The Instigator
szack
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
The_Chaos_Heart
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
The_Chaos_Heart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 29,029 times Debate No: 27400
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

szack

Pro

I am here to affirm and convince that "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication.

This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

My position should be obvious. I am here to negate the resolution, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that social networking does not cause more harm than good.

My opponent may begin their argument.
Debate Round No. 1
szack

Pro

It is proven that as social media becomes the latest branding strategy, networking technique, job seeking tool and recruitment method, it's becoming the latest way for people to get job offers rescinded, reprimanded at work and even fired.

CNN has written a headline story back in 2009, regarding the dangers of social media in workplaces and how what a person posts, can in fact effect their job. In this case Twitter, a major social networking website was how an employee for Cisco was reprimanded, after he posted, "Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work". Cisco is clearly a web developed company, advertising everywhere, so not computer-illiterate. A partner advocate for Cisco saw the tweet and responded with "Who is the hiring manger, I'm sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the Web." - While it isn't clear what the outcome was of this conversation, you can obviously see that the employer of the hiring company had noticed.

In the same CNN report, it focuses on Facebook, where even more companies are advertising and open to the public. " Kimberly Swann, a former employee for Ivell Marketing and Logistics of Clacton, U.K., thought her job was boring -- and she said so on her Facebook page, according to an article in The Daily Telegraph. Swann was called into her manager's office and handed a letter that cited her Facebook comments as the reason for dismissal: It stated ... "Following your comments made on Facebook about your job and the company we feel it is better that, as you are not happy and do not enjoy your work we end your employment with Ivell Marketing & Logistics with immediate effect." While she was communicating with her friends, posting her frustration with her boredom, the company looks for their best interest in letting her go. This all in 2009 (or so), which is almost 4 years later and the social media flow is only increasing.

Lastly, education as a result of social networking has negative effects. Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation they need to balance. Thousands, if not millions of students immediately turn to social networking to be able to complete their homework (for them). For students today, they forget the need to filter the information they post. Many colleges and potential employers take a look at an applicant"s social networking profiles before granting acceptance or interviews. Most students don"t constantly evaluate the content they"re publishing online, which can bring about negative consequences months or years down the road.

References
(1) - CNN Article - http://www.cnn.com...
(2) - Edudemic Article - http://edudemic.com...
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

First of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.

Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.


So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.


As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.



1. This is not the fault of social networking sites

My opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.


2. This is not a problem with most networking sites

Recalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of "Usernames", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not "szack", nor is mine "The Chaos Heart". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.


3. You could just not use your real name.

There is an easy solution to this "problem" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.


4. The morality of firing someone is questionable

The morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.



Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.



1. Connection in education is good

My opponent argues, "Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation..." But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.


2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before

My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.


3. My opponent's own source argues against them

My opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.



I turn it over to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2
szack

Pro

szack forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

Umm...alright then. Hopefully my opponent will be able to respond next round.
Debate Round No. 3
szack

Pro

szack forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

Another forfeit? Yeesh...
Debate Round No. 4
szack

Pro

szack forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

That's a real shame...I was looking forward to this debate. I thought it would be an interesting one. Ah well.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
szackThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
szackThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
szackThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has affirmed the affirmation