Trolling is bad for the community.
Debate Rounds (5)
There wsas LIKE forty deb8s and I chose thos one jus for you m9 m8. troll can not be bed because troll never sleeps. W8 u sed bad? Troll is not bad becuase troll has 4 different letters in it (t, r, o, l) and if you times that by 3 u get 12 aND if ou divide tjat by 4 you get 3 there is 3 sides to a triangle illuminati confirmed. bad= harmful= dangerous. troll= word= safe.
So should I say that I just won and people are like federal crimes happening to others. I won because you went off topic and you didn't argue correctly.
TROLLING IS THE WORST!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and allowing me to accept it.
As my opponent has laid down no regulations as to the confines and rules of this debate, I will do so myself. The BoP lies on myself as Con, where I must prove that generalized trolling is not harmful to individuals of the "community." My opponent has left this undefined, so I will assume he means the internet community as a whole.
Because he has not specified what type of trolls, or what type of trolling, we must assume it is the kind I exemplified in the previous round: mindless banter used to get a humorous reaction out of another party. The intent was, from the beginning, to type something pointless to receive a humorous reaction. As evidenced by the comments, I achieved my goal. However, no one was harmed when I did so. I simply wrote something meaningless and received the reaction I set out to receive. No offensive comments were made, and no stipulations were set forth at the beginning of the round, so I have effectively proven that trolling is NOT bad for the community, and can even be considered good. Thus, I sufficiently fulfilled the resolution on the negative/con side.
However, let's tie back to how trolling can actually benefit others. If the humorous intent is achieved, trolling can be healthy for individuals. Making an individual laugh by achieving that humorous intent can only be beneficial to others. In fact, evidence shows that laughter is good for humans as well.
In an article titled "Give Your Body a Boost--With Laughter" by R. Morgan Griffin, he explains how laughter is beneficial. "I believe that if people can get more laughter in their lives, they are a lot better off," says Steve Wilson, MA, CSP, a pyschologist and laugh therapist. "They might be healthier too." "The effects of laughter and exercise are very similar," says Wilson. "Combining laughter and movement, like waving your arms, is a great way to boost your heart rate." And laughter appears to burn calories, too. Maciej Buchowski, a researcher from Vanderbilt University, conducted a small study in which he measured the amount of calories expended in laughing. It turned out that 10-15 minutes of laughter burned 50 calories." 
In reality, trolling is generally (as stipulated by the resolution confines) done in an effort to get a humorous reaction. When achieved, the obvious follow-up is laughter. That laughter benefits the body as evidenced by the source provided above. Thus, trolling can actually have health benefits for humans. Besides health factors, trolling can also result in laughter that relieves stress.
Mayo Clinic released a publication titled "Stress Relief from Laughter? It's No Joke" that explained the stress-relieving ability of laughter. "A good sense of humor can't cure all ailments, but data are mounting about the positive things laughter can do. A good laugh has great short-term effects. When you start to laugh, it doesn't just lighten your load mentally, it actually induces physical changes in your body. Laughter can: stimulate organs, activate and relieve your stress response, [and] sooth tension. Laughter isn't just a quick pick-me-up, though. It's also good for you over the long haul. Laughter may: improve your immune system, relieve pain, increase personal satisfaction, and improve your mood. [Furthermore] many people experience depression, sometimes due to chronic illnesses. Laughter can help lessen your depression and anxiety and make you feel happier." 
Besides health benefits coming from laughter that can stem from trolling, the effects of trolling can actually relieve stress and lessen depression. Because trolling causes laughter, people affected by trolling can receive the benefits from laughter. All of these things provided only prove that trolling has no harmful effects and is conversely beneficial to the community.
To discuss my opponent's last round, I would like to begin by attacking what my opponent has said. He blatantly stereotypes trolling by saying that it's harmful and people just troll because they don't want hate on trolls. However, we need to understand that not all trolling is the same, and the resolution did not specify. Trolling for the simple intent of a humorous reaction has no harms and is simply that; a lure for humorous reaction. He also claims that trolls don't argue properly and just try to make a joke to keep *their love of trolling. Not so. As I have explained multiple times, trolling is done for the humorous reaction that follows, not just because they don't know how to argue. I believe I have proven that in this rebuttal. Lastly, my opponent says he wins because I went "off topic" and didn't argue correctly. I have two things to say about this. First, how is trolling on a troll topic off topic? If the topic is ALL about trolling, how does trolling NOT pertain to the topic? Secondly, I did argue correcly. I was exemplifying what my opponent thinks is "bad" or "wrong" or "harmful." In reality, it was only an example to prove that trolling is not harmful. Further, I have now effectively explained my side, and fulfilled the resolution in proving that trolling is not harmful. Thank you.
