That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States

"I noticed in my opponent's speech as she stated the "schedule" of a teenager. I failed to see that she mentioned time with friends, or socializing. That one hour and 22 minutes is the only socializing that seems to be getting done." Actually, I gave three and half hours in which they easily could have gone to the movies, went to a party, a football game, cheerleading practice, etc. See from the quote from my little ‘speech': "Now they have over three and a half hours, to exercise, socialize, work, or read a book" And that schedule doesn't even include Saturdays and Sundays. Which are full days ready and open for plenty of socializing, doing chores, school projects, or anything else needing to be done. "My opponent also brought up that social networking sites are good for businesses. However, according to a security company based in Australia, "if a single employee spends one hour of company time on Facebook everyday, it will cost his employer $6,200 per year. For Australia, that translate to a productivity lost of $5 billion annually. That impact in the United States would be even greater as Facebook usage in the United States is more widespread." This would be true for some companies, but not ones where employees need a relationship with clients—where it is good for the companies. And companies that do not need this can make it impossible for you to visit Facebook—or any other website; by blocking those pages. And anyways, if they can't go to social-networking websites, they will probably do something else either then working. A person who spends 8 hours a day at work, could easily waste an hour of it just buy getting up and walking around for 10 minutes once an hour. And there are plenty of other websites to visit then social-networking ones. If you think this problem within companies lies solely on social networking websites, then you are simply wrong. It is poor web page blocking and bad discipline skills. Once again, the social-networking websites are not at fault. "Again, no matter what they claim, security on social networking sites are not as strong as they appear." Actually, unless if a sexual predator already knows what your first and last name is; they can't even send a message to you on myspace and if they do, they still need your specific permission to be allowed into your profile. You haven't named anyways that predators have gotten past these kinds of things. You have only claimed that they could. And if they do, people should realize that strangers could possibly get to their information, not the websites. It is the persons fault for putting their address on their unblocked profile: Not the websites. I don't know anyone who doesn't realize this. And if they don't that lies on their parents shoulders, for allowing them onto the internet and the social-networking website without warning them or understanding the ‘risks' involved. Just because something is used in the problem, doesn't mean it is the problem. Social-networking sites can be used by predators to gain access to information, but that is not the social-networking websites fault. With a click of the mouse, your profile is private. And then to become a friend a person has to type in your first and last name, then their information is sent to you (their first and last name, and the state they live in) and then and only then can you accept them; and allow them to see your profile. Really, that seems pretty fool-proof; either then a person not setting their profile to private, but that is not the social-networking sites fault. And it really isn't fair to blame them; the way my opponent wants to.