The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

do we have less face to face interaction because of facebook and whatsapp

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,630 times Debate No: 78390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In my opinion"Facebook is a place where friends go to make meaningful connections," . "This regional campaign celebrates those connections and the different kinds of friendship that enrich our lives both on and off Facebook."
There"s no doubt that Facebook has impacted the societies we live and operate in through various ways and degrees.

The social network phenomenon gained even greater prominence in our collective psyche this month due to the new movie, The Social Network, which chronicles the origins of Facebook on the Harvard campus. Having now spread far beyond the realm of college students to include people of all ages in countries throughout the world, Facebook and other social networking sites represent a new way of connecting with friends, colleagues, acquaintances, friends-of-friends, and even people we don't know who want to "friend' us via the internet.

But when we communicate online, whether it's on Facebook or through email, or when we tweet or text, what's missing? What specific elements do we miss out on when we trade face-to-face communication for connecting through our computer or blackberry? It may seem obvious to some, but I think we tend to forget about the importance of body language, voice inflection, and the simple act of looking someone in the eye during a conversation. Granted, technologies such as Skype can provide us with the screen image of the person to whom we're talking. But is eye contact as palpable on a screen as it is in person? And how "undivided' is our attention when we're reading someone's email message, as opposed to when we're sitting across a table from them? Can a text message convey the nuance of a facial expression?

I've had young clients tell me about serious disagreements they've had with friends when text messages and emails are misunderstood. We've discussed how easily words can be misinterpreted when they are isolated from body language, and how texts and emails can convey the wrong messages about how you really feel. There is something stilted about online conversations because a certain dimension of emotion is missing, a dimension that only exists when two people are face to face. Body language, facial expression, and the tone and inflection of our voice all play a part in communicating our feelings.

I've suggested that my clients try this exercise, which demonstrates how important in-person factors are in communicating your true emotions. I have them speak the same sentence three times, each time expressing a different attitude or emotional tone. For example, if you have to break a date with a friend, you might say, "I'm sorry I couldn't make it but something else came up.' That sentence could be stated with frustration, sarcasm, or compassion. One could speak the words while smiling, scowling, or putting one's arm around the friend's shoulder. When clients try this simple exercise, they realize how the message changes depending on how the words are spoken and what gestures are used.

Our facial expression, physical gestures, and the emotional tone in our voice alter the meaning of our words, which is why it is very difficult to express ourselves fully and authentically in an email or text-or even in front of a Skype screen. So when we forego face-to-face encounters in favor of screen-speak or emailed or text words, our friends receive only a partial message. What's missing are the feelings that inform the words.


Social Network? New movie? This month?

"I've had young clients"?

Debate Round No. 1


umes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


umes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited so conduct to Con. Con used sources so he also gains those points. Pro is the only one who actually posted an argument so he gains those points. This debate ends in a 3-3 tie.