Facebook does more good than harm

Thank you for posting your contentions. I will proceed to refute all ten.Also, as to your definition, just to avoid semantics, the word "bad" is not in the resolution. Bad is an adjective. We are talking about harm and good. Which ever side presents more harm or more good wins.Refutations1. Facebook makes people anxious.My opponet cited that 12% of people were anxious, but the debate is that facebook does more good than harm. You are showing a statistic where facebook did 88% good, which only helps my case. 2. Facebook leads to depressionHis source for the depression point had depression percentages all lower than fifty percent. If you find a "harm" percentage over fifty percent, then you will be fulfilling the burden of the proof. As it is, those statistics all say that a large percentage of users did not feel those "harm" feelings.3. Facebook leads to unnecessary self-consciousness.Again, percentagewise, most people see the good in facebook and not the harm. I need, and the voters need substantial evidence that the harm of facebook is greater than the good. Technically, all of these people like facebook, because they must like facebook for a reason. Most of the 1,000,000,000 people on facebook are there because they clearly think that the benefits outweigh the detriments, and that it does more good than harm. You might say, by that logic all of the people who aren't on facebook must think the detriments outweigh the benefits, that it does more harm than good, but this is false becuase you can't assume that all the other people have taken an active stance in their opinion on facebook. Ergo, facebook does more good than harm according to popular thought.4. Facebook enables cyber-bullyingMy opponent has cited no reason this wouldn't occur on any other website or program, like AIM, Twitter, tumblr, instagram, etc. If you have ever taken a logic course, you would know that the purpose of any object with no feelings is to fulfill it's purpose. When it fulfills its purpose satisfactorily, it is "good", but when it does not fulfill its purpose, or when it does bad things, in the case of facebook, we must look at facebook's interface and see if there is any flaw that makes people more prone to cyber bullying on this website. Since there isn't, facebook is not bad, rather, the people doing the bullying are to blame here. LOGIC TO THE RESCUE! 5. Facebook allows narcissists to broadcast their self-obession.Again I turn to the refuation of percentages. It is really worth noting that these people are on facebook because they think that facebook's benefits outweight the detriments (does more good than harm).6. Kids under 13 can cheat the system.There is no good way to enforce an age restriction. There is so single solution for implenting these restrictions. If you can think of a better way than I would be very interested. http://www.zdnet.com...)7. Facebook prevents exercise.Let's be honest. If the people who are on facebook a lot weren't a facebook, do you really think they would be exercising? No. They would be on another social networking site or playing a video game or texting. We can't blame facebook for them not wanting to exercise. They clearly just aren't the kind of people who exercise a lot.8. Sitting on a computer is bad for physical health.See last refutatation. If it's not facebook, it's some other website. This website itself is pretty addicting.9. Facebook is linked to obesity.There are many other things that contribute to the justification of binge eating. We cannot blame all of need for self-esteem issues on facebook. A friend saying "you look good today", or anyone complimenting you can be a reaffirmation of self-esteem.10. Facebook is linked to binge-eatingSee last refutation. These two points are the same.Sorry if some of my refutations are similar. Clearly his ten contentions can be grouped in to some basic contentions (i.e. facebook is bad for mental and phsyical health, facebook has policy issues, etc.".