that a tool doesn't have a direct impact was arguing semantics in my opinion.

Spelling and Grammar - Con - Pro didn't format very well with random line breaks everywhere.

Convincing Argument - Con - Con was correct in pointing out that Pro's burden was to show positive impact. Pro's arguments were not substantiated and easily refuted by Con. Con showed, quite clearly, that social networking web sites do not appear to have a net positive impact. Furthermore, Pro did not qualify what "positive" might be.

Reliable Source - Tie - Neither side used sources to back their arguments. Con referenced a definition, but it's not worth the point in my opinion.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Scribs 8 years ago
Scribs
favored101JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Laedirin 8 years ago
Laedirin
favored101JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Q5 8 years ago
Q5
favored101JohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by BrianErickson 8 years ago
BrianErickson
favored101JohnicleTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by mini.dude_22 8 years ago
mini.dude_22
favored101JohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
favored101JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
favored101JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
favored101JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05