Now back to the topic, I would like to quickly announce that these trolling videos are being posted on the Internet where anyone can access it. Famous trolls like Minnesota Burns post innocent kids being posted on the Internet where that can affect the future career of the human organism. So it would make trolling videos more life threatening than some video or game. We been having this problem in social media but trolling is far dangerous because it's some troll posting someone else on the Internet without permission or any warnings.
If affecting a career isn't enough, a study shown that Internet trolls are actually horrible people in real life situations. Now if trolling create's laughter more the human body, it's causes an increase of narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic behavior which are major problems of the world today.
Humor has many decisions and watching a troll video isn't a smart one. You have a choice of watching a kid raging and to start laughing at him because some human being decided to use a recorder and record himself making a person mad on the Internet for no actual reason or you have a choice of watching a comedy show that you laughing at it isn't so emotional and offensive. The study is likely correct but that doesn't give us the right to be offensive to someone else you don't know a hint amount about that person. This trolling act is inspiring people to act more disrespectful to random people in the society.
Today trolling is ruining our society because it would affect a future career, it creates more negative personalities in the real world, and the act of humor can be easily less offensive and emotional. I would point out that the Pro of this topic used 3 good reasons why trolling is terrible. (In my opinion)
"I said that I "won" because of you having the act of ignorance on my debate." As evidenced by the following round, I am not ignorant of the topic in discussion. Furthermore, I explained the simply expemplary purpose of how I interpreted and used the first round. I then expounded on it, and showed why I did as such and how it was impactful in the debate. As for lack of criteria, it's not obvious. There is either criteria, or there is not. If so, the opponent has guidelines to follow. If not, the debate is open in its entirety for interpretation.
"I said I won because of you not having a thesis statement against my point. So it's obvious that the Pro should win." Refer back to Pro's first round. Verbatim, this is how it reads: "I believe that Internet trolling (more specifically on the troll videos on Youtube). Anyone want to debate against me?" If someone doesn't have a thesis, it's obviously Pro. I their round, they said nothing For or Against trolling. Further, however "trolly" it might be, I gave a reason why trolling is not bad, while my opponent said nothing. Next, in the second round, I provided multiple arguments and plenty of theoretical arguments confirming the Con side.
My opponent brings up the fact that trolling videos are being posted on the Internet. Some of these, may indeed be bad. However, I am not under the BoP to prove that all trolling is good; just that not all trolling is bad. As I have done so in the previous round with no legitimate attacks to those points, I have negated the resolution. Furthermore, my opponent has not cited evidence that proves that those troll videos are life-threatening. As I have implicated previously, trolling can sometimes actually have benefits. The troll videos don't necessarily affect job opportunities either. Any reasonable employer would realize that such a video likely occurred (as my opponent claims) while the potential employee was young, and not as driven or dedicated (Simply being a child, as all were).
My opponent's next claim centralizes on the point that trolls are bad people. He gives numerous examples that supposedly describe these people. Yet, I trolled during this debate, and none of those descriptions fit me. This point falls without merit, as it is not backed up by reasonable logic nor evidence from reputable sources.
My opponent's last claim is the only one with even the minutest amount of merit. It basically says that people can find humor in other ways. I can't negate that claim directly, as it is true. However, my opponent still hasn't shown that trolling is harmful to people. Furthermore, not all trolling is bad in any way. Some is legitimate humor, and nothing more.
Lastly, my opponent has claimed that there are three reasons why trolling is bad, but all three have been effectively countered.
