CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Using hashtags, web-based media fills in as a useful asset for individuals and developments to share their accounts, contacting new crowds across the globe. The rundown of missions gets longer every day as more individuals utilize online media to bring issues to light and advance fortitude around a development.
This is true. However, if people are concerned with seeing biased news stories, then they can look it up on different sources and research it. The point of social media is to bring attention to a story/event. Not to give every single detail on it.
Yes, this is a good thing but the only thing this does is bring the word around and bring awareness( which is a very good thing) but just the knowledge of the problem doesn't stop it. Action needs to take place and people can't do that just by social media.
That is actually quite true. Why I say this is because most millennials aren't allowed to vote until they get a bit more older. In fact social media helps us comment on what we think should change or the agreements we have. This is a great way for us millennials to open up on what we actually think and social media also helps us use the right that was given to us which is the freedom of speech.
I understand what you're talking about but the people on social media doesn't have to only be pictures. Don't you know that they can take videos of what they're doing such as fixing a dam that was close to breaking or helping those that don't have jobs by making a rule which can help the economy flourish just a bit.
Most of the time action can cause many problems. For example, protesting is a good movement instead of just spreading awareness through social media. However, taking action can be a disturbance to people in communities.
That is true but is just like when you go in person for voting and all they say are empty promises and do nothing about it. This would be a great example for Donald Trump talking about fixing the country but all he did was build a wall and once again brought segregation.
Yes but in this case it lead to unnecessary violence and there is also other incidents where people on social media caused an unnecessary amount of violence because of misunderstanding or their opinions that not every on agrees with
Saya: With misinformation being spread there are chances of violence, but social media should not be blamed entirely for this. Social media can be used for positive benefits, which can over-weigh the negative. Social media can and is used for simply correcting misinformation. It really can depend on the users, and if information is spread and people are educated, violence can be reduced as a result of social media.
Social media shows you what you want to see due to the algorithm. For example, our political opinions. If you believe one thing then social media is not gonna show you the opposing argument. It reminds one-sided.
I agree with you but I believe there should be a bit more evidence like why they're becoming radical. For example, the people became radical because there was a dispute about the fairness of the countries police using their power in a wrong way. By spreading the news they put it in social media which put a better understanding for those that don't watch the news like myself.
In reality, social media's algorithms are created so that you primarily see content that you agree with. According to "Social Media Increases Polarization," "The algorithms that Facebook, YouTube and others use to maximise 'engagement' ensure users are more likely to see information that they are liable to interact with. This tends to lead them into clusters of like-minded people sharing like-minded things, and can turn moderate views into more extreme ones." This means that social media does not help you to broaden your views; it has the opposite effect.
Yes, I agree. However, it does also initially expose you to different view points (Depending what social media source you use) before you choose your side. Although, most people with extreme views don't actually act on them. For example, turning violent. I don't support extremism and those that are extremists are punished for their negative actions. Most people that have social media are already strongly believing with their side before it, social media strengthens it, but does not create extremists.
I can agree with you on this. Social media isn't perfect which leads to sudden errors. These errors could lead to like what most of you have said misinformation but this could be fixed by the company banning false information that ahs been put in t these social medias. That would mean the false information wouldn't impact the representatives or government on what has been stated.
Saya: even with the algorithms in place, there is still multiple sides in the media. if someone decides to explore politically, there is a place to be educated and learn about the positives and negatives of other parties.
Saya: Social media can have positive effects to democracy. It helps coordination by giving a platform for people to communicate and respond to each other, making interaction with representatives, planning and reminding people of events easier.
Social media can catch people's eyes and attention towards things that are really important. Voting can also become way easier on electronics than in person because not as many people will show up to vote and only a few thousand will be able to vote because of the limitations which is why on Facebook they sent links to vote and it started out slow. Right after saying that their friends have voted it helped show everybody that it wasn’t fake and was quite real which helped quadruple the amount and made the voting successful.
“It helps the community double the number of connections between people and representatives. For example, (in iceland) tagging politicians in group discussions so they can take community issues to parliament.”
There is always going to be fake news. In an article by New York Times “Can Facebook Fix Its Worst Bug?” They give an example of Pope Francois endorsing former president Trump(which is not true) Note: (This has already been said)
Ryan- Some may view the fact that anyone can say anything on social media as a negative, however, this is a perfect example of democracy, everyone is able to express their opinion. Sometimes you will see someone posting outlandish claims, but that is no different than if you saw them holding up a sign on a street corner, you just walk/scroll past them.
Social media has led to protests that had a goal to overthrow democracy. As a joint session of Congress was meeting to count electoral votes to certify Joe Biden’s presidential victory, a riot broke out and people stormed the U.S. Capitol. According to Vox’s article “How Trump’s internet built and broadcast the Capitol insurrection,” the mob that attempted to overthrow the results of the election had planned their takeover in advance on the social media networks Parler and Gab. Vox says that these sites are lightly moderated and allow for radicalization to occur. In addition to the egregious attempt to reverse the results of the election, photographs of the breach were shared on social media sites, leading to the rioters being praised for their unlawful actions. Social media was a large factor in the U.S. Capitol insurrection which attempted to undermine democracy, so social media is not conducive for a democratic society.
