The Instigator
aperson_2001
Pro (for)
The Contender
Pegicorn
Con (against)

Social media was/is terrible for humanity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Pegicorn has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2017 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 103117
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

aperson_2001

Pro

Rules:
1 - No bad language
2 - Sources are ok , but don't use wikipedia
3 - No forfeiting rounds
4 - Structure :
R1 - Con Presents opening arguments
R2 - The both of us present arguments
R3 - Pro presents final argument / CON ASKS QUESTIONS to Pro (Maximum 5 questions)
R4 - Con Responds to the questions and ASKS QUESTIONS to Con / Pro replies

These are the rules, good luck, you may argument right away, as said in rule 4
Pegicorn

Con

Okay! Well, first of all, Hello! :)

Real quick question about the layout: In round four, will you be the one asking me questions? Just got a little bit confused about the wording there. :)

Side note, All of my information I get from a source will have "[]" around a number next to the information. At the bottom I will have sources correlating with each number.

So to start off my arguments:

I'm going to start out with some basic definitions so we can all get on the same page. If you don't agree with any of them, please state so, and then state your new, revised idea of the definition.

[1] Social media:
A. Forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and micro blogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)

[2] Humanity:
A. All human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
B. The quality or condition of being human; human nature. (...)

[3] Terrible:
A. Distressing; severe
B. Extremely bad; horrible (...)

Okay, now that those are out of the way, lets get onto the arguments!!

Con Argument #1: The amazing opportunities provided by Social Media

Many amazing opportunities have been provided by Social Media, to Job seekers, and to companies. Through social media many great numerous potions have been provided. YouTubers can make a living off of providing entertainment, and doing what they love most. Bloggers can share what they have seen and done, giving others advice and comfort. Many on Social Media devote time to making Do It Yourself (DIY) projects, that not only save money to the viewers, but give them first hand experience on making every day things. On other medias artists and musicians alike can share their hard work, and not only bless others with their music, but also receive advertising, which makes doing what they love to do easier. Through all of this it is hard to believe that any of this media is severely distressing and extremely horrible.

Con Argument #2: The benefits provided by Social Media

Besides providing a living for many, Social Media also provides great entertainment for many. With all of the Mediums that exist, it can be easy to find something to enjoy. Not only that, but "[4]An estimated quarter million people each year become suicide survivors (AAS)." I believe some suicides can and have been prevented by the encouragement offered by Social Media. Another benefit of Social Media is that friends that do not live close to each other can have an easier way to communicate. Some might argue that one can use a phone for that, but Social Media can help in times where a phone is not available (eg. someone else is using the phone, you have no phone, you only have a non calling device, etc.).

Con Argument #3: The shared memories through Social Media.

Through Social Media many fun moments can be shared. Some may argue that you shouldn't look at life through a screen. In that manner, I agree with them. On the other hand, what about others who can only look at certain pieces of life through a screen. Surely a father or mother in a far away country, fighting for us and our freedom, deserves the chance to see their loved ones. Also, let us not forget the sick one stuck in a hospital, one who can not leave. Do they not deserve the chance to see the world that they may never see again? The friend who for some reason could not make the trip, the parent wanting to see the college, the list goes on and on of those who would miss out without Social Media.

For all these reasons and more, I encourage you to vote con, and stand with me in believing that Social Media was and is not bad for humanity. Thank you!! :)

Sources:
1- https://www.merriam-webster.com...
2 - http://www.dictionary.com...
3- http://www.dictionary.com...
4 - https://save.org... (see General Statistics- USA)
Debate Round No. 1
aperson_2001

Pro

Hello there! Good luck :)
About your question, You ask me questions at round 3, I answer and ask you questions at round 4, you reply to these questions, I hope I make this clear, let me know if it isn't :).

So down to the arguments:

My opponent claims that social media gave out job opportunities, and mentioned that youtubers can make a living out of these social apps. However, may I ask : Is this a good living? May I remind you that while some of these youtubers are good artists who provide valuable content on their videos, there are also youtubers who make a living playing videogames. I am currently 15 years old, not sure if I want to be a parent, but if I did have a child, I didn't want them to think that they shouldn't study and should instead play videogames, since they'd be famous. Other idea against these youtubers is that some are just ridiculing people on the streets for views.[1] I have read, for example, about two youtubers who dressed up as beggars and went trolling people in Deli, now I ask: Is this good? Making fun of beggars and people on the street? Maybe not.

My opponent also mentioned the suicide survivors. I mean... sure, SOME suicides could have been prevented, but you are not going to tell me no one ever killed themselves for social media.[2] I saw a while ago a movie called Cyberbully about a teenager who joins a social network, and then starts getting trolled (cyberbullied) until she comes close to suicide, can't this be something that happens in real life? Can't this be something that already has happened several times thanks to social media? Other example is the apparent paranoia created by how many likes you get on a facebook post, an article claimed [3] that these would only affect people without a sense of purpose, but when you're pretty much ready to suicide, I'd say a sense of purpose wouldn't be so clear to see and therefore these could also affect a person's self esteem when they are on the edge.

