Facebook does more good than harm

Final round! I derped and thought that the previous round was the last, but I was wrong. Ave!Final Refutations1. The drug analogyThe difference between facebook and the drug is that the drug poses a serious harm to people and they are unaware of the physical side effects. These two things cannot be compared.2. One billion people think facebook is good becuase they are membersMy opponent said that 1 billion people could think shooting yourself in the face is good, that doesn't make it good. This is a non-sequitur. It is totally random and does not pertain to the discussion. One billion people, who are on facebook because of their own free will, do not leave facebook because they think it does good in their life. As to addiction, there is no such thing is facebook addiction. Maybe getting in to the habit of checking your facebook is a thing, but the difference between facebook and fast food/smoking is that fast food and smoking causes a physical addiction in your body, because of chemicals that replace similar chemicals in your organs. That does not happen with facebook.3. Stress on facebook"A majority of users received some kind of stress out of using Facebook. Given that, why think there is something good they could get out of it?" Because they are still on facebook of their free will. If they thought that the stress was actually being detrimental to their lives, they would immediately deactivate their accounts. Ergo, they think that facebook does more good than harm. I covered addiction in my last refutation.4. CyberbullyingI apologize if I came off as rude about the lion thing. I did not think it directly related to the discussion. Let me refute my opponent's semantics: The topic is "facebook does more good than harm". Thus, facebook is not doing the harm to these kids, bullies are doing the harm to these kids.5. Age restriction policiesMy opponent says he does not need to provide a solution to the age restriction problem. The fact is, there is no way of making these regulations tighter. Also, my opponent has never discussed why this is bad. Give us an example of a kid being harmed because he was so young on facebook.6. Facebook in self-esteemHere I found the link, http://www.cnn.com...Try refuting it now please.7. Organ donationIt is just simple logic that people have donated organs on facebook. Is my opponent saying that of the 275,000 people tagged with organ donation status, none of them have died since the feature launched? It is still a number, and that is lives being saved.I don't know why my links keep breaking. Here is the source http://www.npr.org...Here are all the sources you wanted. Remember if the source is broken try deleting the stuff around the % in the URL. If not, I don't know what the issue is sorry.1. Self esteem on facebook2. Organ donationhttp://www.npr.org...3. Facebook helps you connect with friendshttp://www.briansolis.com...4. Facebook starts movementshttp://www.nytimes.com...5. Facebook helps businesseshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://smallbusiness.chron.com...I couldn't find the houston chronicle source. These articles cover the main things though. Also, that argument is not really reliant on a source... you and me can easily see that facebook has advertisments and that facebook has a "pages" feature. Just log on and see yourself.Vale!