Social networking sites are beneficial

Thanks again, Dicsync for debating this with me, and thanks judges for viewing and critiquing this debate. I'll start right off by further depending my points, and answering my opponents rebuttal. 1st: My opponent agrees cyberbullying is a real problem, and has to be addressed, yet still continues to argue that social media is beneficial. Interesting. 2nd: Regardless of the "excitement" of moments on a persons Facebook, it's the idea that these people tend to hype up their own experiences to yet again value "likes" as acceptance. Also, no basis has been provided that allow you to say "society is growing" and no proof what people like to take pictures of. Regardless of this, it's not about the excitement of posts, but more about the experiences. I believe I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood, when i said "excitement," as I only meant that people would post about their favorite moments, to brag in a way, whether it be at Disneyland, the White House, or simply in a "nice, cozy cafe." The scenario doesn't change in this situation, as different people like different things. However, it is widely known that people will post pictures/posts simply to impress their audience, and reach this satisfaction. Now I'll be refuting my opponents 2nd and 3rd points. REBUTTAL P2: "Social Networking sites *CAN* be diverse.* My opponent uses social media as a simple road to communication, whether it be to meet strangers, learn about others, or simply talk to friends. As this may be good, I ask the judges, is this "social" interaction as valuable as face-to-face correspondence? My opponent uses social media as not a way to simplify meeting others, but rather a way to hide behind a screen, while attempting to be what we define as "social." Now I understand, there are situations in which social media may be good. But the fact of this rebuttal, combined with previous points, and the educational detriments that come with this (which I'll be covering next paragraph), any benefit that sprouts from social media falls when combined to it's numerous detriments. REBUTTAL P3: "Educational benefits of social networking sites" Winston Churchhill once said: "However beautiful the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results." My opponent may try to paint a pretty picture in your head of how beneficial the fast download speed of a smartphone really is in a classroom, but let's think logically and practically about this. As a high schooler, I can confirm that social media is rarely EVER used for educational purposes. The 60% of educational posts most likely sprout from insults to teachers/subjects or even asking for help from others (which would be cheating, another possible problem with social media- but we won't go into that). This percentage is not only ambiguous, but could be inherently flawed. Lastly- all this^ rebuttal was to the intent of that contention, however my opponent did not evaluate "social media" during this contention, but rather technology and smartphones, which are not related. Let me add before I move on: "Connolly cautions that students who use social networking tools might pay significant hidden cognitive costs. Facebook, Google, and other web services simultaneously seize and fragment our attention. They can subvert higher-order reasoning processes, including the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence necessary for critical thinking and intellectual development. Some researchers have correlated heavy Internet use with greater impulsivity, less patience, less tenacity, and weaker critical thinking skills. The need to rapidly shift from object to object online can weaken students" ability to control their attention. Prolonged Internet use exposes students to interactive, repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure and function."(1) Remaining argument: My opponent makes the following link: social media > great job. Not only is there no substantial studies or evidence to support this, but it is inherently false, when looking at source (1). My opponent uses professors to support his evidence, using their opinion, and what they "believe." As opinions are great and beliefs are beneficial, no opinion can overcome the substantial evidence of detriments provided in source (1). For all these reasons- vote con. Thank you. (1) http://www.wcer.wisc.edu...