The Instigator
Annakins
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Social Media - the end of our society???

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...
funwiththoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 39026
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Annakins

Pro

The number of school aged kids that are killing themselves due to cyber bullying is alarming and for that reason alone social networking should be banned to users under 18. Time and time again these kids have proven they are not mature enough to use social media; look at all the cyber bullying. And the parents are no angels either. A lot of the time they know what their child is doing on Facebook, etc. but they turn a blind eye to it. Always saying, "Oh I know my son/daughter would never do that." I am so thankful that I grew up and went to school before social media existed.

Social media also causes issues for adults - infidelity being the main issue. I read somewhere that Facebook is to blame for 20% of all divorces. Now I don"t know if that"s true or not, but it"s definitely alarming. Think about it, what if your husband/wife decided to friend an ex on Facebook. They may do so innocently but once they start reminiscing about the good old days, doors open and it leads to temptation and maybe even more. And all these people that are saying "Oh I use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family across the world." I say bs. What"s wrong with sending an email? Or picking up the phone and calling? That"s another thing with social media " it has turned us into a dumb society with no social skills. Nobody talks anymore. They text, or IM, or post messages on your social media accounts. What happened to people getting together with friends? I was at a restaurant the other day and there was a group of 5 twenty-something"s waiting for a table. They were all on their phones, not one person spoke to one another for the 10 minutes I was observing them.

So, is this where society is headed? We're creating a bunch of keyboard warriors. What"s the point of procreating anymore? All our kids seem to be killing themselves and social media is a big part of that.
funwiththoughts

Con

"The number of school aged kids that are killing themselves due to cyber bullying is alarming and for that reason alone social networking should be banned to users under 18"

If you're going to make such a claim, you might want to try actually giving a number to back it up.

"Time and time again these kids have proven they are not mature enough to use social media; look at all the cyber bullying."

Bullying can and does exist with or without social media, social media is just another venue for it to spread. Kill the illness, not the ill person.

"A lot of the time they know what their child is doing on Facebook, etc. but they turn a blind eye to it. Always saying, "Oh I know my son/daughter would never do that.""

Again, these things would happen with or without social media.

"I read somewhere that Facebook is to blame for 20% of all divorces. Now I don"t know if that"s true or not, but it"s definitely alarming."

Given that my opponent flat-out admits he has no idea where he got this or whether it's true, I have no need to refute.

"I say bs. What"s wrong with sending an email? Or picking up the phone and calling?"

Emails are a form of social media, and if you pick up the phone they might not be there to pick it up.

"Nobody talks anymore."

BS. I hear people talking all the time.

"I was at a restaurant the other day and there was a group of 5 twenty-something"s waiting for a table. They were all on their phones, not one person spoke to one another for the 10 minutes I was observing them."

Ignoring the fact that this is an unverifiable anecdote, didn't you yourself earlier distinguish calling someone on the phone from the social media that you consider to be the death of society?

"We're creating a bunch of keyboard warriors."

What does that even mean?

"What"s the point of procreating anymore? All our kids seem to be killing themselves and social media is a big part of that."

How about backing up your claim with some suicide statistics? Specifically children?
Debate Round No. 1
Annakins

Pro

"The number of school aged kids that are killing themselves due to cyber bullying is alarming and for that reason alone social networking should be banned to users under 18"
"If you're going to make such a claim, you might want to try actually giving a number to back it up."

Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among young people - 4,400 per year.

You say that if people call one another they might not be there to pick it up. Well that is why we have voicemail and answering machines. Just beacuse you text someone doesn't mean they'll reply to the text either. Furthermore, I never said that telephones were social media. Please explain to me how a land line is social media?? I would love to know. People do still use land lines.

"Emails are a form of social media" - well I was going to suggest snail mail but I knew you'd have something to say about that being outdated or something.

Keyboard warriors are basically people who start online fights with people and provoke arguments, ONLY beacuse they have a keyboard and they're miles away and will suffer no consequences for it, much like an internet troll. I'd like to say that we are not doing that here, we are having a healthy debate.

"How about backing up your claim with some suicide statistics? Specifically children?" In 2005 (the last year national stats were available) 270 children in the 10 - 14 age group killed themselves according to the American Association of Suicidology (AAS). Suicide remains among the leading causes of death of children under 14. And in most cases, the young people die from hanging. (AAS)

The following is a list of some kids that have committed suicide due to cyber bullying - but there's too many to post all their names.

Todd Loik, Rebecca Ann Sedwick, Amanda Todd, Tyler Clementi, Jessica Lodge, Phoebe Prince, Hannah Smith, Kenneth Weishuhn Jr., Grace McComas, Hope Witsell, Sarah Lynn Butler, Rehtaeh Parsons.
funwiththoughts

Con

"Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among young people - 4,400 per year."

My opponent fails to show how this relates to cyberbullying. And relative to the amount of children on this planet 4400 is quite a small number.

My opponent also completely ignores my point about how bullying and suicide can and do exist with or without social media.

Furthermore, my opponent has provided no source for this claim.

"You say that if people call one another they might not be there to pick it up. Well that is why we have voicemail and answering machines. Just beacuse you text someone doesn't mean they'll reply to the text either"

Okay, but if you are going to demand other people justify their chosen forms of communication why don't you explain why emails or phones are better than Facebook?

