‹ Back to debates

Is social media a boon or a bane?

Finished
Like this debate? Score 0
···
X Facebook
Pro Instigator Opens first
Instigator Avatar
½
novelnotions
Rating
1480
Debates
4
Win rate
12.50%
Con Contender Winner
Contender Avatar
2½
Leaning
Rating
1446
Debates
15
Win rate
43.33%
Verdict Leaning wins · 2 points
novelnotions Pro
½
Leaning Con
2½

After 3 votes (1 tie) — 2 points ahead

It is a debate about whether social media is a boon or a bane. In this debate, the debaters will debate on this particular topic, clearly explaining their respective sides with respect to current examples and situations.

Round 1

1 of 3
avatar
novelnotions
Pro #1

So, I am in support of social media as a boon. In this round, I will primarily discuss the uses, examples, and prove why it is a boon. So here comes my first argument.

ARGUMENT-1: BETTER COMMUNICATION

Social media makes communication fast and easy. People can connect with anyone around the world instantly.

EXAMPLE= During COVID-19, people used apps like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook to stay connected with family and friends when meeting in person was impossible.


LINK- https://www.jrmds.in/articles/role-of-social-media-during-pandemic-94203.html


ARGUMENT-2 EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

Social media provides access to a large amount of knowledge. Students can learn from different videos and tutorials.


EXAMPLE: I am from India, and basically, there are more than 100 creators on YouTube who are giving access to free lectures and guidance to all the students. This really helps students who are not financially stable to afford the classes to study for free.


SOME PROMINENT TEACHERS: Mr. Prashant Kirad, Mr. Alakh Pandey


LINK- https://www.youtube.com/@AlakhSir-Class9.10

https://www.youtube.com/@PrashantKirad11th12th-rb7xo


ARGUMENT=3: CREATE OPPORTUNITIES

Social media helps people showcase their talents in different fields. It also helps people to promote their businesses.

EXAMPLE: Small businesses on Instagram sell handmade products and earn money without needing a physical shop.


LINK- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11262639/


ARGUMENT=4: SPREAD AWARENESS

Important information and social issues spread quickly through social media.

EXAMPLE- During this period of time, the U.S.A. has attacked many innocent countries, resulting in the severe loss of people and resources. This information was provided to all the countries through social media.

LINK= https://digi-con.org/the-role-of-social-media-and-influencers-in-times-of-war/



ARGUMENT 5= MISUSE IS USER-DEPENDENT

Some people argue that social media is harmful due to addiction. However, this depends on the user.


EXAMPLE= just like eating too much junk food is harmful, overusing social media is harmful- but when used in limits, it is beneficial.



NOW, THESE WERE MY ARGUMENTS FOR CONSIDERING WHY SOCIAL MEDIA IS A BOON.

HENCE, A VOTE FOR PRO IS NEEDED!!



avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
Con #2

ARGUMENT-1: WEAKER BONDS

The internet may increase the 'ability to communicate across the globe, but this comes at a cost.

We had 'phones before the internet, we had 'letters, and if one wants to quibble on definitions we had Gmail before the most 'current form of the internet with apps like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook.


I argue that the internet 'distracts people from their family and local community.

And such a place is where our attentions ought be 'most focused, for it is what is 'most effected by us, and most influencing us.

A far away war, the president, some pop singer, large bills being passed. Our influence is minimal.


Bonds, consider the rampant use of cell phones by people, an item of addiction they stare at as kids ignore parents, and parents ignore kids.


