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

To begin with, to save space, I will be using "SNS" in the place of "social networking sites". Also, I am going to refrain from copy-pasting my opponent's argument if possible, and would greatly appreciate it if any reader would refer to the appropriate part of my opponents arguments to see what I am talking about.. I would like to briefly revisit my opponent's Round 2 argument now that he has posted his sources. 1. Economical: My opponent has failed to post his source for this contention. 2. Political: The source my opponent gave barely mentions using social networking sites as a means of campaigning, but instead implies candidates are concentrating on other methods such as distributing fliers. To defend my contentions... 1."-My opponent has not given any sources to support this contention, so it should be voided. Moreover, this has a positive impact on the United States because it becomes an incentive to use the social networking sites with respect for others. When an individual has to learn the potential consequences by receiving them, it is much better." http://www.nzherald.co.nz... Here is the source, so this contention must remain in consideration. Also, it is absurd to think that danger of identity theft is positive. The devastating effect that identity theft has on peoples' lives far exceeds any caution it encourages. Furthermore, it is evident that these teens are not even using the caution that my opponent suggests they are since 4.5 million are at risk for ID theft. In addition, it should be noted that the resolution is essentially asking whether or not the US is better with the existence of social networking sites. Therefore, teaching a teen how to use these sites with respect for others is insignificant in terms of its impact. To put my refutation into perspective, say John Doe posts his birth date, phone number, and other similar things onto his Facebook page. A criminal comes along and steals John's identity, which he uses to rack of thousands and thousands of dollars in charges. Do you think that the tradeoff comes even close to equal (thousands of dollars lost for a lesson learned)? 2. "- That is an individuals choice, and the social networking site neither forces them nor hypnotizes individuals into wanting to waste 233 million hours of their time [as you so eloquently stated.] -You still have failed to give a citation for these statistic." Your first bullet point is of course true, however that is irrelevant. The hours are being wasted, at a huge cost to businesses. And actually, I did cite this statistic, but here it is again http://www.cnn.com... 3. "-Once again, you didn't give an accessible source for the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire statistic or your FBI source. Moreover, the resolution states "social networking Web sites." This is referring to the intended usage of them from creation. Therefore, [because they were not created to have underage users, or have sexual predators prey on the naive,] it is not the fault of the websites, but their irresponsible users." Here is the source for both stats - http://www.time.com... I fail to see how the resolution stating "social networking web sites" refers to the intended usage of them from creation. Obviously these sites were not created for anything negative, so there would be no chance for the Con side if your interpretation was true. The resolution is referring to any effects that are caused by social networking sites. 4. ""Also a major issue is cyber bullying..." - Again, the site was used in an inappropriate manner so it should not be blamed on the social networking site. Thank you for the link. However, the statistics do not specifically state social networking websites. However, it does say "Savvy students are using Instant Messaging, e-mails, chat rooms and websites they create to humiliate a peer." As a result, these statistics do not belong in this debate." I would like to point out my argument, which you have not even attempted to refute, that in this resolution anything on/caused by/catalyzed by these sites is relevant. Though these sites are not responsible for all cyberbullying, they are still responsible for a significant portion. Additionally, I would like to point out that the single statistic that my opponent is not my contention, the rest of my contention stands unrefuted. 5. ""83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result." -I would like to remind you that did not give an accessible source. Moreover, you said "Unknown." Individuals should remain responsible for themselves, and downloading unknown files is not at all responsible, which once again leads me to proclaim that social networking websites should not be held accountable for something like that." 6.""Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites." - In everything in life, there is a rule of thumb. Placing extremely sensitive information is by no means in accordance to the rule of thumb concerning social networking websites. Social networking websites should not be held accountable for something like that." (I will address points 5 and 6 as one, as my opponent's refutation was nearly identical) Here is the source: http://www.ctn.org.au... Yet again I would like to direct you towards my unrefuted argument that anything on/caused by/catalyzed by these sites is relevant under the resolution Now, to refute my opponent's case. 1. Simply because 55% said that SNS have a place in the business world doesn't give any indication of its impact. Also, the fact that 55 is more than 50 means absolutely nothing. You said ""It is no longer just an outlet for personal use -- it's rapidly becoming a must for business success," says Rohrer," however, this is just a quote thrown out there. It has no evidence to back it up so I would ask for this to be discounted from consideration. In quoting Mr. Palfrey, my opponent is failing to realize that it bear little significance what theoretically should happen, only what has happened, is happening, or will happen. The reality is that these sites are not safe, no matter how much SNS want users to think that they are. Next, when my opponent refutes my argument, she ignores my point and again tries to refute my cyberbullying statistic. I have already addressed that, but seeing as my opponent has not addressed my refutation of her contention, her contention stands negated. In addition, I used common sense to point out the flaws in your contention, so I have no source. 2. You say that this must be considered when combined with the others, however this only goes to show the weakness. I am trying to show you the flaws in your contentions one by one to show you how weak your argument it, so my refutation stands. 3. They don't enhance our democracy, all they do is provide yet another place to talk. This, again, is commonly replicated all over, and as such is highly insignificant. 4. 236 members married is realistically very little. First, take into consideration that this is only 118 couples. According to http://www.cdc.gov..., 6109 couples marry every day. When the grand scheme of things is considered, eHarmony is insignificant. You have not provided any other statistics, so we must assume that all similar sites are equally insignificant. As the impact of my arguments far overwhelms the impact of my opponent's arguemnts, as well as the vast majority (if not all) of my contentions standing while my opponent's are proven to be weak