Why should students not be allowed to use social networking sites
Debate Rounds (3)
First, some definitions
Dictionary.com defines a social network as:
a dedicated website or other application that enables users to communicate with each other by posting information, comments, messages, images, etc.
This means that not only are vine, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. social networks, so are reddit, different forums, and the like.
Negate is defined as "to disprove the truth of" so proving the resolution false is textually sufficient to negate
1. Both sides of the debate only have the burden to prove the resolution false in the general sense. Forcing the negative to defend all instances of social networking being bad would mean defending extreme examples that I can never win.
The standard is the consistency with interdependence, as social networks represent a way to connect to others regardless of physical distance
I will be starting with the Affirmative case and then cross apply my opponent's contention level with my own to prove that his contentions actually support my case better than his.
As far as I can tell, my opponent really only has 1 contention divided into 3 different subcontentions
1.) Social Networking has negative repercussions
a. Decreases potential in school
b. Risk of being scammed
c. Stranger danger
This is backed up by absolutely no empirical evidence, and we're supposed to take all of this information on face, and not question whether or not he just made it up on the spot. This is useless. We can't have a debate without empirical evidence, unless we're debating philosophy, which this clearly isn't.
Since the opponent has a complete lack of any evidence, we must disregard his claims until he can show us proof that these are all legitimate risks.
He also doesn't give us a definition of "scam", meaning that he can basically wait for me to interpret it one way, and then interpret it a different way later on in the debate, saying that my interp was way off
As such, don't let him change the definition of "scam" later in the debate, as he failed to provide one when he first used that line of reasoning.
According to a study taken by microsoft, social networking actually INCREASED worker's productivity
Empirical evidence such as that above is required to make a claim, IE I can claim that the ground is actually all lava, or that I can do more push-ups than the affirmative side, but for all you know, the affirmative is a professional bodybuilder. The burden of proof always lies on the affirmative, because they are making the claim in a general sense. If i said "I have superpowers", would you believe me? No, the idea of having superpowers is ludicrous, and you would ask for proof. as the opponent provides no proof, you must assume neg always.
Moving on to my contentions
1- Social networking increases productivity
See evidence above, clearly stated
2- Social networking increases interdependence
"Conceive agents as mutually interconnected, vulnerable and dependent, often in
asymmetric ways. This approach lets us visualize the moral agent as a ""mother"
child-dyad"", for example, instead of the ""autonomous-man-model""
basically, all people are fundamentally connected at some level or another, and to refuse this fact is to refuse basic human nature. In denying someone their ability to communicate with others, you are not only violating their constitutional rights, but also their human nature. Because of this, restricting and/or condemning the use of social networking directly reduces the capability of humans as social beings, a grievous misdeed to humanity altogether
Thus, because I have reduced my opponent's nonwarranted arguments to nothing, and have backed up my own case with evidence and cards, I urge a strong negative vote
They also stated that in denying someone their ability to communicate with others, you are not only violating their constitutional rights, but also their human nature. But what would you prefer? A infringement of your rights to protect you, and those all around you, or your "constitutional rights" being active, and you, a student at risk?
To begin with, social networking sites decreases a child's potential in school, thus possibly affecting their report. I have evidence to back me up. On this website, http://www.mirror.co.uk..., it stated that research done by YouGov showed a quarter of children aged six to 11 spend an hour a day on social networking such as Facebook and Twitter and only 1 out of 10 actually use the social networking site for homework or educational purposes. Let's say that there are 15 million students. If 9 out of 10 which is 90% of the students don't use social networking sites for educational purposes, then that is 13,500,000 students that don't use social networking sites for educational purposes. To the people who read this, then can you compare the number that do use social networking sites for educational purposes-1,500,000, and those that don't-13,500,000? That's 9 times the amount!
Secondly, the unsuspecting student could be scammed, without him or her even knowing it. For example, in this government website, http://www.scamwatch.gov.au..., it stated that a scammer might request to be your friend so they can access your personal information. Scammers have also tricked users into handing over their social networking password and username. They do this by sending fake but genuine-looking emails or messages, supposedly from the social networking service, requesting "confirmation" of your username and password. This is called "phishing".Once a scammer has your password they can gain control of your account and pose as you. They may then use your account to send bogus distress messages to your friends and family claiming that you are in trouble and need money urgently. Scammers will often commit this scam whilst you are travelling if you have posted your holiday plans on your social networking profile. Scammers can also perpetrate this scam via email if they obtain access to your email account.
My last argument is that,the student could be stalked or lured into meeting a stranger at a private place. Take this for an example and this a true story. According to this website, http://www.telegraph.co.uk..., Peter Chapman targeted thousands of impressionable young girls through the internet while posing as a teenage boy. Chapman used his correct day and month of birth but changed the year to make him appear half his age. He also used a picture of a bare-chested young man he claimed to be him with, giving his details as Peter Cartwright, or DJ Pete, a 17 year old labourer living in the Stockton on Tees area. It attracted interest from 14,600 visitors, almost 3,000 becoming online "friends" and all of whom were females ranging from the age of 13 to 31. But the most horrible information of all was that he befriended a girl named Ashleigh Hall, a shy 17-year-old who was desperate for a boyfriend.Then Ashleigh Hall clicked on to Peter Chapman's Facebook profile and saw a bare-chested teenager who was muscular, good looking and - crucially - interested in her. Then, Chapman told her to meet him, and when she was there, he raped and murdered her. And that was the tragic end of Ashleigh Hall.
