The Instigator
KidateK
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
masterzanzibar
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

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 2 votes the winner is...
masterzanzibar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,217 times Debate No: 6030
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

KidateK

Pro

To begin with I will make a few details of this debate clear.
1)Nature-deficit disorder is the condition of children in this day and age spending less time in the outdoors and the impacts this has on their behaviors and decisions.
2)This debate is dealing primarily on social networking sites (not the internet as a whole) and whether or not these sites are causing an increase in nature-deficit disorder and if this is a negative thing.
3)Youth is dealing with anyone under the age of 30.

With this I allow my opponent to make the first arguements of this round and wish him or her the best of luck.
masterzanzibar

Con

I assume that this topic is deriving from the 2008 December Public Forum Topic. Since I am to debate this topic next weekend, I gladly accept my opponent's resolution, while simultaneously extending a good-luck "cyber handshake" towards his general direction.

The topic states as resolved: Social Networking Websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

Resolutional analysis:
�The resolution States that social networking Website CAUSE in an increase in nature-deficit disorder. Thus my opponent will have to show without a doubt that social networking websites themselves induce nature- deficit disorder in the youth of America. If my opponent fails to show the direct link of causation then it is your obligation to vote con.

Definitions:
Nature-Deficit Disorder:
Nature Deficit Disorder, a term coined by Richard Louv in his 2005 book Last Child in the Woods, refers to the alleged trend that children are spending less time outdoors, resulting in a wide range of behavioral problems.
http://www.csmonitor.com...

Social Networking Web Sites:
web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu...

Now that I have the definitions and analysis of the round out of the way, I look to my opponent to make the first arguments, whereas he is supposed to be affirming this resolution. It is only my job to negate it. Thank you, and Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
KidateK

Pro

Sorry for the delay, my internet was down so i had trouble getting on. Anyways, thanks for accepting and good luck to you once again.

According to cbs news the average time a teen spends on the internet every day is roughtly 3 hours. This translates into over 6 hours of time spent on the computer. In fact, the most amount of time young people spend on the internet is on social networking sites. As said by Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time online? MySpace is the most winner for people spending the most time on it. A whopping 11.9% (it blew sites like youtube and wikipedia out of the water since both they only had a combined 1% of time spent on the internet even though youths spend a lot of time on each either watching videos posted by others or reading the various articles on wikipedia), this means that over one tenth of the time spent on the internet is spent on just one individual social networking site. This does not take into consideration how much time is spent on other social networking sites such as facebook. So when you take this into consideration it and then apply it to the fact that the average teen spends 3 hours on the internet it becomes clear that social networking sites are drawing our youth away from nature and drawing them towards these sites. Therefore, causing directly causing nature deficit disorder.
masterzanzibar

Con

It is quite alright my esteemed opponent!

First to attack
I will concede the fact that on average some student are spending three hours a day on the computer, however my opponent gives no statistics, no professional analytics, no evidence AT ALL to substantiate that student spending time on social networking websites results in a direct causation of nature deficit disorder. Additionally, my opponent has yet to actually prove that nature deficit disorder actually exists. Seeing as nature deficit disorder is only an alleged trend, my opponent has the burden to show whether or not social networking sites themselves are leading to a "wide range of behavioral problems" as stated in the provided definition in RD 1. since my opponent has not been able to establish that link, or a direct link between the two, it is your obligation to vote in the negation.

To futher legitimize the Negative stance, social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. Thousands, perhaps millions of relationships have been formed over sites like myspace and face book, and if the trend does exist, socializing is critical to mental devolpment and human health, so social networking websites are not the problem.

NEGATE.
Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
KidateK

Pro

Seeing as my the first attack that my opponent made against my side was to point out the lack of information on my side, allow me to remedy that. Firstly my opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on social networking sites and does not directly cause nature deficit disorder. Well, according to the Stanford University of Medicine Study more than half of time spent on the internet is spent communicating i.e. social networking sites. Now taking that into consideration on average a student spends three hours daily on the internet it can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily. Now, while they are on these sites they are not out experiencing nature and so these sites are directly causing a deficit of nature experiences for youths. Therefore, social networking sites are directly causing nature deficit disorder.