"Some scholars have argued that because of the abundance of social interactions on the Internet, our social relationships are becoming more superficial (Turkle, 2011). Others have suggested that frequent Internet use comes with the substitution of a larger set of weak ties for a small group of strong (local) ties (Chen, 2013; Mcpherson et al., 2006; Rainie and Wellman, 2014). In other words, fears of negative consequences of Internet use have largely moved away from negative effects on the total volume of social interaction to negative effects on the number of strong ties and quality of relationships."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6256723/#section1-1461444817724169


"More than one-third of parents with a child under 12 say their child began interacting with a smartphone before the age of 5"

"Nearly one-in-five parents of a child younger than 12 say their child has their own smartphone"

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/childrens-engagement-with-digital-devices-screen-time/


"A study published in JAMA Network Open found that when parents are often distracted by technology, their children may experience more mental health difficulties."

https://mentalhealthcenterkids.com/blogs/articles/research-on-parental-technology-distraction-and-adolescent-mental-health#:~:text=Parents%27%20frequent%20use%20of%20technology,and%20hyperactivity%20in%20their%20children.&text=A%20study%20published%20in%20JAMA,experience%20more%20mental%20health%20difficulties.


ARGUMENT-2 EDUCATIONAL DETRIMENTS

Before the modern internet, we still had books, schools, and vetted experts and officials.


Though there exist benefits individuals and information online, to make 'use of such requires judgement.

And if access is given before judgement is trained. . . Remember modern children have access to the internet at a young age.


Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872


ARGUMENT=3: SOCIAL MEDIA HAS DECREASED OPPORTUNITIES

Before social media, ads existed, in newspapers and TV.


AI music, video, and pictures 'require the works of others in order to function, yet the original creators are bypassed what ought be paid for their labor.

Additionally a dependence upon AI and it's posting upon social media removes an 'incentive for people 'to art.

And 'without a base, AI becomes slop.


Current Social Media strongly lacks identifiers and copyright.

Allows mass copy and posting of works.


ARGUMENT=4: SPREAD MISINFORMATION

Before the modern internet, we still had newspapers, TV, books, schools, and vetted experts and officials.


Think of the many bots that exist online currently, the many 'human organizations slopping out propaganda easier than ever now.

Think of AI pictures and video, that so easily fool many people.


"A large body of research has shown health misinformation, spanning a range of topics, including vaccines, infectious disease, nutrition, climate change, cancer, and smoking, is widely prevalent on major social media platforms (Wang et al. 2019, Treen et al. 2020, Suarez-Lledo and Alvarez-Galvez 2021, Denniss et al. 2023a). Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an amplification of the ‘anti-vaxx’ movement, largely driven by the spread of misinformation, chiefly on social media (Hussain et al. 2018, Wang et al. 2019)."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11955583/


ARGUMENT 5= MISUSE CAN BE PREDICTED UPON ENVIORNMENTS AND ITEMS

Give a child access to drugs, and probability says you get an adult drug addict.


Consider Social Media and Children, though this also can be applied to adults.

The mask of anonymity.


"The Silent Threat: How Social Media Turns Bullying Into an Unescapable Reality"

https://www.ethostreatment.com/the-silent-threat-how-social-media-turns-bullying-into-an-unescapable-reality/


"Unlike the real world, anonymity is easily attainable in cyberspace. The internet allows an individual to create a concealed identity and profit from its perceived benefits. Driven by a variety of motives, people use anonymity to fulfill personal goals, express themselves freely and behave antisocially with no fear of the consequences."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2024/02/03/a-psychologist-explains-why-internet-trolls-thrive-on-anonymity/


FINAL THOUGHTS THIS ROUND

Social Media,

(1) A weakening of bonds where we need them most,

(2) An enfeeblement of people's intelligence,

(3) A destruction of property, labor, and copyright,

(4) An increase in misinformation,

(5) A dangerous tool in many hands.


Social Media as it 'currently exists, I argue is a bane.

Were it 'reformed, that children did not have such unlimited access, that anonymity was not so prevalent, that copyright was respected, that bots were purged.

It might be a boon to people and society.

Though even such reforms cannot focus peoples attention where it 'ought be. Close acquaintances, family, and their local community.

Round 2

2 of 3
avatar
novelnotions
Pro #3

HI AGAIN, IN THIS ROUND I WILL CRITICIZE MY OPONENT'S ARGUMENTS AND THEN WILL TELL SOME OF MY OWN TO DEFEND AS WELL AS EXPRESS MYSELF.


ARGUMENT=1

a) opponents' line = "The internet distracts people from their family and local community."


=> In this line, my opponent states that the distraction is caused by the internet, but if we talk practically, it depends on a particular individual on how they choose to spend his/ her time. Moreover, the internet is mainly responsible for people's bond with their families. It is the only source that connects the grumpy dad with his stubborn son through video calls, etc., so yeah, that was my whole point to defend myself.


b) opponents' line = "Children using smartphones early leads to negative mental health outcomes."

In this line, my opponent directly targets the smartphone as the root cause of a child's negative mental health. I would like you to consider other factors, such as bad parenting, screen time control, and supervision play before you judge the smartphone.


IRONY= Right now, you are debating with the help of a gadget. So, tell me, is it affecting your mental health as a teen or whatever? ( not trying to be rude)


c) opponents' line = " We had 'phones before the internet, we had 'letters, and if one wants to quibble on definitions, we had Gmail before the most 'current form of the internet with apps like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook."


I guess my opponent has some kind of confusion, as this argument creates a false distinction between older and modern communication. Today, phones, Gmail, and social media are all part of the same internet ecosystem - they are not separate from it. The only difference between them is just the advanced version due to the advancement in technology.


( Still, I can write many arguments, but I guess it's enough, so let's move forward to the second argument by my opponent )



ARGUMENT=2


OPPONENT'S LINE ="Before the modern internet, we still had books, schools, and vetted experts and officials."


Now this argument assumes that the older education system was fully reliable and accessible, which certainly is not true. Books can be outdated; the data provided in them can be false, and I guess we both have to agree here that nowadays students study from online resources, which are more accessible to them in many ways.


OPPONENT'S LINE = "Using AI like ChatGPT leads to cognitive debt."


This is a selective use of emerging research. AI tools, when used responsibly, enhance productivity and understanding rather than replace thinking.


ARGUMENT= 3

OPPONENT'S LINE =

"AI uses others’ work and bypasses original creators, reducing opportunities."


This statement clearly ignores that social media has expanded opportunities for creators. Before, artists depended on gatekeepers like publishers, record labels, or studios. Now, anyone can showcase their work globally, build an audience, and monetize directly.



ARGUMENT=4

OPPONENT'S LINE = "Misinformation is widely prevalent on social media."

FOR This one, I guess I can slightly agree, wait, this is not because I totally agree with you, but the fact that you are ignoring several other factors and only focus on this makes me disappointed. i guess you are forgetting the fact that this is the same platform that also spread accurate information, awareness campaigns, and educational content at an unprecedented scale. For example, during global crises, the internet has been crucial in spreading health guidelines, updates, and scientific knowledge quickly to millions.

SO BEFORE YOU SAY THAT I AM FUMBLING, I AM NOT BECAUSE I CLEARLY STATED MY ARGUMENT.



ARGUMENT 5=

OPPONENT'S LINE: "Give a child access to drugs, and probability says you get an adult drug addict."


This is a false equivalence. Drugs are inherently harmful substances, while the internet is a neutral tool. Comparing access to information and communication with access to addictive substances is logically flawed. SO I GUESS YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE COMPARISON BEFORE YOU WRITE IT.



FINAL RESPONSE

What my opponent ultimately presents is not a flaw of social media itself, but a fear of how humans choose to use tools. Every major advancement in history, from books to television, was once accused of weakening minds, spreading misinformation, and corrupting society. Yet we did not reject them. We adapted, regulated, and learned to use them better.

Social media is no different.

Yes, it can weaken bonds, but it also sustains relationships across distance.

Yes, misinformation exists, but so does instant fact-checking and global awareness.

Yes, anonymity can be misused, but it also protects voices that would otherwise be silenced.

The key issue here is not EXISTENCE BUT MANAGEMENT.

My opponent even admits this by saying that with reforms, social media “might be a boon.” That is the contradiction at the heart of their argument. If something can be improved into a benefit, then it is not inherently a bane.

In reality, social media is powerful, complex, and evolving. And like all tools, its impact depends on the hands that use it, not the tool itself. To reject it entirely is not only unrealistic but regressive.

The real path forward is not fear, but responsibility, education, and adaptation.

avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
Con #4

Defending my arguments and criticizing Pros.

ARGUMENT-1: WEAKER BONDS

(A) "The internet distracts people from their family and local community."


My opponent claims it is dependent upon the individual,

But people at large tend to react in probabilistic ways in reaction to new technology and culture.

Without a strong counter force to modern social media to compel or persuade them.

People will be led away from family and local community.


Social Media and the Internet as they stand now, allow anonymity,

Allow a diverse world of instant dopamine. YouTube shorts for example.

The Internet and Social Media at large, are a construct of corporations, looking for people to look at their lopsided content and react.


Facebook and 'Family interaction, what does that 'require?

That one 'friends family and superficially message them now and then.

Meanwhile, where are people's 'real attention going?


"Research has shown that content triggering strong emotions, especially anger and moral outrage, spreads faster and generates more engagement than factual, nuanced content."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-leading-edge/202601/how-social-media-is-destroying-families


"In Delhi, a microcosm epitomizing India’s rapidly digitizing demographic landscape, over 70% of individuals aged 18–35 actively participate in social media platforms, dedicating an average of 3.5 hours per day – surpassing the global norm – thereby underscoring a pronounced dependency. Young users frequently leverage these digital spaces to construct and project identities, cultivate or sustain interpersonal relationships, and, on occasion, fabricate fictitious personas."

https://journals.rudn.ru/literary-criticism/article/view/46781


(B) "Children using smartphones early leads to negative mental health outcomes."


Something is good or bad depending on the environment is is placed in.

If the environment is on containing "bad parenting, screen time control, and supervision"

Then the introduced items, Smartphones and Social Media, are a Bane.


Consider matchmaking, if introduced to a working environment with safeguards, it would be a Boon for the workers. But if it is introduced in an environment 'without safeguards. . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phossy_jaw

Then it is a "Bane for the workers.

One can say that it 'would be a Boon 'IF proper safeguards were introduced. But I argue something being a Boon or Bane speaks to the moment.

This debate is not titled Social Media 'COULD be a Boon or Bane,

This debate is titled IS social media a boon or a bane?

Is it 'NOW a Boon or Bane?


(C) " We had 'phones before the internet, we had 'letters, and if one wants to quibble on definitions, we had Gmail before the most 'current form of the internet with apps like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook."


"The Beginning of Social Media in India: Early 2000s

India's journey into the world of social media started in the early 2000s with platforms like Orkut and Hi5. Launched by Google in 2004, Orkut became the first widely used social media platform in India"

https://www.milizdigitalmedia.com/post/exploring-the-origins-the-birth-of-social-media-in-india


"Social media are new media technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content"


"Common features include:

Online platforms enable users to create and share content and participate in social networking.

User-generated content such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through online interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media


I argue a smartphone is used to access the Internet and Social Media pages.

But that a phone 'call is not Social Media itself.

We have had phones for 'years before computers and internet. And 'basic phone call still works the same.


Print media such as books and newspapers, are arguably 'not what is meant by 'Modern Social Media.

In round 1 my opponent stated,

"During COVID-19, people used apps like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook to stay connected with family and friends when meeting in person was impossible." R1 Pro


This and my two above sources ought demonstrate that phones and letters are not what is meant by Social Media in this debate.

Even Gmail, I would argue is different from what is commonly understood by 'Social 'Media.

I argue Social Media implies something more generally 'group visible, not 'private messages from one person to another.


ARGUMENT-2 EDUCATIONAL DETRIMENTS

(D)"Before the modern internet, we still had books, schools, and vetted experts and officials."


Though I am unsure of the particulars, India 'does have boards that assess textbooks, I think.

https://testbook.com/key-differences/difference-between-cbse-and-icse


Compare this to the internet, where one is exposed to 'every type of information. Much of it 'misinformation.

Recall an earlier source I used in this round.

"Research has shown that content triggering strong emotions, especially anger and moral outrage, spreads faster and generates more engagement than factual, nuanced content."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-leading-edge/202601/how-social-media-is-destroying-families


Another source,

https://news.umich.edu/india-ranks-as-highest-risk-for-misinformation-u-m-experts-can-comment/

"According to experts surveyed for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report, India was ranked highest for the risk of misinformation and disinformation."


Consider what misinformation 'means.

Misinformation on 'every form of information. Political, Medical, History, Conspiracy.

Such 'cannot be good for adults, much less developing children.

Which 'recall an earlier source of mine.


"More than one-third of parents with a child under 12 say their child began interacting with a smartphone before the age of 5"

"Nearly one-in-five parents of a child younger than 12 say their child has their own smartphone"

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/childrens-engagement-with-digital-devices-screen-time/


The debate is titled,

Is social media a boon or a bane?

No 'COULD, but 'IS.

. . .


India appears to have a number of public libraries.


Books 'may become outdated, but they are then generally replaced.

Moreover books have the advantage of not being produced by 'every which person.

But rather professionals, experts in their fields.


Arguably one of the causes of misinformation.

Is facts not being checked and recklessly spread across social media.

'Books on the other hand, are subject more to review, praise and criticism by peers in whatever field the book may be. History or science.


(E) "Using AI like ChatGPT leads to cognitive debt." -Con

"AI tools, when used responsibly, enhance productivity and understanding rather than replace thinking." -Pro


Emerging research or not, it is the research of 'now.

We ought predict the future by the now.

I included a source for 'my claim.

I also argue common sense. People generally use tools to reduce work upon themselves.

'Result is weakness.

Build a car, people don't walk, become sedentary, weaker legs, weaker hearts.

Build a gun instead of a bow, people's arm muscles become more flabby.

Human 'brains are behind all of our planning. If our brains are not strong, then we will plan wrong. Never mind AI being strong, our weak brains will tell the AI to work in wrong ways, because we will not 'recognize the smart actions.


Consider Chairman Mao of China,

He had 'much power, by use of an apparatus, the 'state.

Great power, but that great power had 'big negative impacts.

The Sparrows, the Famine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine


This debate is about the 'Now, not 'If we use Social Media wisely.

I argue we are 'not using it wisely now, and this is harming us 'NOW and 'will 'more in the future.


ARGUMENT=3: SOCIAL MEDIA HAS DECREASED OPPORTUNITIES

Social Media and Digital works 'currently lack a well regulated control.

If people are not properly compensated for their work, of what use was the 'opportunity to them?


Digital media allows people to 'effortlessly download, copy and paste others videos.

Allows them to use AI to 'slightly modify others work, through little to 'no effort of their own.


AI 'requires original work, or it begins to cannibalize and degrade in quality,

Yet all too much of the internet is AI,

https://thelivinglib.org/experts-90-of-online-content-will-be-ai-generated-by-2026/

One must wade through AI slop and low effort human copy pastes, to find what is worthwhile.

Yet when their work can be stolen, people have less reason 'to post.


ARGUMENT=4: SPREAD MISINFORMATION

(F) "Misinformation is widely prevalent on social media."

If misinformation is spread in equal or greater measure than accurate information,

And AI is degrading peoples brains ability to recognize what is true and valuable.

Then people are likely to frequently choose the misinformation.


ARGUMENT 5= MISUSE CAN BE PREDICTED UPON ENVIORNMENTS AND ITEMS

"Give a child access to drugs, and probability says you get an adult drug addict."


Drugs 'can be used positively, such as medicine.

Doesn't mean you ought give a population unlimited access and no oversight.


A 'gun is capable of being used for hunting, arguable one of it's 'main purposes.

