Instigator / Pro
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#3277
Social Media corrupts human interaction
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1442
rating
22
debates
34.09%
won
Description
Definitions:
Social Media: forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)
Corrupt: to change (something) so that it is less pure or valuable
Human: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
(a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person)
Interaction: mutual or reciprocal action or influence
------------
BoP: Shared. Con must prove that Social Media does not corrupt human interaction in order to win.
Have Fun!
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. Definitions and assumptions
Definitions
All of my definitions indeed come from reliable sources as they are from Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which has been regarded as reliable.
Assumptions
For obvious reasons, we are going to include the minimum requirement of assumptions so the debate topic make sense. These include but are not limited to:
- Humans exist
- Humans can interact with each other
- Social Media exist and can be used for humans to communicate
2. First-round Argument
Non-assumption
We are not going to assume that "humans" only include those in our civilization as we know and certainly the range of "humans" should not be limited to such. For example, there exist potential societies where every member is instructed to have a part of their brain being destroyed as if done by an ice-pick, and there exist possible societies where gluttony is enforced to be lawfully illegal(which is possible). The range of "humans" are as wide as any organism as long as their cells are organized in the method that they are bipedal mammals.
Suboptimal Connection
From above, we can see that there is an infinite smorgasbord of possible human individuals(or at least a gigantic amount of possible human individuals), and the concept of "human" is not just limited to those on the planet Earth. As a result, any singular individual as an example would weigh next to nothing in the whole topic, since for every "normal" human there exists a corresponding individual with their frontal brain destroyed as well as one that can travel back and forth between time and space. In the end, the argument that matters is an argument that concerns about the principal qualities of humans, social media, etc; instead of individual examples.
Now, onto the corruption part. Again, what is required for something to be "social media", exactly? Electricity, exactly. How do we ensure that the information transferred by electricity gets carried on from front to back? We do not.
Data loss is a serious issue and one quite impossible to combat and defeat completely the same way that it is quite impossible to eliminate inaccuracy in measuring. In short, some information will always be lost in the transferring of human interactions, and no matter what, interaction through social media will be suboptimal.
For more primitive forms of social media, the energy loss is obviously visible. Sometimes the server lags and when only text is being transferred, it is impossible to know, other than hacking cameras, what the other person thinks when typing the message. Connection is suboptimal, which fits the definition of corruption, "so that it is less pure".
Then for more advanced forms, which we still can touch and see, the loss of data lies in that all our screens are 2-D, and it is impossible to see what is in the back of the other side.
No matter how advanced social media could be, there is always data loss. As a fact social media requires electricity in order to be called so. Electricity has a limited speed through conductors[1], and it cannot ever be infinity. Therefore, as long as it could be called social media, there will be delay---just like when the horses of the posts run day and night to send a letter in weeks, but optimized to much shorter, even though it never disappeared ever, just like the inaccuracy in measurement never goes away---which makes communication suboptimal due to said delay. Since Conditions making communication suboptimal and more of obstacles are indeed making interactions less pure and less of quality, it would essentially mean that all social media corrupt human interaction, or the topic statement is proven to be true.
As a note, atmosphere itself corrupts human interaction, as much as it gives foundation to human interaction. Unless we literally communicate via quantum entanglement or tachyons, it is literally impossible that there is no delay in human interaction, thus, a corruption between human interaction, via electrical means with a limited speed(light speed), causes corruption.
3. Conclusion
- Electricity is required to make social media
- Electricity creates delay
- Delay makes communication suboptimal
- Suboptimal communication, by definition, is making interaction "less pure" and of less quality, which is definitely corruption
- Thus, Social Media corrupts communication, including human-human interaction.
P.S. My last debate on this topic is abandoned. Because I am a lazy ass, I use the same arguments from that debate to start and see how it will go.
Con
#2
1. Social Media corrupts human interaction.
2. Well....The above statement says what it says, and makes no references to function and process.
3. Social media is one thing, and human interaction is another.
So:
Data transfer is in all circumstances subject to a function and a process, and therefore inevitably subject to the effects of said processes of any electronic system of data transfer. Whether that be a physiological system (direct conversation), or a technological system (Social Media).
This, if I subsequently understand correctly is the intended basis of Pro's argument......Which doesn't actually or genuinely, address proposition 1.
So:
To address Pro's proposition correctly, they should have proposed something along the lines of:
Electronic processes can corrupt both Social Media and Human Interaction....And thereby also interfere in all aspects of the function and processes that occur. Whereby data might be interfaced and/or transferred between notably different systems of data management and transfer, or between similar systems.
