Why should students not be allowed to use social networking sites

First, I'll look at the AC and then move to the NC Observation 1- My opponent completely ignored my definition of a "social network". Their warrant for it not being the correct definition was because it 'wasn't' My opponent then provides us their own definition, which is clearly biased. Because of this lack of warrant, ignore their definition. Observation 2- My opponent's only attack on he rights arg is a rhetorical question. And not a very effective one at that. Even if someone can't use social networking, there are still risks on the internet. Just because I don't use some social networks doen't mean there aren't still creepy lurkers on the internet trying to hurt me. This argument is a wash as there is no impact, and no empirical evidence to back it up. Moving on the the AC's contention level Subcontention One states that "social networking sites decrease a child's potential in school, thus possibly affecting their report". This is a blatant contradiction of the evidence my opponent is showing me. This evidence clearly states "Half of all parents THINK" that social networking negatively impacts their children. These are parents who may or may not know what they're talking about. We need hard, empirical evidence to back up radical claims like this which the affirmative fails to provide. Thus, this entire contention can be ignored as the affirmative has blatantly lied to us about what the study says. Secondly, my opponent doesn't even make any impacts as to why people using a lot of social networks are bad. For example, "drugs are bad" is a poor argument. "Drugs are bad because [x], [y], and [z]" that is an impacted argument. Ignore my opponent's entire first contention because of the lack of impacts, and improper use of evidence. Subcontention Two states that"the unsuspecting student could be scammed, without him or her even knowing it". My opponent then gives us a link to a government website on tips of how to AVOID scamming. First, this isn't evidence. This is just a website that basically says "scamming happens, here's how to avoid it". This doesn't help my opponent's case at all, it just tells us that internet scams exist. By exercising a reasonable amount of caution, you can avoid getting scammed. For instance, if I asked my opponent for his debate. org email and password, there is no way they would give it to me. Why? Because it's super shady and if you give out your password to someone, that's just plain dumb. It specifically says on emails from facebook/twitter/whatever "An official [x] representative will never ask you for your password". This argument is like saying "people shouldn't drive cars because they might crash". If they shouldn't drive a car, what's the point of them existing? There is none. This argument holds no solvency, so drop it and prefer my arguments over my opponent's Lastly, my opponent's third subcontention/quasi-narrative. Here, it says "people will commit crimes via social networks". This is true. People can indeed do this sort of stuff. It's bad when they do. The story is indeed very sad. But this hinges off of the idea that crime only happens over the internet, it only happens over social networks, which we all know is simply not true. I can walk down the street, and I might get mugged. Is it because of social networking? Nope. And if someone tries to rape or assault me, is this the fault of social networking? Of course not. My opponent is treating social networking sites as though they are the root of the problem, a weed we need to tear out. It's more like a tree. Yes, there are mushrooms attached to the tree. Yes they are poisonous. Is the solution to chop down the tree, and blame it for poisoning you? No, you blame the poisonous mushrooms that you were dumb enough to eat. In short, my opponent's definition has no valid source and is obviously neg biased. Her first contention contains faulty evidence and no impacts, her second contention is completely reliant on people not exercising reasonable, logical caution, and her third contention was just a plea to the better nature of the people relying on faulty logic. Her only other attack on my arguments are the "constitution" attack. We're going to ignore this because of a few reasons. a. ) The US Constitution is the law. If you deny someone their constitutional rights, you break the law. If you break the law, you are a criminal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my opponent is not a criminal, and thus would not want to deny constitutional rights, lest we find ourselves in a repeat of North Korea or Soviet Russia. b. ) My opponent is asking a question to appeal to the better nature of the judge, to "guilt trip" them, if you would. "Would you really want to put your child at risk of being raped, abused, and possibly killed? " Of course we don't want to hurt our children, to insinuate so is downright insulting, and the use of this tactic is at least a little bit offensive. There is no "correct way" to answer the question, ignore it as the double standard is abusive towards the neg. Moving on the the NC, extend Peterson 1. This means my opponent completely ignored the fact that people require being interconnected to increase their capability as humans. This means that I have offense, whereas my opponent does not. Secondly, I have demonstrated that at least some amount of social networking does in fact INCREASE productivity, unlike what my opponent would have you believe. With this in mind, there is only one possible vote, and that is a vote for the negative.