Internet addiction

I accept the definition given by the affirmative team simply because it stumps his own claim, as I will point out later on. Although my opponents arguments are rather unclear, I will proceed to attack them nevertheless. He talks mainly about Internet addiction from the viewpoint that it exists indefinitely, so my debate will mainly be about rebutting and putting forth the claim: 'There is no such this as internet addiction.' That will invalidate his entire case. Addiction is observed to be a state where the affected person suffers from either physical or psychological dependencies on a substance[1]. This means an abuse of a substance that consequents physical or psychological harm to the affected person. The negative consequences can also be a certain level of tolerance to the material which causes withdrawal symptoms to the user. My main problem with my opponents use of the phrase 'internet addiction,' is that he provides arguments to support his claim that are so weak, I have the right to dismiss them with a wave of my hand. The statistics he states are not linked with any of his arguments and do not support any of his claims. His assertions therefore, are unsupported. What can be raised without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But first, I would like to examine more closely what he is trying to say: 'half of earth population are using the internet, regards with 32% WORLD POPULATION.' This is where his chain of statistics end. Everything after this is just his arguments. Now, I must ask, how does the statistics brought up by the affirmative prove anything about statistics. ALL the statistics merely refer to the numbers of internet users in the world, but nothing when it comes to anything about internet addiction. These statistics are completely useless and irrelevant to this debate. Note this statement made by the affirmative immediately after the statistics: 'people are playing online games in the internet, which is lead to be addicted...' Overlooking this rather poor grammar, (which I assume to be caused by his E.S.L.) the affirmative is claiming that playing online games leads to addiction. Evidence? None what-so-ever. Online games are not addictive. Unless the affirmative can provide a case where it has been shown to be, that claim will stand. There have been no reports of people who suffer from the tolerance effect that is associated with every form of addiction. Furthermore, addictions are chemical by nature, they are only known to be caused by the activation of neurotransmitters that dictate a certain emotion or response.[2] This chemical which is released is called Dopamine, and causes the sensation of euphoria.[3][4] Bearing this information in mind, note how gaming online does not fool neurons into releasing dopamine. The sensation of pleasure when shooting someone in FPS or any other game is actually completely genuine pleasure. No tampering involved. 'Consequently, they are hurting their health.' Unless my opponent will provide a shred of credible evidence to prove this I will assume it is false. 'they are wasting their time.' This is my opponents opinion on the matter. He thinks that online gaming is a waste of time. Maybe he will start a new debate on this matter, I don't know, but I honestly couldn't care less as it is irrelevant to the current topic. His summary seems to contain some arguments, ill state them here. '[Today's youth is] suffering from: -shortage of physical activity -real social communication -psychological well being -depression -self-esteem -loneliness' Ill rebut them in that order, -shortage of physical activity. The affirmative team provides no link between this and internet addiction, no evidence to back it up, and no reasoning to show why it is relevant to his main argument. -real social communication Here, he is working from the assumption that we agree that socialising online is somehow inferior to every other form of communication. I disagree, but I will not pursue it as it is irrelevant to the topic, maybe if he provides a link from this argument to his main argument I will rebut. -Psychological well being The affirmative team is now making an unsupported claim that using the internet negatively impacts a person's well being. That argument would normally hold up if internet addiction actually existed as will be discussed soon -depression Again, no evidence at all to support this. -self-esteem I assume he means, lack of it, due to cyberbulling, which has nothing to do with internet addiction. -loneliness I judge this to be my opponents strongest argument, abuse of the internet (too much of it) causes you to be lonely. It will be covered by my first argument. My arguments are: 1) There is no such thing as internet addiction. 2) If there was such thing as internet addiction, it does not harm us. 3) If it were to harm us, it is not a serious threat. There is no such thing as internet addiction. As mentioned earlier, it is not physically possible to be addicted to the internet. I've mentioned how gaming causes the neuro-transmitter dopamine to be released for the sense of pleasure. This applies wherever euphoria occurs. As far as I'm concerned, there are no known cases where people are addicted to any other neurotransmitter. An addiction requires dependency and tolerance to be present. Neither are present in terms of internet overuse. So how can you call it an addiction when its not? Lets give my opponent the benefit of the doubt for a moment, assume there was such a thing as the ability to become addicted to the internet. The affected user suffers from dependency and withdrawal symptoms. (ridiculous as it sounds) I challenge my opponent then, to state how this addiction would be harmful to us. In addictions to drug use and alcohol, the person is harmed by the substance being abused. But if a person is addicted to the internet, there is nothing there that can harm him. He may have to forfeit a strong presence in the immediant social life, but such an addiction would cause him/her to replace it with an online social life. The user would therefore be a completely normal person, who just uses the internet much more than what is considered appropriate. Furthermore, I also wish to argue that an internet addiction is beneficial to some people. The internet is the worlds largest cache of information, I'm not going to look for a source to back that up since it is obvious, my opponent can feel free to find evidence against that claim though. The benefits of an internet addiction would be that: a) The addicted person is extremely knowledgeable in his interested areas/topics b) The person has a strong understanding of the internet and thus can find employment via that skill c) The person has a strong presence online especially in social networking sites like facebook. This may give him/her a life. My final point is that, giving my opponent even more benefit of the doubts and assuming it is possible to be harmed by an internet addiction, (which I have shown that it doesn't exist) then this harm ministered to them does not fit my opponents general argument that 'Internet addiction is a serious threat.' A serious threat is a threat that is serious, obviously. Its a threat that needs our immediant attention or else we will all suffer dire consequences. Assuming there is such thing as internet addiction, and assuming it is harming us, we don't need to say it is 'dire' or a 'serious threat' to us. That is just over-the-top. Its melodramatic, and doesn't need to be here in this debate. Concluding, There is no such thing as internet addiction, my opponent did nothing to further his claim. Have a nice day. [1]Angres DH, Bettinardi-Angres K (October 2008). "The disease of addiction: origins, treatment, and recovery". Dis Mon 54 (10): 696–721 [2]http://teens.drugabuse.gov... [3]http://www.psychologytoday.com... [4]http://www.utexas.edu...