People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Thanks to Con for his response; I will follow suit. Contention One: Connectivity I would apologise to my opponent if I have misquoted him out of context, however my round four response has not been touched. My opponent's response was based a lot on privacy; I conceded privacy on certain SMS, but this contention is aboutconnectivity. As such, I will extend my contention from last round. I would recommend that - based off the discourse in rounds four and five - my opponent concedes this contention and moves it over to privacy instead. That way, we can discuss things on one floor. In any case, because my opponent's response was based of privacy, whereas here I am arguing for connectivity; extend contention. Contention Two: Maturity "With the onset of puberty comes emotional and mental maturity...so that is correct one year can make a lot of difference..." I would highlight the word "can" here. It would be wrong to judge the entire population of a certain age group based off an average number of what *can* happen to someone in particular circumstances. The odds are quite low, relatively, of something happening that would really damage a child's life. It's like crossing a road. There comes a point when people mature and can be trusted to cross the road - but that doesn't mean people should be banned from crossing the road until they mature. With reasoning such as that, we could justify banning almost anything to under thirteens. In fact, I argue that my motion is better, as thirteen is quite old; there are only a few things that one cannot do at thirteen, legally. (Driving, sex, alcohol, etc...)My opponent has yet to show why we should ban all SNS to all people 13+ (until 18); all my opponent has done thus far is give examples of when, on average, people mature, but one cannot you that as total justification to block everything. On the "trend" aspect:I will just drop the data aspect - not concede it - just drop it. I feel it would be too tedious at this point in the debate.Note 1: Privacy"The fact of the matter here is that cyber bullying especially on facebook is a dangerous trend. According to some studies 54% of cyber bullying occurs on Facebook [2] this is alarming people under 13 should not have to cope with this it is alarming and is preventable children under 13 should not be allowed to use social networking sites as it is a useful outlet for cyber bullying."One must be careful when citing sources - particularly when it comes to missing out words. Sometimes it's OK and useful, but missing out the word extreme makes a big change, as my opponent has done."54% of extreme cyber-bullying takes place on Facebook[1]" There is a rather big difference between cyber-bullying and extreme cyber-bullying. Extreme being comments to "kill yourself" or "share if you think she[']s a slut" is a world apart from standard bullying.Also, I agree with my opponent that people under 13 shouldn't cope; this is about 13+, however."That is correct Facebook in 2010 facebook received 223,374 reports of sexual predators targeting children..." That is incorrect; my opponent has mis-quoted his source. The actual source states: "CyberTipline, the nation's hotline for reporting sexual exploitation of children, received 223,374 reports...[2]"Facebook and CyberTipline are not the same things - my opponent has (willfully or no) lied, here. I also believe my opponent has based his argument on people 1-13, whereas this debate is about people 13+. Last round, I gave people under thirteen as an example to express staggering numbers in a minority. There will be more 13+ users on SNS such as Facebook than 0-13 users. My contentions summarized:One: My opponent has been talking about privacy while my contention is on connectivity. My opponent has consequently ignored my actual contention.Two: My opponent has given facts on when people start puberty, on average. However, he has not shown how this should give justification to block everyone, everywhere.Note 1: My opponent has merely mis-quoted sources, which I have pointed out and refuted. Therefore, I extend all arguments.Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate over the past few days; to thank the audience with the voters for reading this debate through. Another thank you goes out to the voters - for voting! I'll see y'all around!JSource(s):[1]http://www.bizreport.com...[2]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...