And that is why I believe, students should NOT be allowed to use social networking sites. We need to prevent this from happening any further. We need to protect the younger generations.
First, I'll look at the AC and then move to the NC
Observation 1- My opponent completely ignored my definition of a "social network". Their warrant for it not being the correct definition was because it 'wasn't'
My opponent then provides us their own definition, which is clearly biased. Because of this lack of warrant, ignore their definition.
Observation 2- My opponent's only attack on he rights arg is a rhetorical question. And not a very effective one at that. Even if someone can't use social networking, there are still risks on the internet. Just because I don't use some social networks doen't mean there aren't still creepy lurkers on the internet trying to hurt me. This argument is a wash as there is no impact, and no empirical evidence to back it up.
Moving on the the AC's contention level
Subcontention One states that "social networking sites decrease a child's potential in school, thus possibly affecting their report". This is a blatant contradiction of the evidence my opponent is showing me. This evidence clearly states "Half of all parents THINK" that social networking negatively impacts their children. These are parents who may or may not know what they're talking about. We need hard, empirical evidence to back up radical claims like this which the affirmative fails to provide. Thus, this entire contention can be ignored as the affirmative has blatantly lied to us about what the study says. Secondly, my opponent doesn't even make any impacts as to why people using a lot of social networks are bad. For example, "drugs are bad" is a poor argument. "Drugs are bad because [x], [y], and [z]" that is an impacted argument. Ignore my opponent's entire first contention because of the lack of impacts, and improper use of evidence.
Subcontention Two states that"the unsuspecting student could be scammed, without him or her even knowing it". My opponent then gives us a link to a government website on tips of how to AVOID scamming. First, this isn't evidence. This is just a website that basically says "scamming happens, here's how to avoid it". This doesn't help my opponent's case at all, it just tells us that internet scams exist. By exercising a reasonable amount of caution, you can avoid getting scammed. For instance, if I asked my opponent for his debate.org email and password, there is no way they would give it to me. Why? Because it's super shady and if you give out your password to someone, that's just plain dumb. It specifically says on emails from facebook/twitter/whatever "An official [x] representative will never ask you for your password". This argument is like saying "people shouldn't drive cars because they might crash". If they shouldn't drive a car, what's the point of them existing? There is none. This argument holds no solvency, so drop it and prefer my arguments over my opponent's
Lastly, my opponent's third subcontention/quasi-narrative. Here, it says "people will commit crimes via social networks". This is true. People can indeed do this sort of stuff. It's bad when they do. The story is indeed very sad. But this hinges off of the idea that crime only happens over the internet, it only happens over social networks, which we all know is simply not true. I can walk down the street, and I might get mugged. Is it because of social networking? Nope. And if someone tries to rape or assault me, is this the fault of social networking? Of course not. My opponent is treating social networking sites as though they are the root of the problem, a weed we need to tear out. It's more like a tree. Yes, there are mushrooms attached to the tree. Yes they are poisonous. Is the solution to chop down the tree, and blame it for poisoning you? No, you blame the poisonous mushrooms that you were dumb enough to eat.
In short, my opponent's definition has no valid source and is obviously neg biased. Her first contention contains faulty evidence and no impacts, her second contention is completely reliant on people not exercising reasonable, logical caution, and her third contention was just a plea to the better nature of the people relying on faulty logic. Her only other attack on my arguments are the "constitution" attack. We're going to ignore this because of a few reasons.
a.) The US Constitution is the law. If you deny someone their constitutional rights, you break the law. If you break the law, you are a criminal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my opponent is not a criminal, and thus would not want to deny constitutional rights, lest we find ourselves in a repeat of North Korea or Soviet Russia.
b.) My opponent is asking a question to appeal to the better nature of the judge, to "guilt trip" them, if you would. "Would you really want to put your child at risk of being raped, abused, and possibly killed?" Of course we don't want to hurt our children, to insinuate so is downright insulting, and the use of this tactic is at least a little bit offensive. There is no "correct way" to answer the question, ignore it as the double standard is abusive towards the neg.
Moving on the the NC, extend Peterson 1. This means my opponent completely ignored the fact that people require being interconnected to increase their capability as humans. This means that I have offense, whereas my opponent does not. Secondly, I have demonstrated that at least some amount of social networking does in fact INCREASE productivity, unlike what my opponent would have you believe. With this in mind, there is only one possible vote, and that is a vote for the negative.
EmilyElaine forfeited this round.
I thank my opponent for the debate
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate