query: Are social networking sites good for our society?

positive: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Social network sites are all the rage today. They allow people from every corner of the world to interact with each other by sharing pictures, leaving comments and posts, iming each other and accessing their personal information. Although these new aspects of the social networking sites seem harmless, sexual predators are using these options to assault and harass children and teens all over the world. There have been many lawsuits against these networks for failing to provide adequate security and maintenance and for failing their responsibility of protecting their users. Social networking sites create a pool of private information where criminals can access it and use it to steal identities, or portray as a different person. In addition, social networking sites promote negative behavior, as seen with the pro-anorexia groups on facebook, and the juicy campus gossip site which landed a student in jail. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a "growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report." David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because any perceived benefit of social networking is essentially an insignificant stretch, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution.

positive: Social networks are beneficial to our society! To start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the "hit-maker" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a "contagion" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think "social media helps solve crimes more quickly. " [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, "Never Seconds," which exposed the state of her school"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of "Friends of Never Seconds" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to "lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. " [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported "at least one measurable business benefit. " For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands," www. briansolis. com [3]"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives," www. commonsensemedia. org [5]"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool," Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media," www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, "Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking," www. nsba. org [8] "The Case for Social Media in Schools," www. mashable. com [10] "The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy," www. jobvite. com [12]"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey," www. jobvite. com [13]"Generations 2010," www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, "Move Over Youngsters, Grandma"s on Facebook," www. newswise. com [16] "Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist," Forbes Asia Magazine [17]"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts," www. nea. gov [18] "How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education," Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] "Skype and the Embedded Librarian," Library Technology Reports [21]"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users," www. blog. edmodo. com [22]"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites," USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing," www. lexisnexis. com [24]"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force," www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation," www. usatodayeducate. com [28]"How Social Media Saved the Economy," www. technorati. com [30]"Twitter," www. topics. nytimes. com [31]"Facebook, Public Education and Equity"www. dm [33]"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research" www. guardian. co. uk [34]"Social Media and Voting",www. pewinternet. org [35]"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media," s1. intuitstatic. com

positive: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our "cliques" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not "freinds" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.

positive: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.

positive: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them. Because the resolution states "That, on balance" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate. That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.

positive: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Sorry for thinking that you were a guy! I will start using "her", "she", and other female pronouns now >.<~!==PLAGIARISM==I'd like to bring it to the attention of the readers of this debate that PRO plagiarized most of her arguments from http://www.businessweek.com..., unless if she can prove that she's Jenna Goudreau, a reporter from Business Week and the writer of the PRO argument. Although plagiarism wasn't mentioned as a rule(as there were no rules that Elliebub posted), I still think that PRO should be punished for this.==DROPPED ARGUMENTS==The PRO completely ignored and failed to respond to the following arguments. 1) Self-determination Groups--She doesn't realize the importance of social networking sites when self-determination groups are trying to organize. Sometimes, these people are being suppressed by the government and cannot meet and group together in public-so they use online social websites. The right to free speech and to rally can be preformed online. She concedes to my point about how people with similar interests can group together and take action. ==REBUTTALS==PRO says "I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied."1)I've already stated this, and I'll say it again. These large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members.2) Parents and Schools exist for reasons. Those who get cyber-bullied, just like those who get bullied in real life, can simply go to their parents or to their school.3)Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.4)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. PRO says.."The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a résumé with a head shot."1) According to http://mashable.com..., recently, LinkedIn passed its 100-million user mark and currently it has 131 million members and more than a million groups. I don't see how this is "inadequate for successfully making new business contacts."2) LinkedIn is adding a new member every second. (http://mashable.com...)3) A survey of LinkedIn users showed that, 61% used LinkedIn primarly, 22% use Facebook mainly, and 4% use Twitter. (http://mashable.com...)4) Also in a survey, 90% of LinkedIn users believe that this networking site is useful for connecting to clients and hiring people that they normally wouldn't meet. (http://mashable.com...)PRO says "Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. "The most effective networking is face to face," says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. 'There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.'"1) Social Networking sites can allow friends and family, that are far away, to share information about their lives. If one of your friends move, how can you hope to meet them in real life constantly to keep your friendship? Websites like Facebook make forgetting your old friends and distant family members almost impossible, as you always see their updates on social networking sites.2)You may argue that social networking sites are a distraction to humans.. But can't that be said to just about everything? Online gamers, sports fans, music lovers, and more all can spend unbelievable amounts of time on their favorite activity? Anything can be a distraction.Pro also says "Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past."1)No one says that you can't make your profile private....2)Sure, sometimes you don't want to talk to people in your past, but doesn't this still happen in real life? This is only relevant and specific to online networking sites.3)Pro goes to say that "It's less personal online.." in her earlier argument. Now she says that it's a pain and harder to deal with the past online, where "it's less personal".==NEW ARGUMENTS==1)Communication to large groups of people... Social networking sites allow you to feed information to groups of people. Now, instead of having to group everyone together in the same place and at the same time, to deliver information to them, you can simply post your message online. The recipients of your message can check their news feeds and read it at their own convenient times. ==OLD ARGUMENTS==I'm just putting them here to remind you guys...1) Monitered by staff members2) Balance in privacy between parents and teenagers3) The human mind needs social activity.4) Allows people to keep in touch easily, even if they are far away.5) Self-determination groups sometimes use social networking sites.

positive: Social networking sites are harmful. Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. "Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.

positive: society going into decline Society is winding down into chaos and disorder.In almost all sphere"s of life and public relations.Kids are totally without discipline and most people dont seem to care. with social media running rampant what chance do people have, its all about how people look, how many friends they have got. Society is turning more and more sour people are being groomed for hate. If you think society is getting better please debate, becauce all I see is chaos,rebellion and disorder.

