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

Technology is making us anti social

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: 4/16/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,538 times Debate No: 52654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I disagree with that statement. Facebook is a huge social media site with tens of millions of users solely for the purpose of being social.

Each innovation seems to make our world more and more connected socially. We might converse in different ways through different mediums, but we are more social now than ever. Text messaging, emails, cellphones, live streams, you name it. 50 years ago? Not a chance.


I accepted this debate because I believe that not all technology makes us anti social, but social sites such as Facebook, Kik, and many other messaging sites are making many people anti social.
Debate Round No. 1


Social media media sites like Facebook, kik, MySpace, or whatever don't make us more anti-social. The name "social media" means that it's for the sake of being social. Just because you aren't talking to the person face to face doesn't mean people are less social, it just means they're being social in a different medium.


As the say the two words, "social media" Here is the definition is some people would like to know.
so"cial me"di"a
noun: social media; plural noun: social medias
websites and applications used for social networking.

As you can see, yes these sites are for being social with other people. Although through evidence shows as technology gets bigger (including social sites) people don't talk in person as often because of this much more simple way of communication, but almost all if not all people cannot go through life behind a computer screen, or holding a phone towards their face. If they want a job, they would most likely have to be social in person. People say they can get a job to where they don't have to, for example going into computers/gaming, but believe it or not, that is one of the biggest examples of being anti-social. If they just want to work "ONLINE" without being around other "PEOPLE" doesn't that show that they are anti-social? Some people tend to be shy in person, but say your texting them and they come out of their shell and say things that you wouldn't imagine them to say. I think that is mainly because people tend to be comfortable where they are doing it such as their house or in their room or just somewhere by themselves. Or just if nobody else can see what they and the other person is talking about. So being hidden and comfortable with their surroundings is the reason why some people who are always on the internet tend to act different in person, such as being shy because they were anti social in person.

Debate Round No. 2


You're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. I'm not trying to relate this to interpersonal communication / future job prospects or anything like that.

Being social is simply interacting with another human being. Instead of being social in the traditional face-to-fac way, people are using social media as a medium for this social interaction. Thus, social media is not anti-social.


I'm just trying to prove my side sir. You are pretty much saying that there is onl one way of being social, and it is just talking. what about working together? playing a sport together? There are more ways of being social then just plain talking. I fell because you don't want to further the issue I will stop here.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several language mistakes, apparently not being a native speaker. Points to Con. Sources: Pro took time and effort to present sources, Con did not, not evenin rebuttal. Arguments: Con tried to limit the debate to ONE social interaction and didn't refute Pro's argument and sources. Points must hence go to Pro.