While social media may be to blame for some of the outrages such as the capital riot that happened earlier in this year, occurrences such as that are relatively rare and much more good has come out of social media when it comes to gatherings. Take for example the BLM protests that have been occurring throughout 2020, while sure some of them may have turned a bit violent, the majority of them stayed calm, with even some instances having the protesters get along very well with law enforcement. And overall, this has led to big progress in movements such as this.
Social media is actually lessening the positive effects of movements. According to “How Social Media Helps Dictators” by Erica Chenoweth, “Nonviolent resistance has actually become less successful compared to earlier, pre-internet times. Whereas nearly 70 percent of civil resistance campaigns succeeded during the 1990s, only 30 percent have succeeded since 2010.” This could be attributed to the use of social media for social issues rather than actively engaging in public protests. Without face-to-face contact with the group activists are supporting, movements lack internal trust and unity, so they can easily collapse under pressure. Therefore, social media hasn't really helped social movements to progress.
While sure it may seem as though social media is being a detriment to successful protests from the numbers alone, this could simply be from other factors such as more protests in general as a result of social media (which proves social media is encouraging protests), and while there are less face to face contract group activists, this might actually be a good thing considering what is going on in the world with covid, as it still allows people who may not want to risk going out and getting covid to still protest, and of course even with social media face to face protests are still an option to those who still seek to go out so there will still be many protests which maintain internal trust and unity as a group.
True but it can also stir people to harsh actions if they see people voting for people they didn't want voted. Take the storming of the capitol for instance. They did it because some people don't always like what other people want or who those other people want appointed to this position.
Its true that some people will not like who others vote for that has nothing to do with social media because when you vote it doesn't get shared with people unless the person voting decides to share who they vote for which can be done in real life not just exclusive to online.
According to “Fake stories outperformed real political news over the election’s final months” by Bryan Clark, approximately 1.4 million more people engaged with the most popular fake election stories than the most popular election stories from legitimate media outlets. This shows that, while social media does give people access to news, it may not necessarily be true, factual news that is consumed. While social media does encourage people to vote, it gives them nonfactual information, leading to misinformed voting decisions.
While this is true, if the voter is a responsible citizen that is concerned with having factual information and unbiased views, they con go look into it. The main point of social media is to call people's attention to a problem/event so that they can look into it on their own time.
You can't really guarantee that everyone on social media will be a "responsible citizen" and look into facts on their own; the reason why social media is harmful to democracy is that many people rely on it as their only source of information. I'm interested in hearing about your research to that support citizens debunk misinformation on their own.
Social media can improve voter turnout at the polls. The social message, the researchers estimate, directly increased turnout by about 60,000 votes. But a further 280,000 people were indirectly nudged to the polls by seeing messages in their news feeds, for example, telling them that their friends had clicked the 'I voted' button. “The online social network helps to quadruple the effect of the message,” says James Fowler, the political scientist who led the study.
Social Media assume a significant part in expanding public mindfulness and gather perspectives, data, and mentalities toward certain issues. Media is the most useful asset of correspondence in arising world and expanded mindfulness and presents the genuine phase of society.
True, Social Media can help develop friendly developments, empowering the association of people worldwide to build up a base and gain familiarity with issues. The web upholds the preparation of a bigger gathering of individuals inside a more limited timeframe.
Some may argue that social media is beneficial because it can be used to advocate for social movements. However, social media can actually reduce the positive effects of protests. According to Zeynep Tufekci in the article “Why Street Protests Don’t Work” by Moisés Naím, “Before the Internet, the tedious work of organizing that was required to circumvent censorship or to organize a protest also helped build infrastructure for decision making and strategies for sustaining momentum. Now movements can rush past that step, often to their own detriment.” This means that, nowadays, movements are less established due to the ease of simply posting on social media. Movements have less longevity as there are no solid foundations for them to be built upon.
Social media is good for democracy because it can get ideas and political beliefs out easier than regular TV outlets. For example, if the message you're trying to put out is as simple as Go Vote, it's way easier and more cost-effective to use social media. According to a study from the text, "The social message, the researchers estimate, directly increased turnout by about 60,000 votes. But a further 280,000 people were indirectly nudged to the polls by seeing messages in their news feeds, for example, telling them that their friends had clicked the 'I voted' button. “The online social network helps to quadruple the effect of the message,” says James Fowler, the political scientist who led the study."
Saya: Social media can introduce new ways of seeing things politically. It can allow people to educate themselves on what they are voting for, and give them resources that will help them figure out what they want to support.
Social media is persuasive and often works to change or influence opinions when it comes to political views because of the abundance of ideas, thoughts, and opinions circulating through the social media platform.
Ryan- Social media can also be a way to gather and look at other people's perspectives on different topics. In the real world you are often surrounded by friends where you tend to think alike, where as on social media, you are able to see how different things effect different people and their response to those actions.
I agree with this. People will see their favorite artist, best friend, and even someone they look up to do something then automatically want to do it too. On Instagram they have this one feature where you can see if people you follow liked a post and I myself have fallen victim to liking it just because a friend liked it too. It's just human nature everyone wants to fit in.
I agree. for example "during these critical months of campaign, 20 top performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyper partisan blogs generated 8711000 shares, reactions,and comments on facebook.”
People who post on social media often don't fact check themselves or make sure that there is any evidence to back up their claim and this can lead to not only one person being misinformed but all the people who saw what they posted being misinformed about what is actually going on in the world