Social media has more harms than goods
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
1. It makes the world go round.
2. Lowers health risk.
3. It is edible and will therefore end world hunger
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Richardsonalj 1 year 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||5|
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.
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.