The Instigator
debategurl88
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The internet is a waste of time

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,075 times Debate No: 12300
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

debategurl88

Pro

I feel that with websites that facebook, twitter, and youtube in which people spend hours a day doing things that cannot be considered productive, all of the internet must be used for unproductive things.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

Pro's sole contention is pretty much that because people spend time on social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, that people as a whole are unproductive with their time, and that the internet in general promotes unproductive things. I negate. First and foremost, not everyone uses the internet for social networking purposes. Ergo those who do not use social networking sites cannot fall under the generalization of Pro's argument.

Second, studies show that workers are actually more productive when they are able to occasionally do non-work stuff online, say researchers at the University of Melbourne [1]. This pretty much negates Pro's entire argument. Quite obviously the internet is praised specifically because it has greatly increased the speed of innumerable things. For instance, we can now send mail across the globe faster than ever, which has vastly increased the productivity in the workplace as well as on a social and cultural level. Moreover learning is now faster, easier and more widely accessible (education and educational things) because of the internet and the information that can be accessed quickly and with precision thanks to tools like online encyclopedias, books and search engines.

Another one of the internet's productive uses is being used as a platform to create a career in general, such as owning an online business, creating websites, online stock trading, blogging and other forms of journalism, going into web graphic design and programming, etc. The military is yet another huge force that uses the internet (in fact military intelligence designed the internet) for productive purposes. People communicate via the internet and use cyber space to conduct business from all kinds of places: home, the office, during travel, etc. One can use the internet to plan and coordinate various aspects of their life including their social agenda, work schedule, etc. It can also be used as a tool to keep in touch with people, reconnect with people, network, broadcast, advertise and discuss.

In conclusion, corporations, politicians, business owners, students, teachers, artists, etc. all use the internet as a platform to further their work and career; some even make careers based on the internet alone. While it's true that some people like to "waste time" browsing social networking sites, as John Lennon would say "Any time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted." A few people's uses of the internet cannot negate the productivity and efficiency the internet gives us as a whole. The internet helps connect the world and is used as a medium that greatly increases productivity.

Thank you.

[1] http://arstechnica.com...
Debate Round No. 1
debategurl88

Pro

Though all of your points may be true, I have absolutely no idea what you are debating because you did not provide a definition of productive. Apparently it is okay to post a definition in the comments section and seeing as I did, and it was posted before your argument, my definition must be the definition used for this debate. Because of this, all of your points make absolutely no sense what so ever.

The internet is an intangible thing. Because of this, it does not have the ability to synthesize anything tangible, let alone mucus. Two parties may be able to reach an agreement over the transfer of mucus on the internet using sites such as ebay, but the internet itself can not create said mucus. Also, it lacks bronchi, the parts necessary to make mucus per the definition. Because the internet is just a connection of computers, it cannot have tangible parts such as lungs containing said bronchi. Therefore the internet can not create mucus or sputum from its bronchi and is unproductive.

The internet also lacks the capabilities to make users create said mucus. The internet can not transmit a bacteria or virus that can penetrate the body of a human user in order to make it create mucus. Once again, the internet has no tangible form and can not synthesize something that is tangible therefore it can not make the user productive. Because it can not make the user be productive, it must be the opposite, unproductive.
Danielle

Con

I'll begin by noting that my opponent's last round argument is all based around her flawed definition of productive. In the comments section of this debate, someone asks what definition of productive the instigator intended on using (since it was not included in R1), and in the comments section she responded with:

"raising mucus or sputum (as from the bronchi)"

First and foremost, this is an abusive definition. Clearly my opponent is trying to win this debate via semantics instead of presenting an actual legitimate argument (that's a shame). Second, this definition was never mentioned in the opening round, meaning I don't have to accept it. Third, Pro seems to believe that definitions or comments in the comment section to this debate are relevant; unfortunately she is far from right -- the definition she presented there has nothing to do with this debate - I don't agree to it - and I don't have to considering I did not accept this debate with that specified definition. Therefore, you can negate Pro's entire last round argument as it revolves around a definition that I don't (and don't have to) agree to.