positive: Students should use social networking 1. Social media can be a distraction in class The first concern that comes to mind when using social media in the classroom is how it will be a major distraction to the students during lessons. Students could easily be sidetracked from an assignment and it could be difficult for teachers to tell who is paying attention or not. 2. Improper use of social media in the classroom Students might take advantage of being able to access social media in the classroom and use it for personal interactions instead of for school related activities. If students are not closely monitored it will be hard to know how if they are using social media properly during class time. 3. Using social media in the classroom can detract from human interaction If students are encouraged to participate in class discussions through social media websites this could impact their ability to interact in face to face situations. Students still need to learn how to have conversations with people even in this modern technology based world. 4. Cyber bullying on social media websites Some students have experienced cyber bullying through social media websites. If social media is allowed in schools this could increase cyber bullying where students write hurtful messages targeting other students. 5. Posting inappropriate content on social media websites One of the reasons social media sites are not allowed in schools is because it is difficult to monitor how students use social media sites. A student may post inappropriate content such as pornography or foul language which would be both distracting and damaging to students.

positive: social media good for young children The one common bad effect of social media is addiction " the constant checking of Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media updates. Experts believe that knowing what"s going on with friends and what they are thinking or feeling can be addicting. Researchers at UCLA"s Brain Mapping Center has found that being appreciated in social media through "likes" was seen in brain scans to activate the reward centers of the brain. This reward circuitry is particularly sensitive during adolescence, and this may partly explain why teenagers are more into social media. For kids and teens, knowing how many people like what they posted, how many followed (or unfollowed) them, and knowing what people say about them also leads to compulsive checking. This addiction to social media could disrupt other worthwhile activities like concentrating on schoolwork, reading or engaging in sports. The heaviest social media users admit to checking their social media feeds more than 100 times a day, sometimes even during school. Bad effects of social networking to kids and teens, according to psychologists or suggested by scientific studies, are as follows: A 2015 U.K. Office for National Statistics finds that children who spend more than 3 hours each school day on social media sites are more than twice as likely to suffer poor mental health. Their immersion in a virtual world may cause these children to experience delay in their emotional and social development. According to the report, social media are potentially "a source of social comparison, cyber bullying and isolation", which could lead to mental health problems. A report published by IZA Institute of Labor Economics even suggests that just one hour a day on social media can make a teen miserable. The study also theorized that this may be caused by issues of cyberbullying, an increase in social comparisons, and a decrease in real-life, face-to-face activities. Another 2015 study by the British Psychological Society finds that teenagers being obligated to be responsive to social media (liking posts, answering texts and direct messages) throughout the day affect their mental health. A University of Michigan study seem to indicate that in young adults, Facebook use leads to decline in subjective well-being. The more young adults use Facebook, the worse they feel moment-to-moment and the less they feel satisfied with their lives overall. DoSometing.org, "one of the largest organizations for young people and social change", lists several bad effects of social media, which includes sleep disorder, depression, addiction, 24/7 stress, isolation, insecurity, and fear of missing out (FOMO). FOMO or the fear of missing out on something important (like their friends" jokes, parties, activities and other ways of having fun) leads to depression and anxiety in teen social media users, according to a survey done by the Australian Psychological Society. FOMO is one of the main reasons for teenagers" heavy use of social media. Screen relationships detract from spending time in real life relationships and developing social skills. According to Patricia Greenfield, professor of psychology in the UCLA College, the implications of her research is that when people use digital media for social interaction, they"re spending less time developing social skills and learning to read nonverbal cues. "Social interaction is needed to develop skills in understanding the emotions of other people." The results of a survey from the University of Glasgow shows that social media use particularly at night, with strong emotional involvement, led to poorer sleep quality, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of anxiety. This can be a problem since teens with low self-esteem grow up as depressed adults, according to previous studies. Social networks are fertile grounds for bad influencers and anonymous venoms and hunting grounds for deviants and other predators. For kids who crave attention, Facebook and other social network becomes a venue for them to act out. These kids may make inappropriate statements, pictures and videos that could ultimately harm them. Also, posts and materials that are published online tend to be permanent and may haunt them in the future. A study by Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University concludes that extended use of social networks like Facebook can result in a decrease in empathy among teens, and thus an increase in narcissism. Young people who have a history of harming themselves or attempting suicide might be particularly vulnerable to negative messages posted online, new research shows. The new review, published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, found that kids and young adults who have thoughts of self-harm or suicide actually spend more time on the Internet and are more often victims of cyberbullying than their peers who do not have such thoughts. Some kids realize that spending a lot of time in social media results in wasted time, and this negatively affects their mood Selfies, which became popular with the rise of camera phones, can trigger mental health conditions when a person becomes obsessed with looks. The Mirror, for example, recently featured a selfie addict who tried to kill himself when he couldn"t take a perfect photo. According to Pamela Rutledge in Psychology Today, "Preoccupation with selfies can be a visible indicator of a young person with a lack of confidence or sense of self that might make him or her a victim of other problems as well. Excessive and increasingly provocative selfie-ing is a form of "acting out," a common behavioral pattern to get attention." Educators also note that for kids and teens in social networks, there are no spelling and grammar rules. In fact it is cool to misspell and not make sense. Less sophisticated children will find it hard to differentiate between social networking communication and real world communication. In fact many teachers are complaining that social networking communication with misspellings and lack of grammar are seeping through student"s school writings. Social media habits are also blamed for lack of sleep and sleep problems in teenagers. Bright light emitted from smart phones and tablets are thought to disrupt sleep cycles. For young people sleep is important for learning, the development of the young brain, as well as for growing and staying healthy. Baroness Susan Greenfield , a top neuroscientist of the Oxford University warns about the lifelong effects of too much social networking: Facebook and other networking sites "are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a short attention span and live for the moment". There is hardly any concentration skills required in participating in these social networking sites, and these train the brain to have poor attention span. Kids are detracted from learning to communicate in the real world. There are reports from teachers that social networking is affecting kids" comprehension levels. Also, if kids communicate primarily through the screen they do not learn the subtleties of real life communication " such as body language, tone of voice, and subconsciously sensing the molecules that other people release. Social networking sites make kids more self-centered. Since Facebook and other sites give kids their own page which is about them, it leads some vulnerable kids to think that everything revolves around them, a precursor for emotional problems in their later life. This might also result in inability to empathize. These sites make kids prone to sensationalism. Thank you for reading my argument, please consider it.

