Social Networking Sites - Public Forum Debate

[Seraphise]

I figure maybe someone on this site is in debate in there highschool. This months topic for public forum is about Social networking sites, and whether they're ultimately good or bad.

"Resolved; that, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States"

The on balance phrase means, the good outweigh the bad. I'm curious on what you guys think about this, would we be better off if we didn't get addicted to SNS? Try to keep the responses a little constructive, but I know its sometimes hard to resist the "Lolmyspace" comments.

Social networking sites are as defined by wiki "A social network service focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. Most social network services are web based and provide a variety of ways for users to interact, such as e-mail and instant messaging services."
So BG is technically one also.

[Lavik]

they are awesome for getting bands/musical artists (or art artists too) to expose their work to mass people
however
things like myspace and needing a website about how wonderful you are and everyone should add you and be your friend is fucking stupid

[Tubbers]

How is this even a debate? What are the issues here?

[Seraphise]

How is this even a debate? What are the issues here?

Well its the resolution for a form of debate in the National Forensics League, which is the Speech and Debate organization for high schools in America. Essentially you enter a round and are given a side, either pro or con, and you have to go up against another team from another school. Within this specific resolution, the pro will debate that social networking sites are a benefit for america, whereas the con will say they are bad for america.

Overall i'm leaning towards them being a negative thing. Completely obliterates social interaction, and with all of the identity theft and online predators. I think the children and teens were better off work & school wise pre-SNS.

[Zhais]

Well its the resolution for a form of debate in the National Forensics League, which is the Speech and Debate organization for high schools in America. Essentially you enter a round and are given a side, either pro or con, and you have to go up against another team from another school. Within this specific resolution, the pro will debate that social networking sites are a benefit for america, whereas the con will say they are bad for america.

Overall i'm leaning towards them being a negative thing. Completely obliterates social interaction, and with all of the identity theft and online predators. I think the children and teens were better off work & school wise pre-SNS.

If you're doing this for debate, don't even begin to 'lean' towards a side, since you gotta play both sides of the fence just as well >.>

Not to mention, its gonna be ridiculously easy to find evidence and opinions AGAINST facebook and myspace. Gonna have to do more research as to what their pros are.



edit: lol, its for Public Forum. Be a man and do LD

[The Stig]

For the language, bad:

Why?

cunts that type like this:

hI GuYz Hw R u ? ?!!!

or

HI GUYS WUT UP?????!!?! OMG WTF

I'd loved to see the effort they put into typing like that, seriously, especially for the random caps case.

On the otherhand, pics that reveal so much flesh they might as well be a pornstar. Boobies!

[Ramor]

I'm ultimately entertained by facebook, even when embarassing drunk pictures of me are up, aside from entertainment i don't do anything with facebook/social networking so i don't get the big deal.

One of my favorites is when 150 of your friends all join the "support xyz" or "oppose abc" groups, as though they'll do anything besides click a 'join' button.

[ZarakiKujata]

There was a Newsweek or Time on this last Juneish; had indepth arguments from multiple people for and against Facebook, try to find it, would make your life a lot easier.
I used to debate in high school and did public forum a few times.. my brain isnt yet functional and is preoccupied with finals but lemme see

I'd imagine con side is easier to formulate arguments for; stalkers, time waster, generation that has grown up with no concept of their own privacy, etc. so I'll throw out some pro stuff for you.

SNS has revolutionized distribution of music for artists, you can use this in both pro and con way to talk about the economic impact of this; pro discuss why the record industry is bad, con talk about why we need the record industry. You can branch this off onto sns effects on other aspects of the entertainment industry with how social networking sites help keep critically acclaimed but struggling tv shows alive, by allowing their geographically disparate fans to talk to eachother about the show(examples of this are Jericho, Arrested Development movie, Family Guy, Firefly into Serenity movie, 30 Rock); can work in economic benefit here as well, as networks begin to add streamed tv shows to myspace and other sites they make more money as people watch online.

Can also throw in the fact that abundance of drunken pictures/lack of privacy has positive impacts for employers. Their ability to see that a potential employee is a party animal and thus could end up costing them money by missing work due to hangovers etc prevents money wasted in a way, makes background checks/vetting easier and can talk about the Obama speechwriter who had the embarassing photo with the hillary cutout, and how nipping this in the bud relatively early when the photo came out was likely better for the Obama administration then this photo surfacing months-years from now without SNS when there is more strain on the obama/clinton relationship.

Lastly, myspace/facebook have transformed how people stay in touch, and the negative reactions to it can be attributed merely to the same initial detractors all new mediums get, be it cell phones or IMing when they first came out. This point can be developed even further using the 2008 election to show how Obama's social networking online helped him win, what this means for elections in the future, and can throw out a joke about how his victory due to sns has an immediate positive impact on america (getting bush out).

Also, lol at the doing LD stuff, most LD debaters I ran into in high school could not do just that, also the topics are booooring and you have to debate them all year. Personally, I am a fan of extemp and parliamentary, since they demonstrate a greater degree of speaking ability having to prepare stuff in a much shorter amount of time. Parli is important to keep in mind as well if you want to continue onto college debating, the APDA is much more developed/fun to debate in then the college forensics league.

[The Stig]

Staying in touch is a good thing, for Facebook.

