Twitter is dumb.

"-If ALL the posts were unneeded information, then people would not go on to twitter. But 21.9 million people/month go on Twitter. So obviously people find the information needed, as they would not go on to Twitter if the posts were unneeded. " 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. "-If a fan watched every single one of Oprah's episodes since 1986 and watched every single second of Lance Armstrong's Tour de Frances, I would call them crazy obsessive people. Regardless, Twitter has nothing to do with watching people do obscene things, it is about reading and following a person's life. " --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. "-Lance Armstrong has 1,012,090 followers (1) and Oprah has 1,349,577 followers (2) on Twitter. These people obviously do not find Lance's and Oprah's posts meaningless if they took time out of their meaningful lives to subscribe. " --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. -My opponent apparently does not find a post about a loved one's death meaningful. To my opponent: if your principal came into your class in the middle of school and told you (in less than 140 characters) that a loved one had passed away, would you find his words "full of value, significance, or purpose"? Because I know I would. " --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 can follow celebs in-depth with blogs and magazines, but Twitter provides users the oppurtunity to track a celeb's life down to the minute. In blogs and magazines, you just get the big story. But with Twitter, you can feel personal with the celeb. " ---Theres nothing personal about finding out what the celebrity does in their daily lives, because everyone one way or another does those same things throughout the day. 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. "-Actually, you do acnowledge that. You have the oppurtunity to set your account to public or private. Also, on Facebook, you do have the opportunity to acnowledge random people as friends, you can either "Accept" or "Reject" them as friends. You are not forced to be friends/followed by random people if you don't want to be. " --Yes but on Twitter, you don't have that option. Its very strange to be followed by people you don't know. "-Like I said before, you get the big story with blogs and mags, but you get down to the minute updates with Twitter. " --As I have successfully conveyed through one of my points above, the bigger story is the better. "-Actually, Iran blocked Twitter because former Prime Minister Mir Hossein was using Twitter for his presidential campaigns. You asked "Would you block something of use? ", and the answer is that current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would definitely block a site that could hurt his chances of winning the presidency. (4)" --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. "-For the most part, yes it does. Why else would you join besides caring about Twitter. If a person did not care about Twitter, then why would they sign up? In general, when people join something, they care about that something, the same goes for Twitter. " --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. "-All lies. I have proved everything that Pro has said as lies. Twitter is a meaningful website that is (very) not dumb. " 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 have successfully rebutted my opponent's points and have affirmed my own. ;)