positive: Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. Seeing as my the first attack that my opponent made against my side was to point out the lack of information on my side, allow me to remedy that. Firstly my opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on social networking sites and does not directly cause nature deficit disorder. Well, according to the Stanford University of Medicine Study more than half of time spent on the internet is spent communicating i.e. social networking sites. Now taking that into consideration on average a student spends three hours daily on the internet it can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily. Now, while they are on these sites they are not out experiencing nature and so these sites are directly causing a deficit of nature experiences for youths. Therefore, social networking sites are directly causing nature deficit disorder. Secondly, my opponet says that there may have not even a nature deficit disorder however, Richard Louv (who spent 10 years travelling the United States, doing interviews, and collecting research to prove that this is happening) is not the only one who agrees that nature deficit disorder exists. Harvard professor E. O. Wison refers to something similar called "biophilia." He explains that humans have an innate connection to nature, however humans have been spending less time outside and more time indoors, doing technology related activities. In addition the Nature & Children Network agrees that this trend has been happening and while Richard Louv coined the term Nature Deficit Disorder, they agree that it is a real problem that is arising. Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist. Thirdly, my oppenet says that since I cannot prove a link then it should be your obligation to vote negative, however there is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature. This time spent away from nature is causing nature deficit disorder and the behavioral problems that it causes such as attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, and family stress. Because social networking sites are pulling our youths and students away from the innate connection with nature they are causing nature deficit disorder. This being the case it is your obligation to then vote in affirmative bacuase social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Now to attack my opponets point he says that social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. However, when my opponet is saying this he is being unresolution. The topic that we are debating is Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. So even if social networking sites are allowing people to connect and have those kind of relationships it in no way affects whether or not social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Even if you don't believe that there is no denying that by cutting our youths off from nature and the innate connection that humans have had with nature since our hunter gather days, social networking sites are causing problems that follow after nature deficit disorder. Such as ADHD (since youths are now unable to get rid of excess engery due to sitting in front of a computer spending time on students begin to develop ADHD) which causes problems with students in school and around their peers and family stress (due to spending time on social networking sites relations with family members tends to be worse as said by Relationship of Internet Use to Depression and Social Isolation among Adolescents). It can be seen that social networking sites are causing problems to the mental health and development of our youths. And for the reasons stated here about how social networking sites cause nature deficit disorder please vote in affirmation.

positive: Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. Sorry for the delay, my internet was down so i had trouble getting on. Anyways, thanks for accepting and good luck to you once again. According to cbs news the average time a teen spends on the internet every day is roughtly 3 hours. This translates into over 6 hours of time spent on the computer. In fact, the most amount of time young people spend on the internet is on social networking sites. As said by Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time online? MySpace is the most winner for people spending the most time on it. A whopping 11.9% (it blew sites like youtube and wikipedia out of the water since both they only had a combined 1% of time spent on the internet even though youths spend a lot of time on each either watching videos posted by others or reading the various articles on wikipedia), this means that over one tenth of the time spent on the internet is spent on just one individual social networking site. This does not take into consideration how much time is spent on other social networking sites such as facebook. So when you take this into consideration it and then apply it to the fact that the average teen spends 3 hours on the internet it becomes clear that social networking sites are drawing our youth away from nature and drawing them towards these sites. Therefore, causing directly causing nature deficit disorder.

positive: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of speech in social networking. "I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace." Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. It is because I agree with: Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, in the position that social contracts lead to well-being, that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution, Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Ought: used to express duty or moral obligation The highest value within today's round is well-being. Well-being is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare. Well-being is most important in today's round because it is a main thing the human race strives for, and it can be achieved with the use of a social contract. The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. - "Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday." ~ http://www.lockergnome.com... There are many who have lost jobs and have gone through unnecessary stress due to inappropriate content they posted on their websites. Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. Social networking sites are no longer private. One must be aware of the risks they take while posting anything negative or displeasing on their website. Everything you do on the internet is cached and it may cost you your job and maybe even worse consequences. Soon, there will be no impunity with what you do. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. The benefits of behaving appropriately: •Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. •Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. •It may make a great first impression. The cons of behaving inappropriately: •Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. •Giving a poor first impression. •People may NOT find you appealing. It is obvious that the benefits supersede. Social networking sites can be used for your social benefit. You will often make good first impressions, and be respected. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. I have shown you that professional behavior on social networking sites may induce well being, but the resolution has a word in there that twists everything a lot for my argument. Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. These also can be replaced with should and removal of the infinitive (to); You should behave properly. You should go to sleep. The resolution doesn't say: "Standards of professional behavior ARE to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites." Ought means you are obliged. It is in your BEST INTEREST to behave that way. Do you absolutely have to? No. People can choose to behave properly. It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites, that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately, and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that well-being should be upheld and that Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.

positive: Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. Neilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) "As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process." Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' " says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are "exploring and experimenting" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. "There's been a definite shift the last two months," she says. "There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before." I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become "friends" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.

positive: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook Online relationships let students in need reach out.

positive: social media It is a good way to keep in touch with people, but people get used to talking to people online so when they have to talk face-to-face it is difficult. People also say things to others that they wouldn't say to their face and that is when problems with bullying happens.

positive: Social Media is bad I'm aware that cyberbullying is bad, but schools around the world have been teaching teens on how to prevent cyberbullying (here is a site: http://cyberbullying.org...). This has helped teens become more aware of what could happen on social media and has also decreased the possibility of someone being cyber bullied. It's a persons' choice to be more talkative through social media (to people that live far away) than talking to people around him/her.