However I truely cannot understand the complexity of some people's albums. Infact, some have made it into their own "MMORPG" by having e-peen numbers for:

1. Number of photos
2. Number of photos tagged
3. Number of friends
4. Number of applications
5. Number of wall posts

Apparently the more you have the more power you should have.

However, photo wise, every 1-2 days this certain girl on my list uploads a good 120+ photos of their "nights out" and oddly enough they are all the same, more or less. I cannot understand their need to socially proof themselves by doing such. Most photos are more or less rubbish or are taken like 1-2 seconds of each other. It really is ... boring.

[Lordwafik]

If you're doing this for debate, don't even begin to 'lean' towards a side, since you gotta play both sides of the fence just as well >.>

What? Public debating is all about picking one side and arguing it well. Unless they teach it diff in your country.[/quote]

[Obev]

Hate them, but I have to use Facebook to contact old friends who've since moved away from my area. It's actually a really good interface with a lot of very useful tools for organising events, but I don't trust it a bit. I'm one of those people whose details on Facebook are limited to name, sex and location.

[The Stig]

Hate them, but I have to use Facebook to contact old friends who've since moved away from my area. It's actually a really good interface with a lot of very useful tools for organising events, but I don't trust it a bit. I'm one of those people whose details on Facebook are limited to name, sex and location.

Sounds like me then. All I have is my e-mail, name, location, and where I work, just incase. And a handful of photos here and there.

On the subject of organising events, there was an article in the paper last week about how some girl had her big mansion house completely wrecked because she invited a good 100 people around the house for a party (free house for the weekend) and somehow the invitation spread to like 300 people. I'm assuming the girl was a dumb shit given the circumstances and instead of inviting specific people she sent it all on her Friend/Contacts List, hahaha.

[Mojo]

People who do nothing but post shit on their myspace/facebook are silly, although you shouldn't hold social networking sites accountable for the oddities of misguided people. I think they're nice for casually staying in touch with others as well as the occasional blog/bulletin/whatever.

[The Stig]

People who do nothing but post shit on their myspace/facebook are silly

Facebook updates, especialy the obsessive people are the worst ... :

Amy Smith* just got up!

Amy Smith is bored!

Amy Smith is hungry!

Amy Smith is going out!

Amy Smith is on the train!

Amy Smith is wondering if the train will go any faster?!

Amy Smith arrived at X station!


arggghhhh DIE DIE DIE MOTHER FUCKERS.... =(, you really do want to kill them.

*not a real name

[Julian]

anyone remember:

omg why is your sig my facebook pic

[deshende]

I think positive for just keeping in touch with a wider base of people with less effort. I'm able to keep in touch with a lot of people (high school contacts for example) that I don't really live near anymore and I kind of enjoy that.
I'm not the kind of person who enjoys picking up the phone and randomly striking up a conversation with someone I haven't seen in a while, so social networking sites fill that gap for me.

[0ni0n]

I am "pro" networking sites, which allow you to connect with people on a unprecedented level. For example, prior to the arrival of social networking sites, the max number of friends, acquaintances, family members we can handle is about 150 because of the limitation of our cognitive ability and time constraint. (It's called Dunbar's number if you want to look it up). With the onset of these virtual networks, many have not only shattered this limit and also kept in touch with a large number of people on a more personal level, such as sharing videos or playing games with them.

A recent study also confirms that by utilizing many of the social networking sites available on the web, you can connect to anyone on the planet with less than 7 degree of separation. The traditional principle "6th degree of separation" was restricted to just the US, but with the increasingly prevalent virtual networking sites, it takes the extent of connectivity to a whole new level. Of course, sometime in the debate, if you're for or pro networking sites and their benefits, you will have to address the question of shallow online relationship, online predators, or other personal security issues in general. However, by and large, I think networking sites are a plus to our means of communication.

Check out a book called "Grown up digital" if you want more information.

[Miraun]

I don't have time to deep dive into too many of the posts, but I have to disagree with social networking tools. I think they give an illusion of closeness between two people. "Hey, I'm your friend on facebook... so I don't need to call you on the phone to ask what you've been up to."

I've found myself talking to people less, because I can rely on facebook to tell me what people have been up to. Sure, it's good for maintaining a string of contact that you can pull on in the future, but you're less likely to pull the string.... if that makes sense...

[Zhais]

What? Public debating is all about picking one side and arguing it well. Unless they teach it diff in your country.

The nationalized debate tournament setup for all three types of debates have you argue both sides. You don't know which one you are arguing beforehand (randomly assigned pool rounds, you'll usually do the same amount of pro/con rounds) but you'll only debate one side against one opponent at a time.

I always used to write my cases the night before, finding some awesome philosophy and going with it. Worked fairly well


and I still say Public Forum is not worthy of existing, you don't have to think for PF -.-

[Zhais]

Also, lol at the doing LD stuff, most LD debaters I ran into in high school could not do just that, also the topics are booooring and you have to debate them all year. Personally, I am a fan of extemp and parliamentary, since they demonstrate a greater degree of speaking ability having to prepare stuff in a much shorter amount of time. Parli is important to keep in mind as well if you want to continue onto college debating, the APDA is much more developed/fun to debate in then the college forensics league.

Policy is the one that lasts all year, PF changes every month, and LD changes once every two months and have some damn interesting topics in my opinion. Nothing too politically based, and nothing that's just randomly selected from popular news (lol). I did LD my last two? years of high school. Didn't do too shabby but that's since I was lazy

LD > all