Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.

Also, the links my opponent posted lead only to the homepage of their respective sites, I would appreciate it if she would repost the correct ones next round. "Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. " First of all, this claim is not backed by a statistic. Similar to one of my opponent's contentions in Round 1, in order for us to weigh this impact, we need to have a sense of the relative impact that this is having. Without these statistics, we are forced to judge from an uncertain viewpoint. In addition, these "effects" that social networking sites have are not unique. They can be replicated with phones, IM, chat rooms, fax, email, etc. The exchange of communication that my opponent describes could just as easily have been done with any of the aforementioned methods, rendering this actual impact little-to-none. "Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. " Based on their searches? In context, it would be more apparent what this means, but due to the bad link I'll assume that you are referring to advertisers digging into the personal files of a record, ignoring the user's privacy, in order to attempt to further their business. In actuality, these advertisements are not very effective. According to adweek. com, just 57% of social networking users report clicking on an ad over the past year. In comparison, 79% of all web users report clicking on an ad. Also, adweek. com shows that the online ads on social networks pulled in only 11 percent of users for purchases (as opposed to 23 percent for the web overall). Also, users "who frequents a site for 150 pageviews per session several times per week will get accustomed to the ads, layout, etc… and ignore them (adotas. com). " "In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. " To understand the fallacy of this argument, it is important to know to difference between causation and correlation. Simply put, causation is when there is an action that has an effect of something else, while correlation is an action which is followed by an event/action/whatever. When correlated, the first thing does not necessarily cause the other; the event following the first may just be a coincidence. In context, this means that Barack Obama winning the younger vote does not directly result from social network usage. It could very well be from the age difference between Obama and McCain, or from a completely different cause such as heavier advertising on teen-frequented channels on TV. Also, when evaluating the impact of this, one must also consider that an extra method for a politician to campaign that is useful once every four years does not have a large impact in the grand scheme of things. "- The first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. " The legality of social networking sites is of no relevance in this debate. "-If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. " There is the same lack of statistics in this contention as well. Without any statistics (like how many lives were changed? how much expansion of one's social horizon is there? ) we cannot validly consider this argument. "Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. " The popularity of social networking websites also has no relevance in this discussion. To support my own contentions. .. My opponent seems to have one thematic problem with my points - that social networking sites aren't at fault, but that the users are at fault. However, it is actually irrelevant whose fault it is. The resolution calls for the impact of the existence of these sites. The fact is, if these sites did not exist, all of these detriments would not exist. Whether or not users have been using the sites as intended is not important; what is important is what is happening. 1. "However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government. )" The reality is that they are not being used correctly, and are not having a positive impact. 2. "- As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. " It may not be used in the right context, but the fact is that it is still used, and it is still having ahuge impact. Here is the source - . http://www.cnn.com... The idea of that statistic is to get a general idea for how much business time is wasted. 3. "-Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [. http://signups.myspace.com......] " Even though they may not be for kids, the reality is that kids *are* going on such sites and *are* being negatively impacted 4. "My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK" "My opponent has given no source to support this scenario" . http://www.isafe.org... . http://safety.lovetoknow.com... I am confused as to specifically which scenario as I mentioned a few. Here is the Megan Meier source: . http://abcnews.go.com... 5. "My opponent said, "potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. " This is the fault of the individual and not the site. " Again the sites are impacting the users, no matter whose fault it is. In summation, I urge a Con ballet because my opponent has not provided any substantive rebuttals to my contentions a