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

Social media has more harms than goods

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 84124
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




1. Social media makes the world round.


Hello world. I am pro for this debate, and as pro, I am for social media.

First off, con who (is against, and claims social media has more harms than goods has to clearly demonstrate beyond doubt that that social media is more harmful than it is good for this debate).

Cons first argument is that social media in itself makes the world "round" but has not said why, or backed up such a wild claim that it does, nor do I think he can.

I will defend social media outlets as well as rebuttal anything he has to say. First off, he will have to tear down the foundation of what makes social media good and list more cons.

1: Social media gives users a place to connect to loved ones, or lost family members, or to talk to strangers across the world that you'd never get to meet, and learn more of their culture through the internet.
2: Social media provides outlets for different categories, whether it be gaming, or debate websites such as this, there is something for all to be found when diving into the internet.
3: It's good to stay connected, learn what's going on (as long as you don't abuse it too much that is) and it's a fact that any negative that social media has is a low percentage that it effects people, cause the majority are not bad apples.
4: Social Media can be used to find out information as somewhat said above, but to go in more detail, it can be used to find out about someone and their background if looking in all the right places, and can help even find suspects.

I could go on with this list for days, but it isn't my job necessarily to prove social media is more positive cause believe me, the positives outweigh the negatives here. It's the cons job to provide more negative's that social media has. Until then, i will wait for his response before continuing.
Debate Round No. 1


2. Social media lowers health risks.


Con who against social media said "Social media lowers health risk"

In that very statement, either it was an typo, or who knows, con basically said, anything that can be a health risk and harm you is lowered by social media which of course is arguing against himself at this point.

With that said, con is either confused, or making a typo as stated above.

To continue on with social media, it's more benefiting than it is bad and again, the positives outweigh the negatives here in this debate from what all you can achieve with social media. People have gotten rich and made their lives better by getting rich off such outlets, and people again have connected with those they haven't seen in a long time.

So to say it's more so a bad thing is just laughable. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro... You are supposed to be saying that it is bad.

1. It makes the world go round.
2. Lowers health risk.
3. It is edible and will therefore end world hunger


The con is now obviously confused. Very confused.

He didn't both to read that I said that I am pro for social media in round 1. He is con meaning he is against social media.....

Yet he has provided no claims to his arguments, and only gave one liners. I have gave just a few good arguments as to why social media has more good than bads, and is overall a good thing as long as it's not over abused.

So, extend everything I said the other rounds and then some. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AngryBlogger 2 years ago
Actually Richard, I wasn't confused. I merely am for social media in this debate as I am listed as "pro" which is a big mistake the con made when making the debate and not selecting himself as pro.

So therefore, I get to rightfully be for social media, and defend it, so that's why it may seem confusing.

I often see people select the wrong side of pro or con, and the challenger exploit that for a win, so, I thought it was normal to do that here, and therefore did it myself.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: govitz147// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Well I have always agreed with pro and I{ liked their points.

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter presents their opinion on the debate but not an RFD of the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Richardsonalj 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although AngryBlogger was confused and was meant to say things against social media, he had a much stronger debate than Vane01. And social media is not edible, I don't think anyone can consume data and no longer have to eat for a while + not everyone in the world can access social media, so your argument is very flawed.