Technology is making us anti social
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years 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:||1||5|
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.
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.