"In 2005 (the last year national stats were available) 270 children in the 10 - 14 age group killed themselves according to the American Association of Suicidology (AAS)."

That is WAY lower than the annual estimate you gave, although obviously still very tragic. And my opponent still fails to prove that this has anything to do with social media.

"And in most cases, the young people die from hanging. (AAS)"

Relevance?

"The following is a list of some kids that have committed suicide due to cyber bullying"

Bullying is wrong. Adding other labels in front of it is just a distraction from the real problem. Bullying and suicide would exist with or without social media, social media is only another venue for it to spread into. Why not ban school as well? After all, bullying goes on in school.

My opponent has also not provided any kind of details as to what this "cyberbullying" entailed, and as such for all I know it may have been something incredibly minor.
Debate Round No. 2
Annakins

Pro

You seem to be criticizing everything that I write but at least I have facts and statistics to back up my argument. What facts can you provide me with to back up your argument??

You just seem to be getting angry. I thought this was supposed to be a healthy debate, but you seem to be letting your emotions get the better of you.

"Why not ban school as well? After all, bullying goes on in school." Bullying also goes on in the workplace, are you suggesting that we all stop working as well?? 35% of workers have experienced bullying firsthand according to a 2010 survey done by the Workplace Bullying Institue (WBI). But that's a whole different topic all together.

"My opponent has also not provided any kind of details as to what this "cyberbullying" entailed, and as such for all I know it may have been something incredibly minor." - Amanda Todd posted a 9 minute video on YouTube which showed a series of flash cards to tell of her experiences being bullied and cyber bullied. Rehtaeh Parsons had pictures distributed online of her being gang raped. She was bullied and cyber bullied for 17 months prior to her taking her own life.

Look, anyone with a computer can look up these cases and read all about the details, I don't need to do that for you. But I've started with just a couple so you can see that yes, these victims were victims of cyber bullying and bullying.
funwiththoughts

Con

My opponent has dropped pretty much all of his arguments except for the one about cyberbullying. Keep this in mind when voting.

"You seem to be criticizing everything that I write but at least I have facts and statistics to back up my argument. What facts can you provide me with to back up your argument??"

You are Pro, you have the BOP. I only need to refute your arguments in order to win.

"You just seem to be getting angry. I thought this was supposed to be a healthy debate, but you seem to be letting your emotions get the better of you."

Unnecessary ad hominem argument.

"Bullying also goes on in the workplace, are you suggesting that we all stop working as well?? 35% of workers have experienced bullying firsthand according to a 2010 survey done by the Workplace Bullying Institue (WBI)."

I was not actually suggesting banning school, I was applying your logic to a different scenario. If one accepts the argument that:

1. There is bullying online. (Obviously true)
2. Bullying is bad. (Also obviously true)
3. Therefore, the Internet is bad. (Not true and does not follow)

Then one must also accept that:

1. There is bullying in school. (Obviously true)
2. Bullying is bad. (Also obviously true)
3. Therefore, school is bad. (Not true and does not follow)

"Amanda Todd posted a 9 minute video on YouTube which showed a series of flash cards to tell of her experiences being bullied and cyber bullied."

Then it shouldn't be too hard to provide some kind of explanation, especially if it is simple enough to fit on a flash card.

"Rehtaeh Parsons had pictures distributed online of her being gang raped. She was bullied and cyber bullied for 17 months prior to her taking her own life."

Note that both these people were "bullied AND cyber bullied"-implying there was bullying going on offline as well. Perhaps it's not the big, bad Internet that's the problem, but rather bullying itself...

"Look, anyone with a computer can look up these cases and read all about the details, I don't need to do that for you."

This is a debate, provide a credible source if you want to make a claim that isn't general knowledge.

"these victims were victims of cyber bullying and bullying."

See abovie with regards to the implications of being victims of "cyber bullying AND bullying."
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@Beverlee: The question of "why not also ban school?" wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I had intended it to show the absurdity of my opponent's logic by showing how easily it can lead to ridiculous conclusions.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
AnnakinsfunwiththoughtsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt the BoP was difficult from the start, and Pro added to this challenge by trying to cover much too wide an area of discussion. (Suicide, infidelity, etc) I think a better strategy might have been to focus in very tightly to only one - very narrow - facet of the debate. Posting the list of suicide victims wasn't helpful; I think maybe some personal stories might have had more impact. But this still would have been a too-small sample size to be representative. Rhetorical questions like, "why bother even procreating anymore?" were also unhelpful. As were statements like "why not also ban school?" These are polemic statements that are too extreme to be taken seriously. went back and re-read the debate, but I could not find where anyone seemed to be getting angry or anything.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
AnnakinsfunwiththoughtsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate. The resolution was in the challenge: that social media should be banned for those under 18. Con's whole argument was that Pro had not provided enough evidence to justify the ban. However, Con didn't dispute the 270 suicides of young people, nor the individual cases cited by Pro. Con didn't argue what the downside was of a ban; he should have cited the loss of freedom, and especially the loss of the right of parents to decide if social media was good or bad for their child. We were left with the only downside being some inconvenience in contacting friends and family, and only that because Pro granted it in the challenge. In the end, I gave arguments to Con in that the burden of proof was not met by Pro. Con was angry and condescending, and I gave conduct to Pro for that. Con should have granted the data he thought valid and made specific arguments about what was needed to establish cause and effect.