So:
The simplicity of Pro's proposition is demonstrably overblown by the ensuing complexity of their inadequately pre-defined argument.
As such, and with reference to point 3......Pro simply suggests that Social Media...Corrupts...Human Interaction.
Whereas I would strongly suggest, with reference to point 3....That Social Media is an ongoing multi-optional system of data transfer, with the potential too make readily available and therefore enhance the frequency and ease of human to human data interaction.
The quality and validity of said data, in human terms is directly relative to the primary quality and validity of the primary data source, or a stored data source.
And always has been. .......How accurate is Wikipedia, for example.
Whether or not electronic processes corrupt either technological or physiological function, is not directly relative to the quality and validity of the data that might be transferred....Whether that's between Social Media Systems, or between Organic Systems, or a Technological/Organic interface.
In simple terms:
Pro clearly interacts and says one thing.
Whilst harbouring a hidden agenda.
Which to be fair, is disingenuous but not corrupt.
Nonetheless.
Saves me crossing two Continents for a chat.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Sorry for the late response and happy new year.
REBUTTALS
3. Social media is one thing, and human interaction is another.
Well, we should know that humans can influence each other through acts done on Social Media. Humans, as biologically interpreted, even if ignoring any social balances and values and any human presets within the present society, have auditory and visual nerves. Social medias can send text, video, picture, etc... and are built around humans(well, they certainly can be built around humans) so humans can receive and send messages through electronic means, what we call "Social Media". Social media causes and is intended to cause human interaction, so I do not understand what exactly is meant by Con's point.
Data transfer is in all circumstances subject to a function and a process, and therefore inevitably subject to the effects of said processes of any electronic system of data transfer. Whether that be a physiological system (direct conversation), or a technological system (Social Media).
Opponent has yet to built any solid basis on disproving this claim at all, so it still stands as for now.
Electronic processes can corrupt both Social Media and Human Interaction....And thereby also interfere in all aspects of the function and processes that occur. Whereby data might be interfaced and/or transferred between notably different systems of data management and transfer, or between similar systems.
Well, glitches and lags can obviously occur, but this is not the main claim. Even if in an ideal system of social media where there is NO data loss and NO lags, the fact that electronics are used means that communication speed is slowed to light speed, which, although fast, is still limited and strays human interaction away from absolute idealism.
As such, and with reference to point 3......Pro simply suggests that Social Media...Corrupts...Human Interaction.Whereas I would strongly suggest, with reference to point 3....That Social Media is an ongoing multi-optional system of data transfer, with the potential too make readily available and therefore enhance the frequency and ease of human to human data interaction.
A thing could enhance and corrupt something at the same time. I mean, take a look at some medicines. The medicine cures one kind of impairment while being potentially causal for another impairment due to its addictivity. Heroin and Morphine are two. Yes. I agree that Social Media could enhance human interaction, but that doesn't mean that it does not corrupt it either. Just because social media can make human interaction less corrupt(less delay, well), doesn't mean that social media itself doesn't corrupt human interaction. The medium of internet and electricity limits the delay to be at light speed, which still carries some sort of corruption, that is delay. Some delay is still not no corruption, and I think Con is just trying to use a false dichotomy when in reality, my claim stands still.
The quality and validity of said data, in human terms is directly relative to the primary quality and validity of the primary data source, or a stored data source.And always has been. .......How accurate is Wikipedia, for example.Whether or not electronic processes corrupt either technological or physiological function, is not directly relative to the quality and validity of the data that might be transferred....Whether that's between Social Media Systems, or between Organic Systems, or a Technological/Organic interface.
Conclusions
- My points still stand.
- Even under completely ideal circumstances, electronic means of information transportation still causes delay, which corrupts human interaction. The fact social media makes human lives easier does not hide the fact that even under social media, corruption still exists and social media is the reason these delays exist.
- Thus, social media corrupts human interaction.
Con
#4
Yes...... Western greetings.
Well....In the first instance:
Pro concludes that they do not understand my point, after taking a great deal of effort to substantiate my point.....Odd.
Further:
If anyone should take an interest in this debate, then they must firstly decide how they wish to interpret Pro's proposal.
To wit:
Social Media corrupts Human Interaction.
And I maintain that Social Media per se and Human Interaction per se, are completely separate issues.
And electronic processes and functions, not mentioned in Pro's proposition, are another separate issue.
As such:
Social Media is what it has become.
And Human Interaction is what it always has been.....(Albeit adapted to the possibilities that Social Media offers, and despite any possible corruptions within the processes of Social Media).
I have little else to add to the discussion because the proposition for me is clear cut.
Social Media per se, does not corrupt, Human Interaction per se.
