Why should students not be allowed to use social networking sites

Resolved: Students should not be allowed to use social networking sites First, some definitions Dictionary.com defines a social network as: a dedicated website or other application that enables users to communicate with each other by posting information, comments, messages, images, etc. This means that not only are vine, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. social networks, so are reddit, different forums, and the like. I negate Negate is defined as "to disprove the truth of" so proving the resolution false is textually sufficient to negate 1. Both sides of the debate only have the burden to prove the resolution false in the general sense. Forcing the negative to defend all instances of social networking being bad would mean defending extreme examples that I can never win. The standard is the consistency with interdependence, as social networks represent a way to connect to others regardless of physical distance I will be starting with the Affirmative case and then cross apply my opponent's contention level with my own to prove that his contentions actually support my case better than his. As far as I can tell, my opponent really only has 1 contention divided into 3 different subcontentions 1.) Social Networking has negative repercussions a. Decreases potential in school b. Risk of being scammed c. Stranger danger This is backed up by absolutely no empirical evidence, and we're supposed to take all of this information on face, and not question whether or not he just made it up on the spot. This is useless. We can't have a debate without empirical evidence, unless we're debating philosophy, which this clearly isn't. Since the opponent has a complete lack of any evidence, we must disregard his claims until he can show us proof that these are all legitimate risks. He also doesn't give us a definition of "scam", meaning that he can basically wait for me to interpret it one way, and then interpret it a different way later on in the debate, saying that my interp was way off As such, don't let him change the definition of "scam" later in the debate, as he failed to provide one when he first used that line of reasoning. According to a study taken by microsoft, social networking actually INCREASED worker's productivity http://www.networkworld.com... Empirical evidence such as that above is required to make a claim, IE I can claim that the ground is actually all lava, or that I can do more push-ups than the affirmative side, but for all you know, the affirmative is a professional bodybuilder. The burden of proof always lies on the affirmative, because they are making the claim in a general sense. If i said "I have superpowers", would you believe me? No, the idea of having superpowers is ludicrous, and you would ask for proof. as the opponent provides no proof, you must assume neg always. Moving on to my contentions 1- Social networking increases productivity See evidence above, clearly stated 2- Social networking increases interdependence Peterson 1 "Conceive agents as mutually interconnected, vulnerable and dependent, often in asymmetric ways. This approach lets us visualize the moral agent as a ""mother" child-dyad"", for example, instead of the ""autonomous-man-model"" basically, all people are fundamentally connected at some level or another, and to refuse this fact is to refuse basic human nature. In denying someone their ability to communicate with others, you are not only violating their constitutional rights, but also their human nature. Because of this, restricting and/or condemning the use of social networking directly reduces the capability of humans as social beings, a grievous misdeed to humanity altogether Thus, because I have reduced my opponent's nonwarranted arguments to nothing, and have backed up my own case with evidence and cards, I urge a strong negative vote Thank you