I object!

The second debate was about social media and whether or not it has a positive or negative effect on teens. I personally believe that it has a positive and negative effect on teens because it allows people to connect, learn new things, and see unique things about the world that you other wise would not. on the other hand social media can also have a negative effect on teens through cyber bullying, exposing them to inappropriate resources, and also false information a long with many other things. my side was the negative side. some points were that social media exposes kids to cyber bullying, which allows young people to hide behind a different persona and allows them to target people without them knowing who is bullying them. we used a pathos of a time at Cheshire academy when a student made a Twitter account that negatively targeted students. another example we used was students who use social media sites while studying score 20% lower on tests and students who used social had an average of a 3.2 gpa whereas students who do not use it have an average of 3.82. this allowed our opponents and the audience to show how social media can damage futures and learning. the team really stressed the exposure to pornography and pedophilia which is an important topic to address but we focused to much on it. yes it is a good point to make but I think we focused to much on it and instead of elaborating or branching off we just went into more detail. on the other hand somethings my team did very well was rebut, ella did a very good job rebutting the arguments from jack and Hans and along with rebutting them, she expanded on a new topic on our side. another thing we did poorly on was collaboration and communication. we past some notes to each other but not a lot and also there were some points that the group did not believe to be strong enough to put in as an argument but were put in and in clear to the debate and our opponents. this weakened our arguments at the end because it was unclear what was trying to be said and how it related to the debate. the other team did my much better than the last time, their rebuttals were much cleaner and the opening statement was stronger. the only thing was the closing statement needed a little work with rebutting and stating new points but was a pretty good statement. their rebuts could have had more content as well in my first mini debate it was jack vs me and it was dogs vs cats. for having to come up with something on the spot I think we both did okay. we both should not have been so graphic with our depiction of mean cats and dogs. another thing was we both needed to speak longer, especially me in my opening I had 20 more seconds I could have used. in my second mini debate I was against Evan for Netflix vs tv and my points were that Netflix was cheaper, no commercials, and easier to access than television. Netflix only makes you pay once a month a cheap subscription where tv makes you pay bills for cable and electricity. also Netflix doesn't make you watch commercials and you can watch shows and movies without being interrupted. and Netflix can be accessed anywhere there is internet where in order to tv you need a tv and cable.
Overall I think everyone improved a lot from the first debate, both were much more prepared, and had many pathos, logos, and ethos. Rebuttals were much stronger with rebuttals too and I think this improvement improved everyone and this was shown through the mini- debates how people created points very quickly and wrote down rebuts to make.