Still increases suicide chance if in house, according to probability.

https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-suicide-across-the-states


The Internet and Social Media, as it 'currently stands, full of misinformation, full access for kids of 'any topic. . . Is arguably harmful.

Take Stormfront for example, and compare it to Club Penguin.

Both are forms of the internet, one a racist website, the other some kid website.

One is more harmful than the other according to probability.

The internet and social media in their 'current form, as it 'currently stands, full of misinformation, full access for kids of 'any topic. . . Is arguably more harmful than a well regulated internet that kids do not have unlimited access to.

Round 3

3 of 3

New comment

avatar
fauxlaw Global Moderator
•••
#10
--> @Leaning

Glad to vote on this one. The factor of novelnotions being from India is not relevant to the debate parameters, and would not be given lack of that detail in either the Topic or the Description, so it was not relevant to the debate, even though mentioned in Pro's R1, Arg. #2. If he intended his homeland to be relevant, it was not sourced as relevant, and if relevance is just his opinion, it is not convincing relative to the Topic unless it was shown in Pro's argument that social media was developed in India, or that India has made more progress toward social media being a boon to society.

One aspect of Pro's argument you might have rebutted, though it was not necessary due to the superiority of your other arguments was Pro's assumption that, during Covid, for example, people could not maintain close association with family and friends, thus limiting those associations. The assumption was that land line telephones, or use of smartphones for that matter, were not available to use for that needed connection. In-person connection is always preferred, but not an absolute necessity.

avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
•••
#9
--> @fauxlaw

Thanks for voting,
I felt a bit bad for focusing on the present meaning of the term boon or bane,
(Felt semantics a bit)
But debate goalposts seemed a bit vague, and I think Pro 'still could have focused on the expected outcome of Social Media in the near future.
Or the Now.

Pro had home court advantage of Social Media effect on India, since India ended up a large focus of the debate.
Though countries are huge, Pro arguably knew more about Social Media's effects on India than myself.

. . They could have refocused debate towards Social Medias effect in 'general as a positive for humans.
Resources for example are 'generally a boon, even if sometimes they lead to countries being attacked by foreign nations.

avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
•••
#8

Thanks for voting.
Were there any arguments that hit with you in particular?

avatar
Kohai Administrator
•••
#7
--> @Leaning, @Kohai, @novelnotions

<p>>Reported Vote: Kohai // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: other</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Test</p>

avatar
Kohai Administrator
•••
#6

<p>---Kohai's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>Test</p>

avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
•••
#5
--> @Keetu

Thanks for voting,

I did use a lot of sources, mainly because I think frequent use of sources avoid the other person getting points for sources, and it makes it harder for opponent to outright dismiss claims as being without any evidence.

I wouldn't say novelnotions solely relied on deductive reasoning, they did have a number of sources in round 1, backing their arguments there. And a number of their later arguments in round 2.

Though, Disparity in number of sources can stack up. Which can be annoying when an opponent seems to spam sources. . .
But one can always just source basic claims oneself is making, and take the opportunity to attack the opponents sources.
Public libraries in India for instance, I'm not sure how common or 'easily accessible they 'are for people.

Online data though, doesn't require any driving or walking to get to, and has potentially more books.
. . . 'If one can find or access them.

IS vs COULD,
I don't think people are wrong to say an event is a boon, even if they mean the rewards are in the far future.

People often talk about events in nations histories and refer to them as boons for the nations. Even if the events in themselves were tragedies. Say some country gets invaded by an enemy, but then defeats that enemy and gains territory as a result of the war.

In a sense, I suppose current events 'could be boons. And that is what the debate is about, whether they are likely to be or not.
Some 'resources, one might consider boons, oil for example.
But if one can't 'use the oil, or if one gets invaded by other nations to use the oil, it wasn't much of a boon for the people there.

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric

avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
•••
#4
--> @yogisotho

Thanks for voting,
. . . Though a moment after posting this, I see vote was removed.
. . . Still, I appreciate you voting.

