With millions of users logging on everyday, Facebook is influential in the way people communicate in the Internet age. At an event on Saturday hosted by new club Debatable, two sides were prepared to give arguments about the social networking site’s benefits and drawbacks.
The moderator took to the stage and announced the debate topic: “Is Facebook Good for Individuals and Society?” Audience members voted on the question before and after the debate and the victors would be the side with the biggest increase in percentage of support.
Carolina McGarity ’16.5 and Toby Aicher ’16.5 argued in favor of this resolution, while August Hutchinson ’16.5 and Oakley Haight ’16.5 took a stand against the motion.
McGarity kicked off the opening speeches by stating that Facebook is a means to promote volunteer and political action. She also described the social networking site as a modern and timely solution to bring a disconnected community together in a virtual world. She argued that Facebook is also an accessible and flexible way to stay in touch with friends and family at a distance. Hutchinson rebutted by saying that the usage of Facebook creates a filter bubble that rarely shows controversial opinions on your newsfeed, which has a negative effect on politics.
After that, Hutchinson stated that pouring over information one is bombarded with via Facebook limits the time people can spend on more efficient means of communication in real life. Relationships happen between individuals, but Facebook makes such relationship less about “us” but more about “me.” On Facebook, people tend to tract, not to interact with others, which distracts from meaningful relationships in person; after all, there are substitutes like Skype that can connect people far away. Aicher, however, said that Facebook is merely a tool to communicate in a casual way. Instead of distracting from a meaningful relationship in real life, it is a continuation of such a relationship.
In Aicher’s opening speech he argued that Facebook, as a decentralized online method to communicate, is hard to control and censor, which contributes to democracy. Facebook showed its potential when Wael Ghonim, the organizer of the Jan. 25 protest in Egypt, said in a CNN interview that “this revolution started on Facebook.” The fact that Facebook can foster democracy is also supported by its shutdown in authoritarian regimes such as China. Haight reminded Aicher that he should not equal correlation to causation when analyzing China’s ban of Facebook.
In addition, Facebook makes it easier for people to register as an organ donor. When Facebook launched an organ donor status option, organ donor registrations went up 21 times the average rate.
Haight went on to say Facebook does not care about users’ privacy and ownership of content. The default setting makes most of the personal information open to the public.
Users can be tagged in a photo without their permission, and even when posts and messages are deleted, Facebook still keeps a copy, not to mention the accessibility of private information on Facebook to government, lobbying and advertising companies. Aicher rebutted Haight’s argument by stating that privacy controls can be changed in personal accounts, and the government has many other avenues for getting personal information than Facebook.
The moderator and audience then asked questions to both sides, mainly focusing on the privacy issue. In the closing speeches, both sides clarified their positions and revisited their points. A total of nine votes were cast, and the side in favor of Facebook as good for individuals and society won.
Nellie Pierce ’16.5 found all debaters to be well-prepared, and she agreed strongly with the point that Facebook connects friends in distance that would have otherwise lost contact.
“A point I wish they talked about is social anxiety,” said Pierce. “Facebook provides a buffer zone for those who don’t feel comfortable interacting face-to-face with others.”
Most of the audience described this debate as “well-prepared.” Both sides cited news articles and research. Hutchinson, the founder of Debatable, attributed this to their preparation ahead of time.
Hutchinson came to Middlebury College knowing that he would continue debating. He went to some practices of the Middlebury Debate Society (Debate Team) and found that the topics were not assigned with enough preparation time. He believed more preparation time would decrease the shallowness of the debate and help debaters to learn more.
“I wanted a debate that had more substance, that wasn’t just reasoning-based but was also research-based – one that wouldn’t be the same sorts of basic points rehashed over and over again without much new material or nuance,” Hutchinson said. “And I didn’t think that the framework in which they did their debate facilitated any of those.”
In order to create a positive debate experience for both debaters and the audience, Hutchinson founded Debatable, which held its first debate about big oil companies last month, and will continue to host debates approximately once a month in Crossroads.
Hutchison said debaters are mostly drawn from within the club but anyone is welcome to step up.
“As I was starting Debatable,” said Hutchinson, “I went up to people who, I believed, would be committed to debating, because I didn't want the organization to be full of individuals who didn't really care about it. I welcome anyone who wants to do their best to debate well and to learn from the experience.”
The next round, happening on Nov. 23, is on whether the environmentalist movement is overzealous.
Debate Tackles Pros and Cons of Facebook
Comments
