That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America

Impact Definition 1a--> There are many definitions I agree. Which is why I urge you to accept both. To have a direct impact on AND to have a powerful effect. b--> Notice my opponents definitions anyway where he said, "An impact could be direct or indirect."… Basically from this you should see that the impact is all dependent on the actor. The economy is indirect, and the child molester cases are a direct effect. Both of these are acceptable and both of them prove that social networking sites have a neutral impact because it ALL depends on the actor, something that isn't specified in the resolution. So impact can be a baseball bat. But a baseball bat is a tool, JUST LIKE a social networking site. c--> 1) It also says effect, please use that if impact in the impact definition is that bad of an ordeal. 2) That must mean that Webster's Dictionary isn't legit. Which is absolutely ridiculous. d--> If social networking sites were to have no members, then they would have no impact right? This is the same as hammers, guns, and even baseball bats. So if you even accept the positive influences of social networking sites of my opponent, then you must see that it has only been used well. The ACTOR has the impact NOT the TOOL. 2--> Ok, but you misinterpret my position which I'll get to later. 3--> Your entire position is based on the idea that tools are positive OR negative and can't be both. But what I have shown is that it is not the tool that decides this, it is the person. I have proven this through guns, baseball bats, hammers, and of course social networking sites. If you have yet to understand my position (judges), then think of it like this. Social Networking Sites, have BOTH types of impacts on us (positive AND negative). The impact that happens in a subjective case can be positive OR negative, but when you look at it objectively, you will see a mixture. Thus you can not determine the actual impact, but rather, notice the true determining factor. The user of the networking site. 3a--> Are you contending that the site of the social networking site helps our economy and fights the war on terror? If anything you have conceded the fact that it helps sexual predators. Also the gun did aid in the killing (just like the aiding of sexual predators), but it is not what had the impact. It is the one pulling the trigger or the one lying of his age and stealing a child to rape them. No difference. So would you contend that guns have a negative impact on society? Or would you agree with me that it is the shooter, not the tool that determines the positive or negative impact. 4--> Cross-apply the sexual predators and child-parent relationship harms against this point. It proves that "on balance" it is the user of the social networking site that causes the impact. 5--> EXACTLY! It has both positive and negative impacts, so how can you claim that "Social Networking Sites have a positive impact on the United States" when there are ALSO negative ones as well. Economy: 1) The USA Today link evidence only proves my point. That the newspaper sales have gone down and has generally switched to TV and Social Networking Sites. AKA: The Economy has been going up for Social Networking Sites and down for newspapers. A transfer from one to the other creates a net-benefit of nothing. And although the evidence points to a few sources, it fails to even talk about Social Networking Sites. Therefore, they could be a part of the downfall of Social Networking Sites. I for one know of several people who stop reading newspapers and rather use the internet to get their news. "Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat."--> 2) I really don't think that the few pennies that people are saving from this minor change are not going to feed or not feed a family. It is nice, certainly, but not going to be the reason that I get to have chicken rather than chicken ramen noodles. ONE GROUP OF INCOME IS NOT GOING TO CREATE OR DESTROY THE ECONOMY! 3) 250,000 new social networking sites?!?! How can any legitimate jobs be created out of this? Not to mention that this will lead to a growing obesity rate :D … And those new fatties are probably the ones raping our children. "Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad"--> 4) Even if the judges agree that the positive outweigh the negative, you still can't claim that it is ONLY a positive impact (like the resolution asks for). In that case, the resolution shall be negated AS: "That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive AND NEGATIVE impact on the United States of America dependant on the user of the site." From this, you vote CON! Bullying: I got the evidence out of an evidence packet that gets sent to our school for our team. If it isn't legit, then you can bring it up with "Squirrel Killers." 1) You're a friend with me on a Social Networking Site and you hardly even know me. Watch this… I hate you… Now you see that. I just bullied you and you had no choice in the matter. The site did nothing to prevent it and if we were in real life, I doubt I would have been able to even say it. This is because social networking sites make it so much easier over the internet. You can hurt someone just as much without having to say it in person. A lot easier for mean people like me ;) 2) You claim that there is no net-impact. But look to the situation where some neighbor parents pushed a girl to suicide through a social networking sites. This would not have happened in real life since they couldn't pretend to be someone (like they were). Thus there ARE impacts because of social networking sites. Sexual Predators: "Mostly people that they know"--> -As you can tell, we are now friends on a social networking site and we do not know each other. There are several people that I have "met" online and I know others who have as well. -Therefore the sexual predator arguments still stand. Please flow through the evidence and by this, you can further see the inherent negative impacts which thus proves that it is all dependant on the user of the tool (in this situation, the social networking site being used by sexual predators… They have a negative impact just like the advertisers and small business people have a positive impact. They use the tool good OR bad and the tool doesn't determine ANYTHING. Terrorism: "Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents"--> -Which is why bullying has such a powerful impact on social networking sites. Please cross-apply this statement on the bullying line of arguing. -Also, are you saying that we ought not be concerned with kids learning from their parents? Users of social networking sites are getting younger and younger. It will only be some time before everything is learned online (from my opponents statement). This is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing. Kids must learn from their parents. "4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins"--> -The War on Terrorism argument was ONLY linked to the economy which was argued earlier. -We are not going to win or lose the war on terror because we do or do not have social networking sites. Nor is there going to make that big of a difference. Such as I proved before with the economy. Democracy: There was good debate on the candidates (positive) and some unnecessary slanderous videos on the presidential candidates. Because of this, you MUST see that there are both positive AND negative impacts DEPENDING on the user of the tool (of social networking sites). Because of this, I urge you to vote CON! Thank you for this GREAT debate!