Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

I will go PRO---|> CON "My opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on... " I never asserted that students aren't using social networking websites, or anything relatively close to that. The argument I do make, is that my opponent provides no direct link from social networking to nature deficit disorder, provides no evidence that student who use them aren't being exposed to nature. In fact, many students who use social networking sites are more inclined to go outside and associate with friends and family, than those using other sources of technology (ex. Game Consoles, Tivo-ed episodes of One Tree Hill LOL) for many users contact their friends and associates on social networking sites and arrange meeting locations, exposing them to nature. "It can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily." I am a High school Student. Lets say I go to bed at 9 p.m. every night, and wake up at 6:30 for school that starts at 7:30 every morning. School ends at 2. That means from 2 to 9 I have seven hours to do anything that I please. Subtract the time the average student spends on social networking sites you still have 7 and ï¿½ hours of time between school and sleep. What's to say that students aren't utilizing those 7 and ï¿½ hours swimming, or running, or riding nude on the back of a spotted owl ? Additionally, on an AB schedule most computer classes last about an hour and a half in high school. If youngling using the computer for an hour and a half undoubtedly leads to nature deficit disorder, then why do most high schools require a basic computer class of almost exactly the same time period? My opponent's case shows correlation and no causation, and does in no way prove the resolution true. "Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist." Not only is the logic of this assertion fallacious, my opponent does not provide any evidence from these sources stating that 1 and ï¿½ hours of social networking is leading to nature deficit disorder. Just because two entities agree on something entirely different does in no way legitimize or validate the evidence. EX. If my mom and my dad agree that there are 17 months in a year, this does not make the evidence true just because they agree on it. The argument that Louv and others are making is that when people get absolutely no exposure to nature they might start showing negative psychological symptoms, but this isn't the fault of social networking websites. This is the fault of those who choose not to get any exposure to nature. Additionally, nature deficit disorder itself is still disputed, and has not been factually proved to this day. There are several things that could cause all of these negative symptoms on human health. One factor could be that those who are not going outside are not getting any exercise, which leads to obesity. Symptoms of the supposed disease attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, chronic stress. Those who aren't getting any exercise could have all of these same symptoms because your gestalt health generally declines when you are obese. Again, correlation does not prove causation. "There is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature." Just because children aren't in nature 100 percent of the time doesn't mean that they are getting nature deficit disorder, if that were true everyone in the world would have the alleged disease. For the rest of the attacks made against my case, including the ADHD argument, there is no link, and because there is no link, it is your obligation to vote negative. Thank you.