IS/COULD
SHOULD also been included, and I don't think COULD is a 'wrong way to view whether something is a boon or a bane. But COULD is a bit powerful.
I do think novelnotions could have argued IS was still applicable in terms of how they 'expected Social Media to end up in the future.
But again, I'd push against that, history is big, various variables are boons and banes at different times.

There's also IS in terms of something 'ought be a boon. Even if people are not managing to use it right, it 'is a boon, even if not to the people at that particular time.
But subjective use is still a strong argument against that I think.

AI/COPYRIGHT
I think novelnotions is right to a degree.
Social Media 'can increase sales by small business, and copyright law 'has been annoying at times.
I'm not sure how it's going to turn out though.
Arguably Social Media has allowed some companies such as Amazon or YouTube to seize big shares of the market.
(Maybe a good thing, I'm unsure. Compare it to mass manufacturing perhaps)

I'm unsure about AI and copyright, I think America has legally 'avoided addressing the topic, I'm not sure about India.
But I think 'some sort of shake up to society is happening right not. I'm not sure how it will turn out.

MISINFORMATION
Another point I'm unsure on. Feels like it has the potential to go either way.
Better communication 'can have benefits, I've seen some people use Speed Track Apps when driving, to avoid getting speeding tickets, not sure if that's good or bad.
Better, is people using social media to avoid a local disaster I suppose, mass shooter in area for instance, or perhaps a local fire spreading.
But I'm not sure Current Social media helps 'so much with those issues, one can 'hear gunshots or see smoke.
And 'really better than rumors, is official news I think. So long as one doesn't live under an oppressive lying regime.

EDUCATION
I 'do think the 'amount of information people have access to is awesome.
Though possible drawbacks exist.

avatar
whiteflame Global Moderator
•••
#3
--> @Leaning, @novelnotions, @yogisotho

<p>>Reported Vote: yogisotho // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: other</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Very clearly written by AI.</p>

avatar
whiteflame Global Moderator
•••
#2

<p>---yogisotho's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Con wins this debate.

Pro's primary defensive posture — that harms are user-dependent and correctable through management — was neutralized by Con's IS/COULD reframe: the resolution asks whether social media is a boon or bane now, not under hypothetical reform. Pro never contested this framing, so it stands per DebateCraft's default rules. Pro then walked directly into the trap in R2 by writing "if something can be improved into a benefit, it is not inherently a bane" — which is precisely the argument Con foreclosed. Pro was arguing about a reformed future; Con was arguing about the present reality the resolution actually asks about.

On the individual arguments: Con won the bonds exchange by rebutting Pro's "individual choice" defense with a probabilistic population argument Pro never answered. Con won the opportunities exchange because Pro's R2 rebuttal restated the original point without engaging Con's specific copyright/AI sub-argument. Con won misinformation on sourcing depth. Education was a genuine split with Pro winning on access and Con winning on net epistemic environment. Argument 5 went to Con because the gun/suicide probability example answered the "false equivalence" charge before Pro raised it.

Pro had real ground in the COVID communication and free education examples and Con never fully demolished them. But Pro failed to press those advantages and instead spent R2 making rhetorical points rather than extending the strongest arguments. Con's structural consistency and tighter evidence use carried the debate.</p>

avatar
Leaning Global Moderator
•••
#1
--> @novelnotions

ROUND 2 EXTRAS, Rough notes I might have used in Round 3

I ran out of space in Round 2, so deleted bits here and there.
This feels more of an aside anyhow.
"IRONY= Right now, you are debating with the help of a gadget. So, tell me, is it affecting your mental health as a teen or whatever? ( not trying to be rude)" -Pro
Well, I'm in my 30s, but arguably yes. The Internet and Social Media gadget 'is effecting my mental health. In good and in bad ways, I'm sure.
All the sources I have used of AI weakening our brains, Social Media making physical sloths of us, Misinformation, arguably also apply to me.
Main benefit I get from Social Media is entertainment. Sure it's fun, but I don't think it's making me physically stronger, mentally stronger, or richer.
'Probably the opposite.

