Twitter is dumb.

"As I previously stated in Round 2, just because you use something does not think that you think it is necessary. Do billions of people listen to music because they think that it is necesscary? Do billions of people go on Facebook everyday because they think that it is necesscary? No. They can use something but think its completelty dumb. " -The resolution isn't about Twitter being necessary. It is about whether Twitter is dumb or not. And if millions of people go on Twitter, they obviously do not think Twitter is dumb. "Just because you watch an episode everyday does not make you obsessed. It just means that you like the show. Obsessed is going WAY overboard, like praying in front of an Oprah shrine in your room or something. And what I meant through my "crazy-obsessive point" is that even if the person is a celebrity, we still don't really care if they are going to their son's Boy Scout meeting or something like that. " -If people didn't care. .. they wouldn't subscribe. .. that simple. "Subscribing takes a few seconds to do, so we as people just simply click the follow or subscribe button whenever we feel like it. This means that you don't really put a lot of thought into subsribing or favoriting something, even if it is useless. From personal experience, I have favorited ALOT of videos on YouTube, but does that mean I really enjoy every single one of them? No, we just favorite things on an impulse and don't put alot of thought into it, so following somebody on Twitter or favoriting videos on Youtube are not done with a lot of thought, and can be useless. " -Your rebuttal does not make sense. You're saying that when people subscribe or favorite something, they don't care about it. If people didn't care about it, they wouldn't subscribe. Pretty simple concept to me. "Yes, but this is only because you are very close to your mother. It would be hard for an outsider to be moved by those words, because they would hardly know your mother. They might feel pity and feel bad for you, but it would be hard for them to be moved by those words. However, if you present to them a very touching and MEANINGFUL speech about your mother, then I'm sure they would be definitely moved. Its very hard to convey heartfelt messages in 140 characters or less, as you must do on Twitter. " -You said: "They might feel pity and feel bad for you. .. " To me, this would be caring. If someone feels pity for you, they obviously care about you. -Also, you don't think the your classmates would care that your mother died? If the teacher came in and said "asiansarentnerdy's mom died", do you think your classmates would care. I think so. "Theres nothing personal about finding out what the celebrity does in their daily lives" -Huh? If you're constantly getting updated on a celebrities every step, that is personal. Knowing where a celebrity is at a certain time is very personal too. "The big story is what is interesting, and therefore enticing to us as the audience, the viewers. Why else do you think major news magazines don't report celebrities going to a family meeting or something along those lines? The small things are just unneeded details, it is the big things that matter, and therefore, important. " -We are not debating whether Blogs or Mags are better than Twitter. We are debating whether or not Twitter is dumb. Also, the 21.9 million people who go on Twitter every month find Twitter interesting, and enticing. "Yes but on Twitter, you don't have that option. Its very strange to be followed by people you don't know. " -Wrong again, you can set profiles to public or private. "As I have successfully conveyed through one of my points above, the bigger story is the better. " -Apparently, you don't understand the resolution. The big story may in fact be better than Twitter, but that does not make Twitter dumb. "Exactly, it didn't matter whether or not the President blocked Twitter because it was a useless social networking site. And even if he did use Twitter for his presidential campaigns, it wouldn't have helped much, I'm sure. It could bring him a few followers, but compared to the rest of the Iran population that doesn't use Twitter, that small percentage is miniscule and could not possible change the outcome of the election. " -What are you talking about? A President of a country wouldn't block a site just for being dumb. He blocked it for a presidential campaign; to help himself out. Regardless of how much it helped him or not, he still blocked it because it was hurting him somewhat. "People don't join something ONLY because they care about it. For the majority of the time they join something to test it out, and if they like it, they stay, and if they don't like it, they will probably just leave their account there and never use it. Therefore, they don't have to CARE about something to join it, they join it to test it out and see if its well suited for them. " -Once again, my opponent is making the accusation that the majority of people do not care about something they sign up for. She has provided no evidence of this besides her saying that she herself favorites a lot of youtube videos, but doesn't really care about them. This may be true, but does not mean that every single person does the same exact thing as you. "How flagrant for my opponent to claim that everything that I have said thus far is a lie. This is a debate, and we argue over opinions. " -I was being a wee bit sarcastic, but my opponent missed it. Oh well. .. "I have successfully rebutted my opponent's points and have affirmed my own. Vote Pro, because Twitter is dumb. ;)" -Nope. The only thing you have proved is that Blogs and Mags may be better than Twitter, which does not relate to the resolution. And you also said that people don't care about things they favorite, with no evidence. My opponent has failed to prove Twitter is dumb or counter any of my arguments. ;)