In this debate, Pro and I either have to agree upon a definition -OR- Pro has the burden of explaining why her definition should be used over mine. I didn't notice her flawed and manipulative definition (which she still only mentioned officially in the comments section) until AFTER I wrote my last argument; that's why the only things to be considered and voted upon are the things that are said specifically here in the debate and not the comments section. The definition or 'productive' that I will present (and that I used to argue my R1 point) is:

"producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value"

http://dictionary.reference.com...

To support my definition, I'd like to bring up that my opponent's definition has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution at hand, or the internet in general. The internet is not a living thing and thus cannot be expected to produce life forms. Additionally, my opponent's opening argument - the one I agreed to debate - did not mention anything about living entities producing mucus, etc. Instead, all it contained was a note that people who use social networking sites cannot be considered productive. Moreover, even if she wants to cheat and use a contriving definition, you'll note that one absolutely can raise mucus (and her definition is productive = raising mucus) while browsing the internet.

In short, my opponent completely failed by (a) not presenting her definition in the opening round; (b) shamelessly trying to present a blatantly manipulative definition of 'productive' and (c) failing to debate properly even according to her own flawed definition. Again, if she defines productive simply as raising mucus or sputum from the bronchi (as she did in the comments section), then she has the burden of proving that people cannot produce mucus while surfing the internet as she argued in the first round. On the contrary, I argue that people can absolutely produce mucus from their bronchi even if they're surfing the internet. Ergo my opponent's argument is entirely wrong in the sense that it argues something entirely different. Her point that the internet is not alive and doesn't have bronchi is completely impertinent to the fact that this debate is about PEOPLE'S production while surfing the internet - not whether the internet itself can be productive or not.

As you can see, my opponent completely failed on numerous levels. I have proven that my definition is not only far more legitimate than my opponent's, but also that I can and have won even using her own faulty definition. Not to mention that the resolution - which she has to affirm - is that the internet is a waste of time. So, even if one couldn't produce mucus while surfing the internet (which is false anyhow), she still hasn't explained why not producing mucus makes something a waste of time. Basically, Pro is pwned.
Debate Round No. 2
debategurl88

Pro

debategurl88 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the last round, thus apparently conceding to my argument(s). Thanks anyway for the debate and good luck to ya.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
:( I feel sorry for you
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I knows, I simply votebombed cuz Lwerd voted for self. :D And, please don't call me a votebomber. I looked at mongoose's photo thingy... Yeah. I don't have all the facts, but it seems to me you make a habit of doing it against him. Also, I love how you to get incredibly serious. Lol.
Posted by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
atheism, why would you give her conduct/argument/spelling points when they all failed?
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Atheism you're a v-bomber. You didn't read the debate at all. I destroyed her semantics definition. She tried to define productive as producing muchus WHICH WAS ABUSIVE and technically her semantics definition is ** NOT EVEN VALID ** by debate standards because it was never agreed upon or mentioned except for in the comments section. But even by her flawed definition I ripped her apart by pointing out it was her burden that people couldn't produce muchus while on the internet which she didn't. She failed this debate on so many levels and yet you gave her all 7 points. Additionally you said it's bc she "clearly can't vote for herself" which she hasn't but SHE HASN'T BEEN ONLINE IN 3 DAYS -- that's why. And it's not about fairness; it's about who won the debate. I clearly won the debate on ALL levels.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Atheism clearly you didn't read the debate. Read my R2 argument. I destroyed her semantics definition.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I boosted my vote because voting for self, when you are the only vote, is a big no-no. She obviously can't vote.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Technically, debategurl was using a low blow, but still quite legitimate. That being said, I have to vote for her, even if I may disagree morally. Which I don't. Semantics, however tricky, are legitimate.
Posted by Pandora_Kin 6 years ago
Pandora_Kin
If You Find Internet As Such A Waste Of Time.. WHY ARE YOU ON IT?!
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Especially semantics as scummy as that (presented in the comments section no less which I didn't notice til just now). It's kinda pathetic.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
I don't like people who like people who use semantics.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
debategurl88DanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
debategurl88DanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
debategurl88DanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
debategurl88DanielleTied
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 Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
debategurl88DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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