Debate afterthoughts,
. . . I'm unsure whether social media is a Boon or Bane.
I 'do think there is a lot of AI Slop and Misinformation.

I 'do think it harms people's mental and physical health, also their wallets.
. . . I'm pretty fond of how entertaining it is, but arguably I could probably still find entertainment elsewhere. People still wasted their lives places before internet or television.

I 'do suspect it draws people more into 'big world politics, rather than local politics, which I see as negative.
I think people are more able to effect local politics.

Not sure about family, I don't 'have any of my family 'friended on anything online, though we all have each others Gmails.
. . .

I'm also a traditionalist,
Generally speaking I think morality is holding to the morality of one's ancestors and family that raised you.
Internet allows a divergence from what one's 'people believes, to all 'sorts of beliefs, ideas, values.
. . Heh, , course I'm also very Individualistic and hypocritical.
I 'like far ranging my reading. . . On another hand, I don't plan particularly plan on changing the laws or people of my society. Heh, so in my hypocrisy, I claim myself exception.

While I'm sure there's 'causes for my liking Tradition, I shrug. I'm a Moral Nihilist, but a Human has to Human, I like my people's traditions well enough. Habit.
I'm fond of loyalty and family, tribe.

Social Media is a Lotus, a Dream.
. . .Course on another hand, I sometimes become convinced by myself taking a side.
If I had been Pro in this debate, , , Maybe my comment here would have been different.
. . .

Thinking on Debate again,
I might not have made a good case for AI being theft.
Not that I'm saying 'I think it is or isn't.
. . . Hm, would have to read my arguments again, but I 'suspect it was a 'bit more of an assertion.

I liked your use of colors in your arguments.

fauxlaw
fauxlaw Global Moderator
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con
Winner
This debate was won in Round 2 [R2], first by Pro's [Instigator] acknowledgement of a series of current social media flaws:
"Yes, it can weaken bonds, but it also sustains relationships across distance.
Yes, misinformation exists, but so does instant fact-checking and global awareness.
Yes, anonymity can be misused, but it also protects voices that would otherwise be silenced."

Con's R2 rebuttal sealed the win by reminder that the Topic declares the current state of affairs of social media in the form of an interrogative: "Is social media a boon or a bane?" This is a present tense condition, with no conditional excuses. What is the current state of affairs? Con's R1 argument presented these three current conditions: weak family bonds, misinformation, anonymity. These are listing factors that strongly suggest a present state of of social media being a present bane, not a boon, and Pro admitted in R2 that this is currently true.
Further, while Pro did make use of citing sources for his arguments in R1, citation completely went missing in Pro's R2, depending only on personal claims, such as: when Con argued "Using AI like ChatGPT leads to cognitive debt," which cited a source in R1 for the claim," Pro replied, "This is a selective use of emerging research," but did not cite any source to substantiate the claim.
Pro's R3 amounted to a concession to end the debate as of R2: "Can we take this as a 2-round debate ???"

Con wins by better argument, claiming current conditions of social media are not a boon, plus valid citation of supporting sources. Pro failed to sustain a valid argument, and stopped sourcing, relying on personal opinion.
Imabench
Imabench
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con
Winner
Both sides presented solid arguments and cited sources for both benefits and drawbacks of social media as a whole, which is a pretty tricky argument to win. This debate may as well have argued over whether or not the internet as a whole is a boon or a bane, which naturally has clear benefits and enormous drawbacks just like social media itself. Both sides argued their case quite clearly, successfully, and with evidence, so I have to award a tie vote.
Keetu
Keetu
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con
Winner
Con's arguments proved to be accurate and logically sound compared to Pro's. Pro has a lack of evidence and solely relies on deductive reasoning.

Con, arguments were based on realism, specifically bringing back to the line *"Is social media a boon or a bane? No 'COULD, but 'IS."* Signaling that Pro arguments were focusing on the reformation rather than the current state, which is flawed because its concession that our current system is corrupted.