Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.

My opponent says we must go with his/her definition because he got it from "multiple sources" I quote my source as www.investordwords.com/3410/onbalance.html Therefore we must go with my definition of one balance whihc is the overall effect or net result. The definition of positive must also go to me because I have used the American heritage Second college edition once again that definition was to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact So, with my definitions the resolution reads Resolved: that with all things considered social networking sites have had irrefutable factual impacts on the United States. We must first look to see that my opponent has dropped my Contention 4 about the economy and therefore that must be flowed across or put into the affirmative section of the debate. As shown in previous evidence there is no doubt that it has been having a positive effect on these companies and increasing revenues as market researcher Kevin Martin and Gina Bianchini Ceo of Ning. He did not attack my contention 3 on voting. It is proven that more people have come out and are voting as shown in the recent election and through my prior evidence we must fall back onto that. He attacked my contention 2 on Education but I will now attack his case In his contention 3 he attacks the teen population on myspace and these social networking sites. Well 17 suicides out of how many million users, I believe it has reached the billions now. Also, If they are comiting suicides because fo these social networking sites, then their is a deeper problem within that individual and the social networking site cannot be held accountable. He likes to attack the teen audience and only the teen audience but the teen audience only accounts for 12% of the population on this sites (mashable.com). The fact that these are avoidable if people would use privacy settings. It is not the social networking sites fault if you are to naive or stupid to realize that you are threatening your security. I attack this point completely with my Contention one. With social networking sites if your choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. It is much like having sex without a condemn hoping not to get pregnant and then when you do get pregnant you can't understand why. Doesn't make much sense does it? But you don't blame the condemns or birth control or safety precautions you never took, because it is your fault. The same applies to this social networking sites. The resources to be safe and protect yourself are there if you are to irresponsible or naive to use them then you should not be on the site. His contention 1 talks about tabloids online basically. Well, it is true these sites are real and are possibly doing harm, at the same time no one complains about the National Inquirer making up lies about celebrities all the time. How, is this any different? You talk about moraling life. Well my case is moraling life just as well. Education allows you to live a better life. A economy doing well allows you to live a better life. Getting information on political figures and what you're voting for enables you to have better control over what life can and will be like for you in the future. Also, I would like to mention that all the suicides are not the social networking sites fault because there has to be a deeper problem within an individual to cause them to take their own life. Vote for the affirmative because social networking sites help the education field. economy. the political process of voting, and privacy features allowing things to be avoided. side note I debate LD and Public Forum depending on which topic I like better for the months