Facebook does more good than harm

Ave!The Drug AnalogyI think Pro misunderstood the point. I was trying to show that we can get rid of something even if it only causes harm to minority of people. My example of this was to point out a drug that was recalled for harming a minority of people who used it. If we followed Pro's logic on this, the drug shouldn't be recalled because it only harmed a minority of people who used it. But that would be absurd! On the same token, why not think Facebook is bad just because it only harms a minority of people? The whole point was that his metric of harm was untenable.The '1 Billion People' ArgumentI already pointed out the fatal flaw in this argument. The effects of using something do not depend on popular opinion. One billion people could think that shooting yourself in the face is a good way of treating cancer, but that wouldn't make it true. So why think that Facebook is good just because a lot of people believe it? Popular opinion is completely irrelevant to the discussion.Besides, it's entirely possible that people would go on Facebook and know it's harmful. It could be the case that Facebook is psychologically addicting to that person, so they go on it even though they know it's bad for them. I once used Facebook and I always got sad when I saw other people with social lives. Yet, it took me a year to deactivate because I felt compelled to log in every day. Point is, there's nothing stopping someone from using something, even if they know it's bad for them.Two examples of this: smokers and fast food.Facebook and Stress'My opponent also said that a majority of users recieved some kind of stress out of their experience, however this is minute compared to the good that they can experience on facebook.'Think about these words clearly. A majority of users received some kind of stress out of using Facebook. Given that, why think there is something good they could get out of it? We've already established they had a bad experience.Facebook and Cyberbullying'My opponent refutes my point about the logic of cyber bullying and who to blame by saying something about a lion.'My response was this: the fact that you can get cyber bullied in other places does not mean you’ve solved the problem with Facebook.The point was to show that Pro's refutation was a non-sequitur. Pro never ends up responding to this point, and instead he just mocks it. So, this argument is on my side when it's time to vote.'The truth remains: Bullyers are to blame for cyber bullying. If a normal bully insults someone, do we blame the language for providing a mode of them to insult him? Clearly not, because the langauge (facebook in this analogy) does so much good for us."Pro is just setting up a straw man. I never said that Facebok was to blame for its cyber bullying problem. I said that cyber bullying is a frequent way that millions of people are harmed when using Facebook. This debate isn't about whether the staff at Facebook are responsible for cyber bullying on their website. This debate is about whether harm can come out of Facebook. Maybe the staff isn't to blame, but that's ultimately not the point.Facebook's Policies'My opponent refutes my point about how hard it is to create a proper registration system by failing to answer my question, which was, "What would you suggest?" There is no clear way to do that, so we can't persecute facebook for having a "laughably easy" regristration process.'It doesn't matter about what I would suggest. I don't to have a solution to a problem in order to recognize that a problem exists. That's a non-sequitur.Does Facebook help self-esteem?'Sorry about the broken source. The article talks about how getting likes increases self-esteem.'I don't care what Pro's interpretation of the article is. I care about the actual text of the article, and since no useful source was provided, this claim should not be considered a win for Pro.Organ Donation'My opponent said that many people will still be alive by the time facebook is done. First of all, he says facebook is on the decline and points to a source, but this source is merely pointing out a possible trend'It's not a possible trend of Facebook's decline. It's an actual trend. That is, users are actually leaving in the website in large numbers. Why would we think of this as possible, when it's actually happening?'There is no evidence that facebook will end soon, if ever. Secondly, even if some people are alive when facebook burns out (which I doubt it will), some people have still gotten to donate, so there is still a lot of good being done.'Pro never tells us how many people actually end up donating organs. In fact, his article about organ donation is also a broken link, so this unsourced claim cannot be considered when voting.ConclusionLet's review Pro's arguments.(1) Facebook can boost self-esteem.Pro's source for this is a broken link, so there's no reason for us to consider this true.(2) Facebook can be used for organ donation purposes.Pro's source for this is broken.(3) Facebook is a great way to connect with friends.This is a subjective claim, not a factual one.(4) Facebook can be used to start movements.Pro says this was in the NY Times, but he never gives us any way of finding his source.(5) Facebook is a strong way to promote and advance small businesses.Pro cites the Houston Chronicle, but like contention four, he never gives us any way of finding his source.Pro's arguments aren't based in fact because we're never given any sources to think they're true. Therefore, they're bare assertion fallacies, and should not be counted as reasons to think Facebook is good.Vale!