The Instigator
EleaDEVILnor
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EllieBub
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Social networking sites are harmful.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
EllieBub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 39,266 times Debate No: 19496
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

EleaDEVILnor

Con

Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows:
1.
One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand.
2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. "Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site.
Meanings of words used to describe this topic:
Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.'
Good:'excellence or merit'
Harm:'physical injury or mental damage'
Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.
EllieBub

Pro

こんにちは、
と議論へようこそ。
Hello,
and welcome to the debate,
Social Networking sites are harmful.
Yes they are harmful.
I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying.
It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied.

We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction.

The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot.

Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. "The most effective networking is face to face," says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. "There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online."

Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past.

A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future.
Debate Round No. 1
EleaDEVILnor

Con

I would like to point out that my opponent has said that social networking sites allow people at 10+, that is a lie sites have restricted people to be at least 13 to be allowed onto these sites and that is because 10 year olds wouldn't know what to do if strangers tried to be friends with them or if they became cyber-stalked and that is because they wouldn't be responsible or mature enough to know what to do in that situation. You also said that people do get harmed form cyber bullying so your saying that everyone that gets bullied on the Internet goes how do I put it crazy? you are just putting it out there that you wouldn't be ashamed to say that someone has gone crazy to many people. harmful shouldn't really be the word used to define social networking sites but then again no word would really suit.
When you are on social networking sites you can do many things that are good like talk to friends and family without a problem, or share photos from another country. facebook or titer can be used to say in touch with people all around the world for free or you could just call them for say $1 per minute if they're on the other side of the world, then again it would be nice hearing their voice but they'll hear yours when you get the phone bill, but meh that doesn't matter you could just go on facebook and talk to them. That would be so much easier, guess what else it is.... easy to use for all those technology challenged people simple like a wave of a wand or a swish of the wrist.
EllieBub

Pro

As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +!
It is disgraceful!

Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned.
Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred.
The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day.
But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good.

Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning.
Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia.
'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'
Debate Round No. 2
EleaDEVILnor

Con

I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this.
Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free.
Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.
EllieBub

Pro

Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful.
EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise.
Thank you.

I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library.

200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011.

When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol.

If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us?
Bad I say!

We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray.
You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things.

Debate closed.
Thank you.

EllieBub
:)

I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component!

EllieBub
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by EllieBub 2 years ago
EllieBub
It is good to re-read, and see the effort put into it!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
EleaDEVILnorEllieBubTied
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: con had very poor arguments
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
EleaDEVILnorEllieBubTied
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: lol we went from social networking sites to computers..... CON dropped the cyber-anomity argument (CORRECT me if im wrong).... Nice debate and good job!