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

Prefer Pro's definitions a. First of all there are many definitions for multitude of different words, including "impact" b. Con's definition is unapplicable because if you actully go that web site (. http://www.merriam-webster.com......) you will find that the definition has to do with th ehitting of the ball as in baseball, which does not apply to social networks c. Con's definition is also false because it uses the word "impact" within the deffinition which goes against the rules of Eng. language d. Pro's definition is best of both because it defines what the impact does: "impact" produces an effect; and it defines what that "impact" could be "direct and indirect" and my opponent has conceded the fact that my definition is correct when he stated "I will urge the voters to use both definitions of impact" 2. I agree to my job of proving a positive impact, and because the reolution call for "impact" which could be direct and indirect, my job is to prove either of the possible types of impacts 3. Social netw. web. have a positive impact on the US, because the impact could be direct or indirect as Con conceded, the perception and the use of the tool is an indirect effect because without the tool thee would be no use of it, and thus it has an indirect impact a. For example, my opponent mentioned "gun", the thing is that the sight of the weapon alone incites violence Homer: "The blade itself incites to violence. " and thus the weapon itself has an indirect impact on the people, also when someone gets killed by the weapon, it is the weapon that killed, sure the blame lies with the killer, but the weapon aided the kill so it has an impact 4. Also because the debate asks for "on balance" which mean on average, I urge you to vote in consideration of both negative and positive impacts 5. Lastly on the "impact" debate, my opponent concedes this debate, when he acnowledges some possible impacts, the fact that he argued impact at all proves that there could be a debate of both positive and negative impacts == Onto my opponent's ans. to my case: 1. I agree to your evaluation and thank you for not making this a definition type debate 2. Prefer Pro's definition 3. Econ. a. My opponent's argument is not exactly true and unaplicable to social networks for a few key reasons 1. . http://www.usatoday.com... - This article is talking about how the newspaper circulation has been aroding for the past 20 years, during which social netwoking websites have been almost unexistent if not completely unexistent, - Further more, its aknowledging that these newspapers have been losing their custumers because of both TV and Internet Usage, not social networking specifically -Finally ask yourself, if not for the social networking which account for much advertising, where would those bussinesses be, the key thing is that to put an ad into a newspaper or journal, is expensive, to put it onto Social networking websites or internet in general, is almost free, thus it encourages these small businesses to advertise which ultimatlely helps them out and because of these businesses our economy thrives -Finally sites like LinkedIN help people get jobs, it is a bussiness oriented social network, which also hires people and in December 07 it got over 400% more visitors, which means that there was net benefit in social networking, because way less people went away from newspapers than people got onto social networks, my sorce for the increase is Wikipedia, and although its not the best website, the statistic is correct as i have checked -Prefer my answer because I have qualified how the economy has improved with statistics unlike my opponent b. The economy didn't get worse because of social networking websites, if my opponent would be correct than the newspapers, where the advertising was before would have had the same impact as social networking websites have now -Also the fact that newspapers are still there and TV plus the social networks, meansthat there is more competition involved and competion is key to a succesfull economy -My opponent claims that the fact that money is congested in social networks is bad, however the fact is "Eager estimates there will be as many as 250,000 sites that call themselves social networks within a year, compared with about 850 today. " USA, Today c. The fact that my opponent stated "If it did get better" proves that he is not sure of the result and thus it means that Pro has more of a chance to be correct -USA TODAY : "Total ad spending worldwide, by comparison, is expected to grow 4.6%, to $653.9 billion this year, says Universal McCann. " This is the billions I am talking about, the economy needs money to flow around to do well, when the money doesn't move, meaning it's not spent, the economy soars and becomes volitile -The principal fact Pro is claiming is that the economy is boosted by the social networks -Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat. Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad, which is what the resolution asks Pro to answer, and thus sure a few people get hurt, but ask yourself, don't the people get hurt in democracy, yes, but is democracy on balance bad? no == Bullying: Firstly, Johicle, is there a website link to the PC Magazine Online evidence and the Jessica Groppe evidece, because i could not find it, I am not denying its validity, I just want to read it 1. Think logically, why would you be a friend with someone who bullies you? really, if one is bullied, one has the controls to block that person, and with the networks getting so much safer, the bullie's message might not even get to you 2. UCLA study, shows that people get bullied offline (85%), so if they are bullied offline the fact that they might be bullied online shows that there is no net impact 3. UCLA study also shows that 75% of the kids showed positive feedback, while only 6-7% got negative response, and because the resolution calls for "on balance", average, 75 and 7 obviously prove that on average the impact is positive 4. UCLA stdu also shows that the problem is declining about bulliying == Onto the sexual predators . http://www.nytimes.com... 1. "Those concerns about predators and stranger danger have been overblown," she said. "There's been some confusion about what kids are actually doing online. Mostly, they're socializing with their friends, people they've met at school or camp or sports. " This proves that there is more positive than negative impact andso Pro wins 2. Because Constates a negative impact proves that the impact could be neg. or pos. which cancels his first arg. == Onto Terrorism 1. Good parent relations? Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents, and there is not evidence showing that without social netwokring those relation would get hurt, I mean think critically, without talking to your friends online, you would just talk offline, so there is no trade off in the relations 2. What impact do those realations have and what do they have to do with the war on terrorism, people still realize that terrorism is bad regardless of what they think about their parents 3. Although parents might say they were way more respectful, they are forgetting the fact that they weren't, if you ask your gradnparents they have the same opinion of your parent as your parents of u 4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins Democracy: 1. Although sure there were some hate speeches, the fact is is that social nets. helped civic engagement= democracy www. marketingcharts.