positive: Technology should replace human labor Section 1. Technology actually ruins educations and makes us dumber than my oponent thinks. In this section I will delve in the eight ways that technology does this. Smart phones and computers emit a blue- enriched light that disrupts our melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that controls when we feel sleepy, this blue light messes up the process and we lose the ability to stay on a sleep schedule. The loss of sleep can cause increased bad attitudes, decreased focus at work, loss of memory and loss of brain tissue. This could kill your social life as no one would no longer want to be around you. Technology makes it easier to get distracted, especially when it comes to teenagers. A 2012 survey at Pew Research Center, taken by more than 2,400 teachers show that today's students are more distracted by technology than previous generations. The survey shows that 87% of teachers agree that digital technology is creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans while 64% agreed that it's doing more harm to their education than helping them. This can damage careers because this same generation, and future generations are going into the workforce, and with them comes that short attention span. They'll spend more time on their phone or computer than actually work, and in return, they'll get fired. When they go to tell other companies why they got fired, they will probably not be hired, adding on to the number of unemployed. Technology makes it difficult to remember anything and/or make new memories. Nicholas Carr explains in The Shallows that there are two types of memory, Transient working memory and long term memory. Information needs to be transferred to long-term memory in order to be remembered, but the simplest act of checking your mail of a text will cause that information to be erased from all reaches of your mind. Also, when we look at out mail, text or Facebook we take in more information than our brains are supposed to. It's pretty much like filling a glass of water for long periods of time. The water on top will spill out making room for more which will also spill out eventually. This creates difficulties learning. Technology outsources our brains. We rely on it to remember everything for us. This causes us to not use our brain, which in turn means we're not thinking. There was a time when we'd turn to our friends if we didn't know something, but no a days we rely too much on technology. In 2013 a Trending Machine Survey was released to the public. In response, Patricia Gutentag, a family and occupational therapist, said that technology was the main culprit. She claimed that "This is a population that has grown up multitasking using technology, often compounded of lack of sleep, all of which results in high levels of forgetfulness" When you dismiss all distractions, your brain still won't take in any information if you're reading online. Hypertext is the cause of this. Those colorful links make your brain work harder than it usually would leaving you with less brain energy for reading. Reading online in general causes diminishing comprehension. According to a study in 2010, people who rely of GPS systems to get around have less activity in their hippocampus which is a part of your brain that helps with memory and navigation. The use of a GPS operated car, like the google car, causes people to have memory problems later in life. No matter what, they'd still have memory problems, and that's bad. Another study in 2008 shows that taxi drivers have a more well developed hippocampus than non-taxi drivers, because taxi drivers usually don't use a GPS, so they get around using spatial memory. Last but not least, internet is a drug. Yes. People can get addicted to the internet. Gamer's will even sacrifice food, school and sleep just to play games for days on end. This causes them to have a strange grey and white matter in their brain which cripples the regions that process emotions and regulating attention/decision making. Also, people have died from these addictions. One reason is because they'll sit for so long that all the blood will leave their legs and when they stand up, that sudden rush of blood into the legs proves too much for their bodies to handle so all their organs shut down. Another reason is that the lack of using their brain can distort their reality so they'll go around attacking and killing "enemies" to get money or other things. Though all this technology is bad, I'll admit that some tech. isn't bad and can actually help. People listening to music usually work harder and faster than those who don't. Also, people who listen to music while working seem to excel more than those who don't. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://listverse.com...Section 2: My oppoent claims that he isn't talking about completely replacing the human work force, but he also complains that it would do more harm than good. This claim still conflicts with our country's economy. Each "robot" costs somewhere between $20,000- $22,000, most of everyone's money will go into buying those. Honestly, I think companies would have a much easier time paying human workers, it'd be cheaper too. In Britain, 10 million jobs are at risk because they're planning on replacing the people with technology. That is 6.41% of the British population. Currently 5.5% of Britain's population is unemployed. That's a lot of people. Their unemployment rate is currently at 79.3% that's a bit high. This is above the level of natural unemployement, this means that they're currently experiencing inflation, which we all know greatly damages an economy. Taking away those 10 million jobs won't help them in anyway. It'll just send them deeper into the hole. Knowing this, technology wouldn't come anywhere close to helping us, even if we only replace a few jobs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.quickmba.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 3: The internet is harmful. There are countless numbers of people who are sending fake emails that contain viruses and hacking into accounts to get ahold of someone's personal information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.). The FBI even said that Social Networking alone holds a great risk because of computer savvy hackers who are more than happy to hack your accounts randomly and install unkown software that more than likely has a virus or two in them. Also, companies put cookies on your accounts evertime you visit a site. They use this to pratically steal personal information and spy on you to see what you like. The Google Car was even banned because it was originally used to personal information. Google knew about it too. The company claimed it to be a mistake, but if it was I'm sure they'd have found it and fixed it before releasing it to the public. So far the car has been recalled and is currently illegal due to this situation. https://www.fbi.gov... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 4: Like I explained early and in the last round. Technology would do more harm to the economy than one would think, no matter how many people are replaced.Section 5: I admit I might have gotten the numbers wrong so I asked a friend who's currently studying economics and he said that the current percentage of people unemployed in America is 5.5%Section 6: Though technology would create new demand for jobs, those jobs will already be filled with already working humans. Even if they hire new people, there would still be a massive amount of people unemployed. Section 7: The fewer the hours people will have to work, the higher the paycheck they'll need. If minimum wage and other such payments are raised, then the prices of everything will surely follow as I have explained in my last economic debate. This, will also help plunge us into an extremely deep inflation. http://www.debate.org...

positive: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. First of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. "Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. "Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, "potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result." This is the fault of the individual and not the site.

