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.
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.