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.