positive: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America Impact Definition 1a--> There are many definitions I agree. Which is why I urge you to accept both. To have a direct impact on AND to have a powerful effect. b--> Notice my opponents definitions anyway where he said, "An impact could be direct or indirect."… Basically from this you should see that the impact is all dependent on the actor. The economy is indirect, and the child molester cases are a direct effect. Both of these are acceptable and both of them prove that social networking sites have a neutral impact because it ALL depends on the actor, something that isn't specified in the resolution. So impact can be a baseball bat. But a baseball bat is a tool, JUST LIKE a social networking site. c--> 1) It also says effect, please use that if impact in the impact definition is that bad of an ordeal. 2) That must mean that Webster's Dictionary isn't legit. Which is absolutely ridiculous. d--> If social networking sites were to have no members, then they would have no impact right? This is the same as hammers, guns, and even baseball bats. So if you even accept the positive influences of social networking sites of my opponent, then you must see that it has only been used well. The ACTOR has the impact NOT the TOOL. 2--> Ok, but you misinterpret my position which I'll get to later. 3--> Your entire position is based on the idea that tools are positive OR negative and can't be both. But what I have shown is that it is not the tool that decides this, it is the person. I have proven this through guns, baseball bats, hammers, and of course social networking sites. If you have yet to understand my position (judges), then think of it like this. Social Networking Sites, have BOTH types of impacts on us (positive AND negative). The impact that happens in a subjective case can be positive OR negative, but when you look at it objectively, you will see a mixture. Thus you can not determine the actual impact, but rather, notice the true determining factor. The user of the networking site. 3a--> Are you contending that the site of the social networking site helps our economy and fights the war on terror? If anything you have conceded the fact that it helps sexual predators. Also the gun did aid in the killing (just like the aiding of sexual predators), but it is not what had the impact. It is the one pulling the trigger or the one lying of his age and stealing a child to rape them. No difference. So would you contend that guns have a negative impact on society? Or would you agree with me that it is the shooter, not the tool that determines the positive or negative impact. 4--> Cross-apply the sexual predators and child-parent relationship harms against this point. It proves that "on balance" it is the user of the social networking site that causes the impact. 5--> EXACTLY! It has both positive and negative impacts, so how can you claim that "Social Networking Sites have a positive impact on the United States" when there are ALSO negative ones as well. Economy: 1) The USA Today link evidence only proves my point. That the newspaper sales have gone down and has generally switched to TV and Social Networking Sites. AKA: The Economy has been going up for Social Networking Sites and down for newspapers. A transfer from one to the other creates a net-benefit of nothing. And although the evidence points to a few sources, it fails to even talk about Social Networking Sites. Therefore, they could be a part of the downfall of Social Networking Sites. I for one know of several people who stop reading newspapers and rather use the internet to get their news. "Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat."--> 2) I really don't think that the few pennies that people are saving from this minor change are not going to feed or not feed a family. It is nice, certainly, but not going to be the reason that I get to have chicken rather than chicken ramen noodles. ONE GROUP OF INCOME IS NOT GOING TO CREATE OR DESTROY THE ECONOMY! 3) 250,000 new social networking sites?!?! How can any legitimate jobs be created out of this? Not to mention that this will lead to a growing obesity rate :D … And those new fatties are probably the ones raping our children. "Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad"--> 4) Even if the judges agree that the positive outweigh the negative, you still can't claim that it is ONLY a positive impact (like the resolution asks for). In that case, the resolution shall be negated AS: "That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive AND NEGATIVE impact on the United States of America dependant on the user of the site." From this, you vote CON! Bullying: I got the evidence out of an evidence packet that gets sent to our school for our team. If it isn't legit, then you can bring it up with "Squirrel Killers." 1) You're a friend with me on a Social Networking Site and you hardly even know me. Watch this… I hate you… Now you see that. I just bullied you and you had no choice in the matter. The site did nothing to prevent it and if we were in real life, I doubt I would have been able to even say it. This is because social networking sites make it so much easier over the internet. You can hurt someone just as much without having to say it in person. A lot easier for mean people like me ;) 2) You claim that there is no net-impact. But look to the situation where some neighbor parents pushed a girl to suicide through a social networking sites. This would not have happened in real life since they couldn't pretend to be someone (like they were). Thus there ARE impacts because of social networking sites. Sexual Predators: "Mostly people that they know"--> -As you can tell, we are now friends on a social networking site and we do not know each other. There are several people that I have "met" online and I know others who have as well. -Therefore the sexual predator arguments still stand. Please flow through the evidence and by this, you can further see the inherent negative impacts which thus proves that it is all dependant on the user of the tool (in this situation, the social networking site being used by sexual predators… They have a negative impact just like the advertisers and small business people have a positive impact. They use the tool good OR bad and the tool doesn't determine ANYTHING. Terrorism: "Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents"--> -Which is why bullying has such a powerful impact on social networking sites. Please cross-apply this statement on the bullying line of arguing. -Also, are you saying that we ought not be concerned with kids learning from their parents? Users of social networking sites are getting younger and younger. It will only be some time before everything is learned online (from my opponents statement). This is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing. Kids must learn from their parents. "4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins"--> -The War on Terrorism argument was ONLY linked to the economy which was argued earlier. -We are not going to win or lose the war on terror because we do or do not have social networking sites. Nor is there going to make that big of a difference. Such as I proved before with the economy. Democracy: There was good debate on the candidates (positive) and some unnecessary slanderous videos on the presidential candidates. Because of this, you MUST see that there are both positive AND negative impacts DEPENDING on the user of the tool (of social networking sites). Because of this, I urge you to vote CON! Thank you for this GREAT debate!

positive: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good First of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.1. This is not the fault of social networking sitesMy opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.2. This is not a problem with most networking sitesRecalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of "Usernames", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not "szack", nor is mine "The Chaos Heart". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.3. You could just not use your real name. There is an easy solution to this "problem" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.4. The morality of firing someone is questionableThe morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.1. Connection in education is goodMy opponent argues, "Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation..." But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.3. My opponent's own source argues against themMy opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.I turn it over to my opponent.

positive: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses He has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet. " my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t. v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet? for my second contention, my opponent stated "I agree with my opponent in one thing. "they need people to know about what they offer". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls. " first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- now i would like to go onto attacking my opponents case for his first contention he said"While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk. SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. "A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U. S. prosecutors. The U. S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering "Executive Dating" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services. " Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless. SOURCE: . http://www.king5.com...; he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information. they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer. my opponent said in his second contention:"The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people. " he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not. now for my conclusion: in conclusion the resolution states: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses. which means that i have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, my opponent stated the harms of viruses and that it is unpredictable, but i have already attacked those arguments. my opponent has tried to attack my case saying that there are better methods, but i have already defended that, and the other methods aren't even reliant to this debate, the resolution is only talking about the internet and nothing else. my opponent said that there are other ways to get information,but as i have already stated we aren't talking about anything else other than the internet. i have proven the benefits of the internet to businesses, and i have attacked the harms, so, that means that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, so that is why i urge you to please vote for the affermitive in this debate thanks, -bored123456

positive: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is "Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society." However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that "I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression" as well as that "For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change." However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that "Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore." However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a "growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report." David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.

