That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America

Thanks for this debate and good luck: DEFINITIONS: -Impact -From: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com......) -"To have a direct effect or impact on." Resolutional Analysis: The burden of proof lies with pro. -Within this debate, it is pro's job to prove that there is some sort of positive impact on the United States. Therefore, if I prove negative effect or neutral effect, I ought to win. -Therefore, my claim is simple: That social networking websites have a NEUTRAL impact on the United States. A. Social Networking Sites are simply a tool. - Since Social Networking Sites are generally meant for friends meeting up with each other and sharing information, you will see that these sites are simply a tool for people to use. Thus, this debate asks the question, does the tool have an impact? And the answer is no. You see, it is the PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL that determines what kind of impact exists. A person could use these sites well and nothing bad could happen, OR someone could anonymously abuse someone to the point of suicide on these same sites. For example: A hammer is a tool. A person could use the hammer to build a house. But a person could also use the same hammer to murder someone. Do either of these actions determine the impact of the tool? No… Therefore, it is the PEOPLE that determine whether it will impact anyone positively or negatively. B. Definition (of impact) places no impact on Social Networking Sites. -How can something have a ‘direct effect' on something when it doesn't have a brain? It doesn't think. And it therefore can't positively or negatively impact anything. In the end of this debate, ask yourself… Does a hammer build a house or does a person build a house with a hammer? Does a hammer kill someone, or does a person kill a person with a hammer? Does a gun kill someone, or does someone kill a person with a gun? Does a gun protect a family from a robber, or does someone protect a family from a robber with a gun? Since the answer to all of these is the latter of the two, you will see that it is the PERSON that has the impact, not the tool. ====================================================== Onto my opponents case: 1. I accept the definition (of Social Networking Site) as a way Social Networking sites could be viewed. Although, there can be multiple interpretations, I will not be abusive and I will accept this as the general purpose of a Social Networking site. 2. I will urge the voters to use both definitions of impact. Use my opponents as the "how much" and use my definition as the "how." In other words, his points out to a strong effect while mine points to a direct effect. And since these are mutually inclusive, use them both to determine if PRO has met both of them. Onto the arguments now: 1. Economy (and the business advertisement argument)--> A) The economic benefits simply transfered. -You have to acknowledge the simple fact that Social Networking Sites bring in revenue to other companies (debate.org being one of those). However, this revenue transfered from previous popular advertisement locations (such as newspaper and billboards). And although those are still used, they have decreased in popularity while Social Networking sites have balanced it out. Therefore, the economy really didn't benefit as much as my opponent claims. The article (of the link below) shows how search engines may die because of social networking sites, which is a huge amount of income. B) If anything, the economy got worse. -What happens when one location begins to receive all advertisement revenue? Simply, they begin to dominate the market. AND, they begin to pocket it. Both of these have a negative effect since dominating the market will simply lead to people only going there to advertise. This will increase the amount of revenue they get, thus they can begin to 'save' it for whatever reason. Once they save it, the flow of money seizes and the economy actually suffers. C) If it did get better, it is because people used the tool well. -The biggest argument my opponent will have to deal with is the fact that "social networking sites" did not have a direct impact on the market, rather the intelligent businessmen did. Social Networking Sites are something we made up, a simple tool of possibility, but as we all know, Social Networking Sites can be used for bad as well. For example: -From PC MAGAZINE ONLINE, July 22, 2008, pNA, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP -QUOTE: "With more and more kids communicating online, Internet bullying has become a larger issue. About 22 percent of kids said they have friends who have been bullied online." Also: -From Jessica S. Groppe; Catholic U. Law School; COMMLAW CONSPECTUS; 2007; ONLINE; LEXIS-NEXIS; p. 218 -QUOTE: "In over half of these incidents solicitors request photographs of youth, and in twenty-seven percent of such occurrences solicitors ask for sexual photographs. These pornographic depictions involve abusive activities that "exacerbate the already vulnerable status of children" who consequently become mere sexual objects in pornographic work. Compliance with solicitor's pornographic requests often results from youths who lack the prudence or maturity to understand the implications or consequences of such pictures. Children's meager knowledge of the nature of sexual acts bolsters the fact that children cannot meaningfully consent to participating in child pornographic activities, and thus, suffer harm from its production." From this you can see that the economy is little to no benefit. ESPECIALLY when you weigh it against the benefits of sexual predators and how they can use it as a tool to further abuse the children of America. Just ask the father of the raped daughter what he thinks about the better economy that we got because of a social networking site. Again, it's all how you use it. 2. Democracy--> -Here is just one example of how it could be used as a good tool. However, on top of this, you also have a HUGE increase in the abuse of the candidates. For example, Obama got made fun of and slandered against. And McCain was a war monger because of videos that were put up on the internet. OH... and maybe people even PMed each other with a plot to kill them. All made possible because of Social Networking Sites. 3. Terrorism (and 1/2 under it)--> -Also, a good parent-child relation is good for fighting immature adolescent behavior. However, because of social networking sites, we don't have that either. -From Kaveri Subrahmayam & Patricia Greenfield; Professors of Psychology at Cal State U. and UCLA; THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN; Spring 2008; p. 119 -QUOTE: "Qualitative evidence is starting to accumulate that social networking sites such as MySpace are ausing serious parent-child conflicts and loss of parental control. Rosen's interviews with parents revealed several typical problems. For example, a boy who failed to do his homework before midnight because he was on MySpace reacted to his parent's efforts to curtail his use of MySpace by sneaking back online." -Not to mention that I have already proven that the economy is not necessarily better because of Social Networking Sites. Furthermore, you will see that the economy is bad BECAUSE of the War on Terrorism (in part anyway): -From: http://www.cfr.org... -QUOTE: "By contrast, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, which estimated a $3.5 trillion cost through 2017, say the war will cost the average U.S. family $46,400. Per person, the total cost, given these estimates, would be $11,627, or $830 per year." Through this, you will see that my opponents arguments are irrelevant. It ALL depends on use. Therefore, I urge you to vote CON! Thanks for this debate!