Should People Spend Less Time On Computers And Other Electronic Devices?
Debate Rounds (1)
Before I start off, I have to admit that this debate is a little ironic. My topic is about using the computer less often, and yet I am using a computer to type this argument. Computers are very useful. They have modernized our world. However, people have been spending too long in front of the computer, and in front of other electronics in fact! According to bgr.com, people spend about 7.4 hours in front of electronics, Within this time, people spend about 103 minutes in front of a computer screen. Staring too long at a computer screen can have some serious negative side effects. A study led by the University of Gothenburg tested 4,100 Swedish men and women aged 20 to 24. These people who were using electronics suffered from problems such as depression, had trouble sleeping, and reduced preformance at work. All the more reason why people should cut their computer time, even if it is used for good things such as reasearching or studying!
Depression falls under the category, but my opponent says it"s a problem. But the way happiness and sadness works is that the more affliction one has, the more the good things intensifies, and the more good things one has, the more bad things intensifies. Therefore things that cause affliction, are positive things whilst things that supposedly make someone happy, are negative things. To illustrate this, someone who eats poop for a year but then finally eats at a fast food restaurant, would be astonished by how good it tastes. But someone who eats 5 star meals everyday, but then eats poop, the poop will kill them because of how bad it is compared to the meals previously eaten. Therefore depression is not a problem.
Having trouble is a good thing considering that people are really lazy, therefore since they can"t sleep, it would give them a chance to do something productive. Also for people who sleep all day and let time past by, this may help them not waste away their life, and notice how much limited time someone has.
Reduced work performance
Well this is very vague because it depends on the type of work being done. In some cases this is a good thing. If someone is working themselves to death, they may see their work declining and think to themselves that they need to rest. Therefore we solve pro"s trouble sleeping "problem". I also don"t know how this was conducted because it"s impossible to measure someone"s thought process and relate it their will. For example, someone who is partaking in this study is told to work, but the subject pretends like he is working at his normal pace, but in actuality he could just be willing refusing to the work.
"Computers are very useful. They have modernized our world."
This is true, people should spend more time on a computer so they familiarize themselves with how technology is advancing in the world today. They could apply the modern knowledge they get from computers to the real world. The computer is the best source for huge amounts of accessible information. "Pew researchers found 62 percent of the group got their news from social media websites like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheWorldIsComplicated 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off with interesting information like the fact that we spend over 7 hours on our electronic devices each day. He also provided a study that listed issues with the devices like trouble sleeping and working. Con provided information on why sleeping was not a problem by bring up the point that some people are just lazy so may not be able to sleep. Con also pointed out the vagueness of Pros argument that it can affect work. Pro brought up that it is impossible to measure someones effectiveness.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.