negative: People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites. (Second version) Short and sweet, then. Extend all arguments.Please come back; you still have two more rounds to make a case!See you next round,J

negative: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Well, Arguments extended. .. I thank PRO for this debate. .. very interesting for the time that it lasted.

negative: Parental control on sns or other social networking should be banned Extend my counter-arguments.

negative: Facebook is better than myspace I have a few simple points as too why facebook is better: 1. The adds are smaller and less obvious 2. You don't get friend requests from random porn stars 3. Pop-ups for porn don't come up 4. There are limitless numbers of applications 5. You can easily see people at your schools or city 6. There is more customization 7. It is not as slow to load

negative: Why should students not be allowed to use social networking sites Today's debate is, Why should students not be allowed to use social networking sites. I will speak to you about why students SHOULD NOT be allowed to use social networking sites as it decreases a students potential to do well in school, is putting the student at risk of being scammed, and because the student could be stalked or lured into meeting a stranger at a private place.

negative: Over involved Parents with social media You do make very good points throughout our debate, but overall I still strongly believe that parents should not be allowed an excessive amount of access to their child's social media account. The parents should believe that they have raised their child with enough knowledge of potential dangers of the internet that they can avoid them. And if cyber bullying does occur the child should feel like they can seek help from their parents. Most importantly though I believe that when the parent gives the child permission to get a social media account they are giving them their trust to make the right choices with it. If the parents are constantly checking and watching over the child's social media, then there is no trust shown. For these reasons I strongly believe that parents do not have the right to check on their child's social media accounts.

negative: Kids on unauthorized social media sites I will state these facts: Case 1: hackers Even if your account is private. Hacker may hack into your account and steal your information. Case 2: Why be on a social networking site if you want it private? That is the whole case of social networking! Case 3: Many kids do not know how to block or make accounts private. Case 4: There are a lot of pedofiles on social networking sites. A lot of kids don't know better, and give them their information. This could lead to families getting robbed or the kids being abducted. Case 5: Your parents should monitor it to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to and keep you safe. These are my opening statements. Thank you!

negative: Social networking sites are good for our society! Social networking sites are good for our society!

negative: Social networks are beneficial to our society! I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.

negative: Social Networking Pro has not provided any solid arguments and couldn't refute to anything I said. This debate would've been fun if Pro provided maybe 48-72 hours of length for this debate. Thanks for the debate, Pastafarian :)

negative: Social Networking *raises white flag* I concede, as long as I still get to live. :)

negative: Instagram causes depression I am new to this but I think Instagram causes depression.

negative: Are Social Medias taking over humans. Are social medias like Facebook and etc. taking over the lives of humans?

negative: Social Networking sites are a boon Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc

negative: Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States As, the voters you may see that my opponent did not extend his case but I will ask you to extend it for him. I will also ask you to extend my points. An once again to clarify I stand neutral on the resolution. But at the same time negate it as the word negate means to deny truth of, so by being neutral I am negating the resolution.

negative: Social media does more harm than good I believe that social media does more harm than good for our society. It is supposedly makes us more connect; however, I argue that it actually is making us more anti-social.

negative: Is Paris Accord Bad for Nations 3. It will decrease the amount of time spent on social media.

negative: Social Media should be part of the curriculum YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc

negative: Advertisements do more harm than good 1) Television is greatly abused for commercial purposes and other types of uses, in which audiences are constantly sold to: Advertisers try to convince the audience that the solution to a problem or the fulfilment of a desire can only be achieved through the purchase of a product. It is designed towards blind acceptance by the viewer. In this way TV negatively affects the human mind, by limiting the possibilities of conscious choice, and promotes a consumer society. It can be also misused to urge people to buy even things they do not need by subliminal advertising. 2)People spend the biggest part of their time view advetisments : According to the statistics, the average American child watches 262 views ads per week. That's how ads reduce the quality of real life by narrowing people's outlook, limiting the variety of free time activities, affecting family relations by reducing conversation, and even having an impact on health by discouraging exercise. ""Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 PM, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children." Television Children and adolescents view 400 00 ads per year on TV alone.13 This occurs despite the fact that the Children's Television Act of 1990 (Pub L No. 101–437) limits advertising on children's programming to 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends and 12 minutes/hour on weekdays. However, much of children's viewing occurs during prime time, which features nearly 16 minutes/hour of advertising.14 A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl now costs $2.3 million but reaches 80 million people.15 Movies A 2000 FTC investigation found that violent movies, music, and video games have been intentionally marketed to children and adolescents.16 Although movie theaters have agreed not to show trailers for R-rated movies before G-rated movies in response to the release of the FTC report, children continue to see advertising for violent media in other venues. For instance, M-rated video games, which according to the gaming industry's own rating system are not recommended for children younger than 17 years, are frequently advertised in movie theaters, video game magazines, and publications with high youth readership.17 Also, movies targeted at children often prominently feature brand-name products and fast food restaurants.18 In 1997–1998, 8 alcohol companies placed products in 233 motion pictures and in 1 episode or more of 181 TV series.18 Print Media According to the Consumer's Union,19 more than 160 magazines are now targeted at children. Young people see 45% more beer ads and 27% more ads for hard liquor in teen magazines than adults do in their magazines.20 Despite the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, tobacco advertising expenditures in 38 youth-oriented magazines amounted to $217 million in 2000.21 The Internet An increasing number of Web sites try to entice children and teenagers to make direct sales. Teenagers account for more than $1 billion in e-commerce dollars,22 and the industry spent $21.6 million on Internet banner ads alone in 2002.23 More than 100 commercial Web sites promote alcohol products.23 The content of these sites varies widely, from little more than basic brand information to chat rooms, "virtual bars," drink recipes, games, contests, and merchandise catalogues. Many of these sites use slick promotional techniques to target young people.23,24 In 1998, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Pub L No. 105–277) was passed, which mandates that commercial Web sites cannot knowingly collect information from children younger than 13 years. These sites are required to provide notice on the site to parents about their collection, use, and disclosure of children's personal information and must obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using, or disclosing this information.25 MARKETING TECHNIQUES Advertisers have traditionally used techniques to which children and adolescents are more susceptible, such as product placements in movies and TV shows,26 tie-ins between movies and fast food restaurants,18 tie-ins between TV shows and toy action figures or other products,7 kids' clubs that are linked to popular shows, and celebrity endorsements.27 Cellular phones are currently being marketed to 6- to 12-year-olds, with the potential for directing specific advertisers to children and preteens. Coca-Cola reportedly paid Warner Bros. Studios $150 million for the global marketing rights to the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,"28 and nearly 20% of fast food restaurant ads now mention a toy premium in their ads.29 Certain tie-in products may be inappropriate for children (eg, action figures from the World Wrestling Federation or an action doll that mutters profanities from an R-rated Austin Powers movie). Children's advertising protections will need to be updated for digital TV, which will be in place before 2010. In the near future, children watching a TV program will be able to click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during the program.30 Interactive games and promotions on digital TV will have the ability to lure children away from regular programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an environment that lacks clear separation between content and advertising. Interactive technology may also allow advertisers to collect vast amounts of information about children's viewing habits and preferences and target them on the basis of that information.31 SPECIFIC HEALTH-RELATED AREAS OF CONCERN Tobacco Advertising Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million/day ($11.2 billion/year) on advertising and promotion.32 Exposure to tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor than having family members and peers who smoke33 and can even undermine the effect of strong parenting practices.34 Two unique and large longitudinal studies have found that approximately one third of all adolescent smoking can be attributed to tobacco advertising and promotions.35,36 In addition, more than 20 studies have found that children exposed to cigarette ads or promotions are more likely to become smokers themselves.37,38 Recent evidence has emerged that tobacco companies have specifically targeted teenagers as young as 13 years of age.39 Alcohol Advertising Alcohol manufacturers spend $5.7 billion/year on advertising and promotion.40 Young people typically view 2000 beer and wine commercials annually,41 with most of the ads concentrated in sports programming. During prime time, only 1 alcohol ad appears every 4 hours; yet, in sports programming, the frequency increases to 2.4 ads per hour.42,43 Research has found that adolescent drinkers are more likely to have been exposed to alcohol advertising.44–50 Given that children begin making decisions about alcohol at an early age—probably during grade school50—exposure to beer commercials represents a significant risk factor.46,50 Minority children may be at particular risk.51"" relevant website: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... bam! vote for me

