The Instigator
favored101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Scribs
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

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

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,624 times Debate No: 6108
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

favored101

Con

This is following PF rules
- Increases physical harm
So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society.
-Increases emotional harm
People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.
Scribs

Pro

thank you and good luck

Now to begin, social networking websites are meant to increase communication. When you use a system such as that you are accepting terms of agreement. These terms cover a whole basis of rules and liabilities. I have recently moved a great distance and these sites such as myspace have helped me keep in contact with my old friends and my new ones. Some of these are even a stress reliever for most kids. Kids will come home and go on and talk with there friends for hours and if they had a bad day, this may just help them with that. Also these sites increase creativity, basically by creating your own profile you are making your own PERSONAL site. It could be private or public. Now about privacy. Not everyone can get into your account if you don't want certain people to get in your account then you put it on private. Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends.
Debate Round No. 1
favored101

Con

This is following PF rules
- Increases physical harm
So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society.
-Increases emotional harm
People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them.

Because the resolution states "That, on balance" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate.

That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.
Scribs

Pro

Ok to start off I do believe that the amount of deaths isn't even close to the amount of deaths that we face because of other alternatives. People are killed everyday because of guns, should we ban guns. People in schools commit suicide every day, so should we ban talking in schools. Just because there is an exchange of words on this website don't mean it doesn't happen in other places. The only point that I have seen been state is the emotional harm, emotional harm can be found anywhere. We can't just ban something because it is supposedly bad.
You stated tha6t mothers have had to bury their children, but mothers have other reasons to bury their children. People say things at school, should mothers home school their kids. So why are we going to deprive the children that are responsible and have self esteem enough to not use these websites. Why ban something that is replicated more in other places.

Thank you

Now here is my question.

Without this form of communication we are entering the future. these websites are the future so why run from the future?

Also many children and teenagers are able to express themselves clearly so why is it that you take away their only form of expressing themselves?
Debate Round No. 2
favored101

Con

You stated: "social networking websites are meant to increase communication"
Although the original intentions may have been good, now they no longer increase communication in a good way.

You stated: "these sites increase creativity"
However, not all of the sites give you the power to use the layout of your choice.

You stated: "It could be private or public"
Although a person's profile may be private, whatever you put on the internet will stay there forever. That has a negative impact on the United States because it undermines the accomplishments that people have made over the years. For instance, say a kid was trying to run for president. At that time, all of his/her confidential files become a "free for all." If he/she had made any sort of comment while on a social networking website, that could jeopardize their political career.

You stated: "Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends."
However, teenagers, the main users of social networking web sites, are not at the age where they can truly determine who their friends are.

Honestly, the rebuttals that you presented make no sense.

Because I stated "So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites." You stated "Ok to start off I do believe that the amount of deaths isn't even close to the amount of deaths that we face because of other alternatives"
The fact that people die other ways, does not mean that many lives have been lost at the hand of social networking websites.

Because I stated "Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children" You stated "mothers have had to bury their children, but mothers have other reasons to bury their children."
Yes, that may be true, but that does no change the fact that children have died because of social networking sites.

You stated "Without this form of communication we are entering the future. These websites are the future so why run from the future?"
But, not only are we not running from the future, as you so eloquently stated, but we have already seen that success comes without social networking websites, and the death that comes with it, so why bother?

You stated "Also many children and teenagers are able to express themselves clearly so why is it that you take away their only form of expressing themselves?"
But, teenagers have so many other ways of expressing themselves, email/AIM (which are not social networking websites,) by phone (via text/voice/picture messaging and simply calling.) So, what was your point again?
I stand "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a NEGATIVE impact on the United States."
You have failed to actually argue on the impact that the social networking Web Sites have on the United States.
Therefore, I urge the voters to vote CON!
Scribs

Pro

I would first like to address the fact about how you can use AIM or e-mail. Just because it isn't a Social networking website, doesn't mean there won't be cyber-bullying and harsh words. There will always be these words flying around no matter what.

Next what I was trying to get across to my opponent was that just because someone got killed by a gun are we going to ban it. No we haven't yet and so why do it with something that causes little deaths when compared to tobacco which we also haven't banned even though we see a significant increase in teen and adult life alike.

Also you say "teenagers are not at the age to determine who my friends are". This may be very true but I can tell that if someone is making fun of me that they are not my friend.

You stated that why use the websites of the future when death comes with it. Death Came with nuclear weapons but we continue to research them and have them stockpiled.

You also stated that I did not argue the impact. I will not write any new information because my opponent can not refute these items.

I will say that there is a privacy statement that websites should have you look over. If there is not one then you shouldn't join. These sites leave you to your business. They won't use anything against you. Also to get that information you would have to hack into a lot of security and that is a crime.

Therefore I have refuted my opponent and one of the answers actually helped my case because it proved that words can be exchanged everywhere and anywhere. Therefore I urge you to vote in affirmation of the resolution.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kara 8 years ago
kara
They do not have a positive affect on the United States. Teenagers have been raped and murdered from meeting a man on websites like Myspace I bring up Myspace specificly becasue Myspace is what you see on the news all the time.I think we should have social networks but have a background check on every person who joins so they know there child is safe.I am totally disagree that social networks have made an positive affect on the United States
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Scribs 7 years ago
Scribs
favored101ScribsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00