My opponent claimed that social media also provides a way to those who can only see the world through a screen. While this argument is indeed correct, these ways already existed before social media, people already sent letters before, so social media was basically a way to save paper and not much else.

Pro argument #1
Social media is a weapon against academic results. Facebook, Instagram etc. are already proved to lower students grades[4] and the truth is that most teenagers spend most time on social media rather than studying or doing their homework, there is also a psychological thing into it. In case you never noticed, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (sort of) have blue icons, this is used having in account that blue is considered a relaxing color, so who would rather be on an environment of relaxation, rather than an environment of responsibilities? That's right, everyone would! So, with the usage of this trick, social media is "kidnapping"us from our studies. Is this good?

Pro argument #2
Socialize or sleep? Seems like a pretty dumb question but it's the truth, usually, you'd go to work and socialize during the day, and then you could either go home and sleep for the next day, or go out on the evening, now you have no chance, you still have to be online to talk to people without getting enough rest. While yes this IS an option, most people would rather do it, probably for anxiety and fear that their friends will do things without them, therefore, it's not really up to them whatsoever. This potential sleep deprive is 100% not productive or healthy or anything really

For all these arguments and the remaining ones, I encourage you to vote pro on today's debate, don't be afraid. Thank you ! :)

[1] - http://www.mensxp.com...
[2] - http://www.imdb.com...
[3] - https://www.psychologytoday.com...
[4] - http://mashable.com...
Pegicorn

Con

That clears everything up perfectly!! So sorry for the late posting!!

So as con, this will be my final argument that is presented.

For some clarification before I begin: As the Pro, my opponent has what is referred to as the burden of proof. The burden of proof is to prove that the status quo (the way things already are) needs to be changed. In order to win the pro must withhold the four stock issues.
Solvency
Harm
Inherency
Topicality
Significance
As Con all I have to do is show that one of the stock issues are not solved/changed by the proposed plan of the Pro.

So, if you, the voters believe that any of these stock issues are not withheld by the Pro, please vote Con.

So to start off with addressing the arguments:

For the first part of the first argument, my opponent agreed that Social Media does actually give job opportunities for many people. The questions popped up that some make their living off video games. Yes, this is true, but there are also more honorable jobs projected on youtube. Scientists and engeneers also make videos on youtube! Many great things can be learned there. Frankly, though there are cons, the pros greatly outway them.

For the second part of the first con argument, the Pro described youtubers that are "Trolls". That make fun of people and do things just for the gain of themselves. But others do it for the gain of others. Others even making aware the flaws in humanity. A social experiment was even conducted where a girl went out, once dressed as a rich girl asking for money for makup, then later went out as a homeless girl asking for money. This video, and others like it raise awareness. I believe again, the pros in this situation outway the cons.

I believe that the first con argument, for the before stated reason that the pros outway the con flows to the con (AKA I believe I won this argument).

The third con argument flows to the con because the Pro agreed that social media is good in the aspect of showing others, while saving paper.

Against pro argument 1: I believe it goes back to the same answer as Con argument 1. The pros outweigh the cons.

For pro argument 2: Though it is a possibility to say up late, discipline can fix that.

For all these reasons and more I encourage you all to vote con.

Sorry this is kinda short, I was busy and got this all written in 6 mins. :P
Debate Round No. 2
aperson_2001

Pro

I apologize for my delay as well, my text will be kind of short

Anyhow my opponent has presented a counter-argument to my idea of youtube not presenting ludic content by claiming that
"there are also more honorable jobs projected on youtube. Scientists and engineers also make videos on youtube!"

Well, of course they do, now the question is : Do people watch these videos? The science and technology channel with the most subscribers is VSauce[1] with 12 million subscribers. This is obviously a big number, however, as seen on link [2] gaming channels are much popular, with the biggest being PewDiePie with almost 4 times as many subscribers as VSauce. There are 5 more gamers more popular than them, so what exactly does youtube do to promote science and great things to be learned? I'd say it doesn't do much.

About the troll parts, my opponent mentioned social experiments... While this is arguably an interesting point, in what way do these contribute to society? Yes, they are alerts to society (That's why you see these experiments done by organizations and not youtubers) but they don't do much, I mean, if they donated part of the money they earn from youtube to charity, who would care? Would that give views? I learned a saying that is "Charity should be anonymous,otherwise is vanity", I was told this was a Jewish saying, however I wasn't able to find a source to prove it, but this saying says a lot about this. You could also be thinking "Well, they can also donate to charity.." But here's a good example : In my country (Portugal) we have youtubers that do one or two philanthropic acts in their "careers", and by philanthropic acts I mean video campaigns, which in my opinion isn't too philanthropic.... And do they also give money to charity? Hahahahaha, of course they don't, they prefer instead to leave in a million-euro worth mansion, making no contribute to society whatsoever. [3] <- This is the link of the news article talking about these youtubers, it is however written in Portuguese, but I think Google translate should help with this

Anyhow, I couldn't get more than this, as I've been very busy in the last 3 days.

Now that the arguments phase is over , the questions phase will begin, Pegi, you can ask 1 to 5 questions, as you already know

[1] - https://vidstatsx.com...
[2] - https://vidstatsx.com...
[3] - http://www.jn.pt...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.