Secondly, my opponet says that there may have not even a nature deficit disorder however, Richard Louv (who spent 10 years travelling the United States, doing interviews, and collecting research to prove that this is happening) is not the only one who agrees that nature deficit disorder exists. Harvard professor E. O. Wison refers to something similar called "biophilia." He explains that humans have an innate connection to nature, however humans have been spending less time outside and more time indoors, doing technology related activities. In addition the Nature & Children Network agrees that this trend has been happening and while Richard Louv coined the term Nature Deficit Disorder, they agree that it is a real problem that is arising. Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist.

Thirdly, my oppenet says that since I cannot prove a link then it should be your obligation to vote negative, however there is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature. This time spent away from nature is causing nature deficit disorder and the behavioral problems that it causes such as attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, and family stress. Because social networking sites are pulling our youths and students away from the innate connection with nature they are causing nature deficit disorder. This being the case it is your obligation to then vote in affirmative bacuase social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder.

Now to attack my opponets point he says that social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. However, when my opponet is saying this he is being unresolution. The topic that we are debating is Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. So even if social networking sites are allowing people to connect and have those kind of relationships it in no way affects whether or not social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Even if you don't believe that there is no denying that by cutting our youths off from nature and the innate connection that humans have had with nature since our hunter gather days, social networking sites are causing problems that follow after nature deficit disorder. Such as ADHD (since youths are now unable to get rid of excess engery due to sitting in front of a computer spending time on students begin to develop ADHD) which causes problems with students in school and around their peers and family stress (due to spending time on social networking sites relations with family members tends to be worse as said by Relationship of Internet Use to Depression and Social Isolation among Adolescents). It can be seen that social networking sites are causing problems to the mental health and development of our youths.

And for the reasons stated here about how social networking sites cause nature deficit disorder please vote in affirmation.
masterzanzibar

Con

I will go PRO---|> CON
"My opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on... "

I never asserted that students aren't using social networking websites, or anything relatively close to that. The argument I do make, is that my opponent provides no direct link from social networking to nature deficit disorder, provides no evidence that student who use them aren't being exposed to nature.
In fact, many students who use social networking sites are more inclined to go outside and associate with friends and family, than those using other sources of technology (ex. Game Consoles, Tivo-ed episodes of One Tree Hill LOL) for many users contact their friends and associates on social networking sites and arrange meeting locations, exposing them to nature.

"It can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily."

I am a High school Student. Lets say I go to bed at 9 p.m. every night, and wake up at 6:30 for school that starts at 7:30 every morning. School ends at 2. That means from 2 to 9 I have seven hours to do anything that I please. Subtract the time the average student spends on social networking sites you still have 7 and � hours of time between school and sleep. What's to say that students aren't utilizing those 7 and � hours swimming, or running, or riding nude on the back of a spotted owl ?
Additionally, on an AB schedule most computer classes last about an hour and a half in high school. If youngling using the computer for an hour and a half undoubtedly leads to nature deficit disorder, then why do most high schools require a basic computer class of almost exactly the same time period?
My opponent's case shows correlation and no causation, and does in no way prove the resolution true.

"Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist."

Not only is the logic of this assertion fallacious, my opponent does not provide any evidence from these sources stating that 1 and � hours of social networking is leading to nature deficit disorder.
Just because two entities agree on something entirely different does in no way legitimize or validate the evidence. EX. If my mom and my dad agree that there are 17 months in a year, this does not make the evidence true just because they agree on it.
The argument that Louv and others are making is that when people get absolutely no exposure to nature they might start showing negative psychological symptoms, but this isn't the fault of social networking websites. This is the fault of those who choose not to get any exposure to nature.

Additionally, nature deficit disorder itself is still disputed, and has not been factually proved to this day. There are several things that could cause all of these negative symptoms on human health. One factor could be that those who are not going outside are not getting any exercise, which leads to obesity. Symptoms of the supposed disease attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, chronic stress. Those who aren't getting any exercise could have all of these same symptoms because your gestalt health generally declines when you are obese. Again, correlation does not prove causation.

"There is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature."

Just because children aren't in nature 100 percent of the time doesn't mean that they are getting nature deficit disorder, if that were true everyone in the world would have the alleged disease.
For the rest of the attacks made against my case, including the ADHD argument, there is no link, and because there is no link, it is your obligation to vote negative. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Xbox 360 > PS3
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
This should be an auto-win for PRO. We shall see. In the meantime, I will return to my PS3.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
KidateKmasterzanzibarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KidateKmasterzanzibarTied
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