Twitter is dumb.

"My opponent states that "good things come in small packages." This may be true, however, but what quality is there in the fact that you have to play tennis at 3:00? Or are eating Froot Loops for breakfast? These sort of posts are not uncommon on Twitter, and are simply unneeded information. Therefore, there is no quality in these sort of posts, and also, obviously, no quantity either." -If ALL the posts were unneeded information, then people would not go on to twitter. But 21.9 million people/month go on Twitter. So obviously people find the information needed, as they would not go on to Twitter if the posts were unneeded. "Fans are just fans, and most of them are NOT crazy, obsessive people. Therefore, most people would not want to see anybody doing anything obscene, even if it is Lance Armstrong or Oprah Winfrey." -If a fan watched every single one of Oprah's episodes since 1986 and watched every single second of Lance Armstrong's Tour de Frances, I would call them crazy obsessive people. Regardless, Twitter has nothing to do with watching people do obscene things, it is about reading and following a person's life. -Lance Armstrong has 1,012,090 followers (1) and Oprah has 1,349,577 followers (2) on Twitter. These people obviously do not find Lance's and Oprah's posts meaningless if they took time out of their meaningful lives to subscribe. "If Ashton Kutcher pooped in someone's lawn, I'm pretty sure they would still think its gross and not touch it." -What's your point? You are not forced to touch people's poop by going on Twitter, just read their posts. -Also, Ashton Kutcher has 2,018,230 followers (3) on Twitter. "The post that my opponent refers to is a sad, post, but it is NOT a very meaningful one. Look at the definition for meaningful: full of value, significance, or purpose. ... If your mother died, and all you could say is, "I'm so sad", I'm pretty sure that's not meaningful at all. A meaningful thing to say would be a long and very heartfelt message to your mother, not just 3 words." -My opponent apparently does not find a post about a loved one's death meaningful. To my opponent: if your principal came into your class in the middle of school and told you (in less than 140 characters) that a loved one had passed away, would you find his words "full of value, significance, or purpose"? Because I know I would. "You can follow them via blogs, entertainment magazines, etc. They provide more meaningful updates about the celebrity's lives, instead of just 140 letter statements, like "I just went to the bathroom." -You can follow celebs in-depth with blogs and magazines, but Twitter provides users the oppurtunity to track a celeb's life down to the minute. In blogs and magazines, you just get the big story. But with Twitter, you can feel personal with the celeb. "Just because you make your account public doesn't mean you acknowlegde the fact that people you don't know are following you. I can make a Facebook, but that doesn't nessicarily mean I acknowlegde random people to be my friends." -Actually, you do acnowledge that. You have the oppurtunity to set your account to public or private. Also, on Facebook, you do have the opportunity to acnowledge random people as friends, you can either "Accept" or "Reject" them as friends. You are not forced to be friends/followed by random people if you don't want to be. "Other better news sites, blogs, and magazines would no doubt provide a much more extensive coverage than you can convey only through 140 characters." -Like I said before, you get the big story with blogs and mags, but you get down to the minute updates with Twitter. "And in reference to the point that my opponent made about Prime Minister Mir Hossein the whole point of someone blocking something is because it IS meaningless/useless. Would you block something of use? No, probably not. The whole point of blocking something is because it is too meaningless and distracts us from our daily tasks." -Actually, Iran blocked Twitter because former Prime Minister Mir Hossein was using Twitter for his presidential campaigns. You asked "Would you block something of use?", and the answer is that current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would definitely block a site that could hurt his chances of winning the presidency. (4) "Just because you join something or create an account on a certain website does not mean you have to CARE about it." -For the most part, yes it does. Why else would you join besides caring about Twitter. If a person did not care about Twitter, then why would they sign up? In general, when people join something, they care about that something, the same goes for Twitter. "Basically, the point that I am trying to get across to the readers of this debate is that Twitter is a meaningless website. You can't post a 'heartfelt' message in only 140 characters or less. It only provides us with frivolous, meaningless, updates on people's lives. Its a social networking site that probably will not do well in the future, and most importantly, a HUGE waste of time." -All lies. I have proved everything that Pro has said as lies. Twitter is a meaningful website that is (very) not dumb. ---Sources--- (1) http://m.twitter.com... (2) http://twitter.com... (3) http://twitter.com... (4) http://www.cnn.com...