Data that might be interacted, might be corrupted.....But this is a possibility irrespective of the data source and transaction methodology.....A book might be corrupted for example, and consequently any repetition of data held therein, although sincere will inevitably be corrupted too.
Christmas Cake corrupts Human Digestion.
Well...Christmas cake is Christmas cake and human digestion is human digestion.
And notwithstanding that corrupted ingredients might give one indigestion.
One would nonetheless, still digest.
And a slightly premature Happy New Year to you too.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Social Media corrupts Human Interaction.And I maintain that Social Media per se and Human Interaction per se, are completely separate issues.And electronic processes and functions, not mentioned in Pro's proposition, are another separate issue.
Con is stating already-stated points while not being able to refute anything at all for Pro's side. Extend. Social media, human interactions, and electronics, they are interconnected issues and with the inevitable delay of electronic-based communication, it undoubtedly created impossibility for ideal communication on social media, which is just what corruption is.
Data that might be interacted, might be corrupted.....But this is a possibility irrespective of the data source and transaction methodology.....A book might be corrupted for example, and consequently any repetition of data held therein, although sincere will inevitably be corrupted too.
Yeah, and it corrupts regardless of any precedents. Just because it makes communication less corrupt does not mean that corruption does not exist since. Corruption still exists due to electronic delay and that still doesn't uphold your point.
Christmas Cake corrupts Human Digestion.Well...Christmas cake is Christmas cake and human digestion is human digestion.And notwithstanding that corrupted ingredients might give one indigestion.One would nonetheless, still digest.
Exactly. That is the point. Christmas Cake causes human digestion problems even though it isn't intended to do so. Just because they are separate issues does not mean that one does not correlate with the other. One would nonetheless, still digest, at the risk of small doses of digestive problems, even though the intaker would had taken into account that Christmas Cake can have a risk of causing problems, agreeing to take the risk.
CONCLUSIONS
- Opponent did not give effective refutations to my constructed points. My points still stand.
- Vote Pro.
Con
#6
Once again.
I simply draw attention to the fact that my opponent only proposes that:
Social Media corrupts Human Interaction.
Rather than:
The processes that facilitate the operation and function of Social Media apparatus, might subsequently interfere with the performances of human to human interaction..
And nowhere does my opponent clarify (if intended) that corrupt technology function, might corrupt human interaction with social media technology.
The statement:
Social Media corrupts Human Interaction, is definitive and emphatic in it's presentation.
And I therefore would suggest that it should be regarded as such.
Human Interaction:
Is explicitly an event or events whereby humans interact with each other, and not an event or events whereby humans might interact with functionally corrupted technological devices.
Therefore:
Con is stating already-stated points.
Because the point is simple and obvious, and can only be re-stated.
I have agreed that processes might corrupt technological function, and I have also proposed that data might also be corrupted.
But these were not the issues that Pro was putting forwards for consideration
And I reiterate that Pro's contention was only that Social Media corrupts Human Interaction.
I would again suggest that on the whole, Social Media increases the scope of human interaction and therefore enhances human interaction, irrespective of the quality or validity of any data that might be transferred. And also irrespective of the nature/glitches of technological function.
I would therefore finally propose:
That Pro's argument is secondary, and exceeds the parameters set by their primary proposition.
And as such, Pro's argument is invalid and should be disregarded.
Round 4
Pro
#7
REBUTTALS
And nowhere does my opponent clarify (if intended) that corrupt technology function, might corrupt human interaction with social media technology.
I did. Delay is a problem. What, in essence, is delay? Imagine if you sit with a friend to talk and he zones out for 30 seconds every time you ask him something and you would have to wait every time. That is delay, exactly. An ideal conversation is one with no delays in which the transferring of data is at its maximum speed. Social media, with electrical means of transporting information, there is an inevitable delay. Even though our planet is small enough for electrical delays to be nearly negligible, the delay does not disappear. Delay causes problems and corrupt human interactions. Social media always would have delays. Social media, thus, corrupts human interactions.
Is explicitly an event or events whereby humans interact with each other, and not an event or events whereby humans might interact with functionally corrupted technological devices.
So, unless people are interacting in a perfect vacuum, there is no true "Human interaction". According to Con's logic, even talking in air wouldn't count as "human interaction" for the fact that humans would be interacting with gaseous molecules, not other humans, by speaking into them.
But they are still human interactions----I mean, come on, talking to people are human interactions, even when in air. With humans communicating and affecting others in Social Media, they are communicating with other humans via an electronic device. The phones are not the subjects they send their messages directly to. The phones are media for those messages to be sent to other people via social media.