negative: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good That's a real shame. .. I was looking forward to this debate. I thought it would be an interesting one. Ah well.

negative: On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Alright, because my opponent forfeited his round, that means he cedes ALL my points. Essentially, because my opponent has no offense and no defense, no matter what happens in the third round I have already won this debate as per LD rules.

negative: social networking is bad Today social networking and internet has become one of the most important part of our life. But is it reakky good for us. I dont think so. According to me social networking has caused many problems in our life. It has harmed a lot than helping us.

negative: Social Networking Well, you've heard it from my opponent folks, an open concession; needless to say, once you flow through my arguments from Round 2, and add that to her recent forfeiture, it's clear who you need to vote for in today's debate. Sometimes I really wish that I could take trophies off of people that I've beaten, like the way hunters take the head, or the foot, or the pelt of an animal that they kill. We should get one of those.

negative: PS3 is better than xbox 360 I concede that the ps3's hardware is slightly more advanced in some areas, however this does not make it a better system. For one you'd be hard pressed to find a game that works better or looks better on ps3 than 360. In fact, some games, like Game Of The Year 2011, The Elder Scrolls V:Skyrim, are much much better on 360. http://n4g.com.... Secondly, when it comes to the 360, what you're really buying is unrivaled software Ps3/psn features(US only): Friend List, allowing for up to 100 players Instant messaging integration Lobbies/matchmaking, for instant online gaming Scores/Ranking, for player comparison Trophy System, being a trophy a reward for achieving goals in certain games Virtual presence/Avatars Voice/video chat/cross game (text only) chat room Bluetooth/USB Headset PlayStation Eye/Eye Toy Internet Browser and Google search engine* PlayStation Store Music Unlimited MLB.tv Netflix Hulu Plus VUDU* XOS College Sports* SEC Digital Network* Xbox 360/ Xbox live features(US only) Virtual avatars representing the user's likeness. Achievements earned during gameplay. Gamerscores amounting the total ofa user's Achievement points. Rep voted by other users preferring or avoiding the user.* Rep defaults to five stars ove rtime after the user has been preferred by at least one other user. * Friends list displaying the user's chosen friends of up to 100. Recent players list displaying the last 50 players the user has met. Complaint system allowing users to file reports of other users that have broken Xbox Live Terms of Use. Windows Live Messenger integration. Xbox Live Marketplace offering downloadable content for games,music and movies. Voice and Video chat. Multiplayer gameplay for up to four players via system link or Xbox Live. Cross-platform multiplayer with Windows gamers on select games via Games for Windows* Live Matchmaking depending on the user's cumulative gamerscore, rep, location, language and gamer zone.* Party system for up to eight users for playing games and watching movies.* Family settings controlling younger users' exposure to other users. Inside Xbox video newsletter detailing Xbox 360 news, events, products,interviews and games. Content is streamed directly from the Xbox 360 Dashboard.* Netflix video service offering unlimited streaming for thousands of television shows and movies. Zune video marketplace offering streaming of video content instantly in 1080p HD with 5.1 surround sound. Sky Go live and on-demand television service offering content from Sky Movies, Sky News and Sky Sports.* Last.fm music streaming service offering artist radio stations and related music.* Halo Waypoint multimedia hub for all Halo-related content.* Game Room virtual arcade space offering a library of classic retro games. * MSN entertainment portal providing the latest news and gossip in the world of celebrities, music and movies.* Foxtel On Xbox Live live and on-demand television service offering content from Showtime, CNN, and Fox Sports.* ESPN live and on-demand sports service offering streaming of up to 3,500 sporting events.* AT&T U-Verse set-top box functionality.* Windows Phone compatibility allowing users to manage their Xbox Live profiles, send and receive messages, play video games, as well as earn achievements exclusive to Windows Phone titles.* Zune music marketplace offering unlimited streaming of music and music videos.* Avatar Kinect social media service allowing users to interact with one another and create media using their Avatars.* Hulu Plus video streaming service offering commercially-supported television and movie content from networks such as NBC, Fox and ABC Kinect Fun Labs development hub allowing users to play, create and share their own Kinect experiences.* Telus Optik TV set-top box functionality.* Bing search engine allowing users to search for any piece of content on their console.* Cloud storage allowing users to access their profiles and save data from any console. iHeartRadio streaming service, which streams over 800 US-based radio stations.* YouTube application allowing for unlimited access to shared video content * IPTV service offering region-specific television content. * Epix offering movies-on-television content.* Dailymotion allowing users to access television and movie content* UFC on Xbox Live allows users to view pay-per-view events in 1080p HD, access a library of live and on-demand video content, connect with friends to predict fight results and have the ability to compare fighter statistics and records.* Skype chat engine allowing users to video chat and voice chat with each content* Miss Universe on Xbox Live allows users to view the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA beauty pageants in 1080p HD and in 3D, access a library of video content from the Miss Universe Organization, vote during the pageants using Kinectand have the ability to view delegate profiles* Bravo TV offering television content from Bravo.* Best Buy CinemaNow offering instant access to an extensive library of premium video contentfor rent or purchase* Crackle on Demand offering premium television content* VEVO on Xbox Live offering streaming music videos and concerts* HBO Go offering all movies-on-television content from HBO* Manga Entertainment streaming service from all television and movie content from Starz* msnbc.com offering news to all users from MSNBC.* MLB.tv offering out-of-market Major League Baseball games So which do you think you're really getting your money's worth for? Also it should be noted that despite it's significantly reduced features, the PS3 is still more expensive than the 360 *Exclusive features.

