Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.

[Final arguments and major voting issues.] 1. The Pro contradicts himself by saying that he uses his def. of on balance, but later refers to mine in the defined resolution. I count this as a concession to my def. 2. The Pro provides a very confusing definition of positive which makes the Res very hard to debate. "irrefutable factual impacts?" If I can't refute them, then what is the point of debating? Positive should not even warrant a provided definition because it is so simply understood in its context in the resolution as "good." 3. It's 17 suicides in one NEIGHBORHOOD. Sure, there's millions of users, but many of these stories happen under the radar, and this one happened to be caught because of its magnitude. 4. My opponent must misunderstand my C1. Tabloids purposely expose celebrities, whose personal live are always under a magnifying glass. We as common people should not come under so much scrutiny because often we forget about our childish ways in the past, then they come back to haunt us. However it is worse for the common person, since we do not have the luxuries celebrities do to fall back on. Something as minimal as a picture we took when we were immature and have grown out of the stage should not cost us a chance at something as important as a job. 5. My case is not "moraling" life, it is valuing human life and dignity OVER the very things you mention. It's not about living a better life, it's simply living. Sure, political figures are great and all, but when we're ignoring the fact that there are predators and murderers lurking these sites every day, and elections happen every 4 years, you look to the sanctity of life first, which I uphold. 6. Privacy, privacy, privacy. Hackers are everywhere and they know how to bypass privacy blocks. A Google search can probably turn up a few, unless it's all been redacted by Internet Cops or something. 7. Teens may only account for 12% of social networking figures, but keep in mind that that 12% are probably the only ones using their real age. Anyone can be anyone on the internet. Effective disguises are nigh impossible to see through. Ever wonder why Myspace predators are so good at fooling gullible teen users? 8. Megan Meier was reported as being a cheerful teenager (I used this source ages ago, and had to clear my damn history, but it was a news site. I have no reason to lie.) before she became depressed after interaction with people she knew posing as someone who eventually said "The world would be better off without you" leading to her suicide. The aff will say "Well, you can't hold the sites responsible for what people say." But I can hold them responsible for not having a large team of moderators to at least police what people say. You may not catch them all, but you can reduce the amount. F. We are a country founded on morals. Among these morals are the belief that life is sacred. By choosing social networking, you allow more atrocities to happen, we lose more lives, and our morals are marred. [By the way, I don't debate formally--yet. I'm using this to get practice in. Where could I do better, seeing as you're a debater?]