I have agreed that processes might corrupt technological function, and I have also proposed that data might also be corrupted.But these were not the issues that Pro was putting forwards for considerationAnd I reiterate that Pro's contention was only that Social Media corrupts Human Interaction.
Social media, as a form of tool used for human communication or at least one that could be used in this way, inevitably uses electricity which inevitably creates delays, which inevitably makes social media corrupted for human communication by making it not efficient. There is nothing wrong with the system that social media is created on(sharing videos, photos, text, etc), but the system that social media runs on is directly flawed and cannot be perfected without removing its point(an electrical system used for human interactions). As such, social media is always flawed and a normative statement such the title would be true.
If Social media is put into a system of quantum entanglement where instantaneous transferring of message is possible, then of course, it does not corrupt human interactions by doing the most efficient job theoretically possible(and therefore removing its point, because once again, social media is an electronic thing). The nature of social media requires electricity and that restricts it inevitably that it will always corrupt human interactions causing delays.
I would again suggest that on the whole, Social Media increases the scope of human interaction and therefore enhances human interaction, irrespective of the quality or validity of any data that might be transferred. And also irrespective of the nature/glitches of technological function.
False dilemma. Social media surely does enhance human interaction, but at the same time corruption takes place. Sure, social media lessens delay time(just look back at times when we have to ride in horses to send letters), but the lessened delay time is not no delay time. Never once in this whole debate did Con disagree on that delay is a corruption. In the end, Social media enhanced interaction by lessening delay time to a number that is yet still not zero, which in the corruption comes.
CONCLUSIONS
- My points still stand.
- Social media has lessened delay time to still a nonzero amount, so delay still happens and corruption still exists no matter what.
- Reminder that social media, by definition, must run on electronic-based systems. No refutations on this one.
- Electronic communication creates delay. No contention.
- Thus, a normative statement such as this is proven true due to that because social media are always electronic-based and that inevitably creates delays which are corruptions with no contention on this one. Vote Pro.
Con
#8
So.
My opponent appears to be hung up on delay, or speed of data transfer relative to technological function.
Is a delay corruption, or is a delay simply a factor of ongoing over-expectation?
Well voters, that's just down to semantics.....And perhaps also age.
People soon forget.
And people soon become dependant upon what they have become familiar with.
Quantum entanglement.
My opponent seeks to impress.
With theory that is not necessarily relevant to the ongoing simplicity of human interaction.
Best leave such scientific theory to theoretical physicists.
Social media.
In respect of my above statement, social media was what it once was and is what it has become.
And of course it couldn't have been then, what it is now.
But this is not the issue.
The only issue that Pro raises, is that social media corrupts human interaction......And this is a grammatically false statement.
A. Social media is the recent definition of electronic data manipulation and transfer systems.
B. And quite separately, human interaction is what it always has been.
Therefore to reiterate and conclude.
A. Might be corrupted by systemic glitches.
B. Might be subject to corrupt human to human data transfer.
But intrinsically:
A. does not directly affect B.
And so I sign out:
Via the wonders of modern technology,
Across vast oceans and land masses,
In a comparative instant.
And should this communication be interrupted for a nanosecond,
You have the reassurance that I have also posted a letter,
Which should hopefully,
Arrive in a few days.
Such are expectations.
Such were expectations.
Thanks for the debate Intel......It's been fun.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full RFD on google docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT_ch5ra4Lpj5RPbGIcvGW5aml9BTlmjuonIGJTRafE/edit?usp=sharing
RFD
Ultimately, in this debate I am voting Pro because Pro wins in theory and proves that they only have to prove that corruption is present within interactions on social media. Pro proves that speed is lost, and claims that this is corruption which Con fails to refute. This means Pro proves the resolution is true under the theory of the round because there is at least some corruption present.
Totally agreed. Women have access to too many male options on social media.
Bump.
Eh, corrupts 'and enhances, I'd suppose.
Though if one 'only used social media for interaction with other humans, I'd think there'd be some 'severe malformed development and interactions,
But maybe human'd adapt.
'Lot goes into human interaction, visual, audio, even touch with some people, touchy feely.
Intricate cultures where even how one sits with their leg, effects what's being conveyed, some say.
Still, social media 'does make it easy to find information, keep notes, sources, find more people, converse at one's own pace.
Letters were 'long an instance in human history, learned humans having conversations, well thought out between one another.
I'll be paying attention to this debate. I might vote on it as well.
Unblock me and I'll take this. Also, change characters to 17000 or more per Round please.
bopp
You can accept to see what happens. Such a mindset is not to win against me.
....and debateart corrupts absolutely
Aren't you using social media right now?