negative: Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities The internet is a flourishing place for discourse because it is absolutely free to all, and everyone accepts and experiences the fruit of that freedom. When the government abandons its stance of neutrality and begins censoring materials, even if it begins only with the nastiest examples, it compromises the copper-fastened liberties that the internet was created to furnish. Many people will abuse that tool, but thankfully people can evade the hate sites easily and never have to experience them without compromising their own freedoms by censoring their opponents.

negative: Social networking sites are harmful. Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub

negative: does social media effect society in a good way I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour

negative: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. "Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum." Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.

negative: Social Networking Sites are Harmful I am ever so sorry for doing this. our arguments were very good.

negative: The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media With many people in today's society going online and making friends it is threatening our privacy as we have hackers, perverts and stalkers. With google maps you have no choice to show your house. Also we are not warned about this on tv alot at school and internets can get hacked with wireless especially with social networking sites this is a raising issue.Especially with social networking sites.

negative: Social Networking I'd like to welcome my opponent to the site; to get better acquainted, I figured that I would take this debate challenge, and observe her debating style for myself; not to mention, I wanted to expand my horizons a bit, and talk about something a bit more lighthearted. To clarify one thing: If it wasn't already known, then social networking sites are things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as opposed to dating sites like Match.com, Chemistry.com, etc. To things manageable, I will make only a couple of opening arguments, and I will briefly refute the Con's. I - Social networking is beneficial. Man is, by nature, a social creature; that is, people need people. As technology advances, so does mankind's means of communicating and socializing; for example, we've developed things such as the telegraph/telegram, mail service, telephone/cell phone, video chat, and now, we are looking at social networking sites; thus, we can see that, because social networking has increased the ability of people to communicate and socialize, whether city, state, nation, or even worldwide, social networking sites have clearly had a positive impact on society. II - Social networking sites balance a child's privacy and a parent's right to know. A classic clash always happens when pitting the right to privacy of a child against the right to know of a parent; however, social networking sites find a happy medium, so that neither side is overlooked; for example, on Facebook, a teenager may have private conversations with a friend over the private messaging system, but the parent of this teenager will still be able to keep track of things such as posts made to other friends' walls, pictures posted, etc. Social networking sites give parents the ability to keep tabs on many of their child's online postings, such as pictures and personal information, but without having to directly invade on their child's privacy; this again proves that social networking sites have had a positive effect on society. III - Social networking sites provide a degree of online safety. While all websites and internet users are vulnerable to some degree, the openness and oversight provided by the staff of social networking sites, give or take a few situations, ensures a higher degree of safety than might be found elsewhere on the internet. While these sites don't have to take direct responsibility for their users, there's still a higher sense of security than would be found in unchecked e-mail services, instant messengers, and chat rooms full of shady characters; so, to some extent, social networking sites provide all the benefits of other services, such as IM and e-mail, but without the fear of being stalked by a predator or serial killer [though I can't account for the harmless creepers that tend to accumulate on some sites. :)]. Now, to move on to the Con's sole contention. 1. Social networking is potentially harmful. a. A lot of different things can be potentially harmful; however, simply because something has the potential to be misused does not mean that it has had a negative effect on society; prescription medication, for example, can (and often is) abused by the people to whom it is prescribed; however, this potential for abuse does not mean that we do away with prescription drugs completely, and it is the same with social networking sites. b. In the case with Megan Meier, this girl was already reported to suffer from depression, was on several medications, and since the third grade, had been kept under the careful eye of her psychiatrist [http://en.wikipedia.org...]; as we can see, Megan was already in a fragile condition; as we can see, it was not MySpace that was responsible for Megan's tragic suicide; rather, this unfortunate event can be attributed to Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and the several other people who aided in operating the account and harassing Megan; clearly, MySpace didn't intend for their site to be used in such a way, and this is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Drew, among others, was brought to trial, not the MySpace staff; for example, if someone is shot in a nightclub, nobody holds the nightclub staff responsible for being unaware that the shooting would happen; they hold the shooter responsible, as he is the one that committed the detestable act; in the same way, MySpace cannot be held accountable for the malicious acts of other people, and this instance, while tragic, is not a negative effect of social networking sites, but merely the misuse of them. I will stand down for the moment, and allow my opponent to chew on my opening arguments for a bit. Good luck, Con!

negative: Social networking sites cause more harm than good I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org...