Also, note that I have arguments still standing. Namely, those stannding arguments are as follows:
(1) Trolling is done often for simply humorous reactions
(2) Health Benefits
(b) Stress Relief
(3) Mood Improvement
(4) Decreased Depression Severity
Also, I said before you only give me a type of an example of trolling that isn't necessary to do that. Have a scientific support is better than a physical support because it is less convincing, more hurtful, and might cause a big emotional fight between the debaters. As in conclusion, you didn't argue correctly and I won the round because of you using a unnecessary support that could have cause emotional arguing and you violating the basic criteria of a debating speech on any round.
Now back to the topic.
I basically said that the study of laughing that benefits our health (which was a very good support) is easily weaken by another study and the choice of humor. The study shown that this humor is created by the people who are increasingly being more disrespectful to others on real life and communication on the Internet. The humor part of the study doesn't really make trolling good because there are other humor creations that harm innocent people that makes society laugh and trolling is cause more threats than humor because it affects other people's social life at a young and old age and adds a threat to people in their mature state in which they are close of having a career. There are many storys of people who lost a job interview because of social networks and pictures and video of the person applying for the job.
I would like to point out about the basics of trolling videos.
1. All trolling videos have people on the Internet talking or raging to some idiot who decide to use a camera or recording device on a game console.
2. The Internet is BIG! Anyone can watch the trolling video and laugh at a innocent person who didn't deserve to be laughed at and be negativity popularized. A depression attack is struck on a person or group of people that can cause suicide like bullying does.
3. Speaking of Bullying, it's already proved that trolling is bullying because both the troll and the bully want a funny reaction. Both entertain people around them. Trolling is worse because this type of bullying is being posted on the Internet where it's BIG!!
Although that trolling videos actually help our moods and health, it causes much more harm such as the fact it's ruining our society by destroying the current life and maybe that future of innocent children, teens, and young adults and causing a more serious factor of disrespect and violence.
The study of the personality of trolls: http://www.slate.com...
Social Media affecting careers: http://www.theaggie.org...
This is not a debate essay, it is a debate. Further, my opponent didn't have a thesis in HIS first argument, so disregarding the first round as a whole could be done, if necessary. Once again, the first round was only an example. I felt that truly showing the voters what trolling is, rather than simply providing evidence right off the bat, would be more effective in showing how trolling is NOT bad. My opponent argues that I should have scientific support rather than physical support. However, I did this, in the second round. His bashing on my first round is irrelevant, especially when he didn't even point out his position of the topic, nor provide any arguments, in his first round. His claim that he HAD a thesis statement when I did not, is bogus. He says his thesis is that "I believe that Interet trolling (more speciffically on the troll videos on Youtube)(is bad)." If that is considered a thesis, I had one too. His "thesis" only states his position. I stated my position as well. "Troll is not bad..." That statement simply stated my position, just as my opponent did. Furthermore, the support I gave was not unnecessary, but rather essential, for voters to understand the debate. Thus, his entire "thesis" argument crumbles, and he DOESN'T simply win the first round because of his say so.
My opponent concedes that my evidence regarding the benefits that can arise from trolling is good. He says, however, that its impact is easily weakened by another study. However, he doesn't bring up what that other study is, nor does he cite any evidence to back this up. The only source he cites is how trolls are "horrible people" which is subjective in nature. Not all trolls are narcisstic or have awful personalities. I trolled during this debate, and I don't consider myself a bad person, and my opponent cannot prove that I am a bad person. Most people acquainted with me would not describe me by using the terms my opponent used to stereotype trolls.
He says that there are other ways to have humor, and while true, there is not logical reason to exclude trolling from getting those humorous reactions. I've given an example of a troll, and it is not offensive in any way, but yet subjectively humorous. He further specifies trolling videos, but it's a person's choice to watch those videos, they are not required to. He then outlines 3 basics of troll videos, and here are my arguments against them:
1. Not all trolling is the same, and not all include the raging and teasing of children.
2. No one is required to watch those videos, and can choose not to. Further, children don't have to participate in scenarios that would lead to such actions and problems.
3. Wanting a humorous reaction doesn't necesitate bullying. When telling a joke, the intent is to get a humorous reaction, but a joke is not a form of bullying. Doing something crazy or stupid to make your friends laugh is not bullying. His argument that the correlation between the intent of trolls and bullys facilitates bullying does not prove causation, nor does is it relevant in recognizing the disparity between bullying and simply trolling.
