internet is better than books

I would like to begin by saying that I don't believe my argument about the use of the Internet was closed-minded at all. I did acknowledge that all websites have potential to be used in good, educational ways. I completely agree that all websites do provide learning opportunities. That being said, my argument was that in reality, this is not how we use the websites. To counter your example, yes Youtube has millions of videos that will provide stimulating thought, and help us gain perspective and learn. However, take a moment and go look at the "trending" tab on Youtube right now, what do you see there? I see a whole lot of videos that will provide a good laugh, but very little genuine knowledge to be gained. I believe this shows that the way in which we are using these sites is more for entertainment than for education, which of course would be fine, since we all need to relax and be entertained at times. The problem I have identified with this is that we spend too much time on these sites, doing unproductive things, which end up detracting from our learning. Bringing this back to the original argument, when reading a book, it's easy to get sucked in and spend hours on end learning, since the distractions aren't there to take your attention away. It is for this reason, along with others to follow, that I argue the Internet is not better than books, when it comes to value added to learning.Moving on to social media, I once again agree with what you have put forward about the Internet providing us a way to connect with people we normally would not be able to see with ease. Unfortunately, this again is a very small percentage of how social media is actually used, and I will again argue the cons outweigh the pros. First of all, social media has provided our generation with the need for instant communication. It's no longer acceptable to us to have to wait to tell someone something, no matter how mundane it may be. As soon as something happens we feel the need to tell everyone. This has significantly hurt the quality of conversation between youth, as we no longer seek out face to face meetings, where we get to practice things like non-verbal cues. Further to this, I would estimate that 90% of communication via social media is with peers who live within a 10 minute bike ride of each other. So while I see where you are coming from, saying social media connects distant people, it does significantly more harm to people who could easily be communicating in person, by giving them a medium to bypass the need for real interaction.Further, on the topic of "real" interaction, electronic modes of communication dehumanize people. When talking to someone online, you don't feel the consequences of saying mean and hurtful things to those people, it takes much of the emotional aspect out of the equation. While it is true social media may be opening us up to more communication, the level of our connection is dropping at an alarming rate, which is really hurting our ability to maintain healthy relationships.To briefly revisit the argument of security, I simply cannot agree with your argument that information stored online is safe. Your perspective is wrong on this, as you are considering the issue on a personal level. While it is true that your own precious content is safe, it is not because you use a username and password. I can promise you there are hundreds of thousands of people who could gain access to your Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and all other accounts within minutes. You know what it really is that keeps people like you and I safe? It's the fact that no one cares about the stuff we are protecting. No one wants to read my essays, or see the pictures from my latest vacation. If we took a better perspective on this issue, we would see that the information people want is the information that will be valuable to them, and who has that information? Corporations, governments, and large databases. These are the institutions who need to be afraid of storing information digitally, and they are, because they are constantly under attack. I guarantee these organizations do not protect their information with a simple username and password, it's much more complicated than that, and unfortunately hackers are often much more advanced than their systems. For example, look at the hacktivist group "Anonymous" [1]. They have shown on multiple occasions that they have the power to access digital information, which we considered safe. Take this as proof that although physical books can be stolen, information stored online can be stolen too, without even being in the same country.Finally, I would like to quickly refute your argument that I can't criticize the Internet because I use the Internet. That is equivalent to you saying I cannot dislike the pen I write with because I am writing with it. While I may use the Internet as a tool, I do believe there are better, more efficient ways of communicating, gathering information, and learning. I think I have provided sufficient evidence for those beliefs throughout this debate, and to try and discredit that with a shallow argument such as this one does not do justice to the otherwise thought-provoking debate we have participated in over the last few days.Thus concludes my side of the debate, I have thoroughly enjoyed it and found it to be quite intriguing. All the best, and maybe we can do this again in the future.Thanks!Source:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(group)