The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Social Media is bad

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 89343
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Sup Damian. We gonna start with 2 rounds. K? So, here goes. Social media is bad because: There is a lack of privacy. Most people do not have their accounts on private, so whatever they post isn't private. Even if it is embarrassing and you want to take it off, there are so many people on, lots of people already saw it. Also studies have shown that people who write badly on social media tend to also write this way in other places.


Thanks for being my opponent on our first debate Luca. There are many reasons why social media is good for people and not bad. I would like to start off with this quote, "Smart phones and social media expand our universe. We can connect with others or collect information easier and faster than ever." -Daniel Goleman. With social media we are able to see what every person on this world (that have some type of social media of course) is up to with their lives. Your able to talk to friends/family that live far away, doesn't that amaze you?

I look forward to seeing your response.
Debate Round No. 1


You are welcome Damian. Allow me to share this quote " Face your problems, don't facebook them." Anonymous. And this is shockingly true. Social media has single-handedly created a new form of bullying: cyberbullying. And when we post our problems, everyone sees it, except for the people that need to. We think things will change when we post it. They don't. Also, when you say they connect us with everyone, it's not necessarily true. It brings those who are far away closer, but those who are closer further.


I'm aware that cyberbullying is bad, but schools around the world have been teaching teens on how to prevent cyberbullying (here is a site: This has helped teens become more aware of what could happen on social media and has also decreased the possibility of someone being cyber bullied. It's a persons' choice to be more talkative through social media (to people that live far away) than talking to people around him/her.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Vict0rian 5 months ago
says social media is bad.... on social media *face palm*
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
>Reported vote: Sipiri// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: This is tricky because it's such a short debate, but I'll try my best: My biases: I slightly agreed with pro beforehand, although this debate had no effect on my opinions. Conduct: no rudeness or otherwise poor conduct on either side. Spelling and grammar: Pro submitted thirteen major grammar/stylistic errors whereas con submitted two. Arguments: Although pro offered a weak response to con's only argument, pro did not drop an argument. Con failed to answer pro's argument of privacy, offered a weak response to social media's distancing effect, and adequately addressed the issue of cyber bullying. It was extremely hard to decide whether to vote tie or pro on this, but I'm going to vote a tie due to pro's technical victory weighed against con's higher quality responses. Sources go to Con, since he was the only one who gave sources. Anonymous quotes are not sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G can only be awarded in instances wh ere it is difficult to comprehend one side's argument based on their writing. Merely comparing the number of errors is insufficient. (2) Similarly, sources cannot be awarded on the basis of numbers alone. Though only one side did have sources, the voter must explain their relevance to the debate in order to award these points.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mmurph123 6 months ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct/SG was fine on both sides. If I had to give a point on conduct it would be to neg who maintains a more professional attitude and has a formal greeting. However, I don't think saying "Sup" and "K?" merits losing a point. I didn't notice any glaring SG errors. Arguments is the only points I award, and in all honesty I had to intervene here and weigh the points myself. Neither side actually rebuts the others opening points, and instead Aff goes and introduces a whole new argument, giving Negs point a single sentence with no warrant/source to back up his claim. Con goes and rebuts cyber bullying in his R2. Although he concedes it is a harm, he does attempt to get solvency for said harm by saying schools are trying to teach prevention in the SQ. This doesn't actually defeat the point, but it is sufficient enough to convince me that this isnt a huge problem. So the main issues comes down to privacy vs increased social connections. I vote neg on their voter bc it outweighs on scope.
Vote Placed by breakingamber 6 months ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one who used a formal greeting, so conduct to Con. Pro used "sup" in his first argument. Although the rest of the debate was scot-free, Con did not do that. Con won me over with his arguments, and Con is the only one who cited a source.