In his last paragraph, he makes blatant claims backed up with NO evidence. These are simply uneducated assumptions. As I have exemplified trolling, and shown how it is not offensive, I have also proved that trolling is not bad. Under the context of the debate, I must simply objectively prove that trolling (of any form) is not bad. As I have done so, I negate the resolution. Thank you.
Your example was a bit risky. You think for a certain action has to be "offensive" in order to be bad. You "trolling" on the first round is ignorant because committing an actual action to convince the voters isn't 100% convincing in order to exemplify them. Second of all, I think it's just stressful in what the definition of offensive is. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, offensive is defined as,"causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting." Therefore you exemplifying me is just like stabbing someone to exemplify someone else to see how bad murder is. This way of giving an example might lead to an emotional fight among the debaters. From my perspective, I found you trolling me is really bias and is embarrassing me cause me to feel a little upset because you have to embarrass me in order to convince someone which is actually just being 'offensive'.
A scientific study is a survey of the society and it's not either this one or this one. Most studies have variation. So the study that shows trolls are horrible people doesn't say that ALL are horrible people. I'm using this study saying that trolling is carrying a risk in our society of murder and extremely offensive speech. Murder is one of the worlds major problems and ignoring it is a bad decision.
I know that watching a troll video is optional but trolling has been popular in the entertainment system. So it's likely that most people would get a laugh out of trolling. Laughing at someone who is getting tricked or 'trolled' is laughing at someone who did something embarrassing. Because of this, it falls in the category of bullying someone.
I would have to say the trolling is a type of bullying. I already explained why on the last round. It's definitely true that not all jokes need to be bullying but trolling is a way of entertainment that embarrasses innocent children on the internet. Also, I already said what all trolling videos have and you repeated,"Not all trolling is the same." For you, I'll repeat the basics of trolling again:
1. A trolling video is a video on the Internet where anyone can see it. This can effect the current and maybe the future of children's life's. If it's not published on the Internet, it's not a trolling VIDEO.
2. Both trolling and bullying are basically the same because both want a reaction or a kid embarrassing himself (For example, when a young child is impersonating a famous person). Both entertain people around them. Saying that humor isn't created by bullying all the time doesn't consider trolling to be 'good' because trolling IS bullying,
3. Explained on Number 2 about what trolls do.
For my final argument, trolling has been hurting our society by causing a threat on a person's life, creating a psychopathic personality, and embarrasses kids on the Internet worldwide. I supported these argument by other earlier rounds and I'm saying this because I apparently have to say that these reasons are educated assumptions.
The basics of debating don't particularly necesitate writing an essay. Instead, it's simply constructing arguments in an orderly and coherent manner to refute an opponent's arguments and bring up unique and effective points to support your side as well. These paragraphs don't formulate an essay, as each essay must be formatted in a certain way. The California State University, Northridge, confirms this notion, explaining the basics of essay writing. Common essays entail six areas: Overview, Introduction, The Model, Body, Concluding Paragraph, and Final Comments.  Though this doesn't particularly relate to the debate, I must effectively counter any point my opponent brings up. Therefore, clarification of the juxtaposition of a debate essay and a normative debate must be given.
Please read my explanation in the last round carefully, the one pertaining to thesis statements. If you recall, my opponent did not explicitly state his postion, it was left empty. Implied position may be true, but I did state my position, where I said "Troll is not bad" in the first round. That said, there is no logical or permissible reason to assume that I did not give a thesis, as my opponent has termed it, when I was the only one to state my position in the first round. Furthermore, stating it in the second round is NOT late. Allow me to explain. My opponent did not state his position in the first round, or give any arguments. His first statement was in the second round, whereas mine was in the first round. Even if I hadn't stated it in the first round, I would have done just as well as my opponent in this area.
He calls my example an "ignorant" one, yet it successfully exemplified the action of a troll, and was NOT harmful or embarrassing to anyone, as it was not directed as an insult to anyone, nor in any fashion. He appeals to emotions by saying my troll was embarrassing. But, because it was not directed towards any particular person or party, the troll cannot be, in and of itself, offensive or embarrassing. It is for these reasons that I respectfully urge for a vote in negation. :) thank you
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.