Entering the arena
CASUAL · Round 3/2
🇮🇳For
65
VS
43
Against🇫🇷
social media is constantly infiltrated by offensive, violent or pornographic media that can mislead people
⚖ Fallacy · Hasty Generalization
"social media is constantly infiltrated by offensive, violent or pornographic media"
This statement makes a sweeping claim about the pervasive and constant nature of certain content across all social media platforms without providing specific evidence to support such a broad generalization.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument clearly states a potential problem with social media content, but it relies on broad assertions without providing any specific evidence or examples. To improve, support your claims with concrete data, statistics, specific instances, or expert testimony that illustrate the prevalence of the described content and explain how it actively misleads people, justifying the call for restriction.
social media should be unrestricted as everybody should have the right to free expression
⚖ Fallacy · Red Herring
"social media should be unrestricted as everybody should have the right to free expression"
The argument diverts attention from the opponent's specific concern about harmful content on social media by introducing the broader, albeit related, principle of free expression without directly addressing how this principle relates to the problem of specific content types.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument clearly states your position and its underlying principle. To strengthen it, consider providing evidence or deeper reasoning for *why* the right to free expression necessitates unrestricted social media, especially when countering specific claims about harmful content. Directly addressing the opponent's concerns about offensive media, rather than solely appealing to a broader principle, would enhance your rebuttal.
social media has been proven to make people addicts in various studies
⚖ Fallacy · Appeal to Authority
"social media has been proven to make people addicts in various studies"
The argument references 'various studies' as a vague, unspecified authority without citing specific researchers or data to substantiate the claim.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument identifies a relevant counter-point regarding addiction, but fails to provide specific evidence or citations. To strengthen your position, you should name the studies you are referring to and explain how that addiction specifically necessitates government or corporate restriction.
social media can make people addicts but thats on people (everyone is different, some are just more suspectible to addiction)
⚖ Fallacy · Non Sequitur
"but thats on people (everyone is different, some are just more suspectible to addiction)"
The conclusion that responsibility for addiction rests solely with individuals due to varying susceptibility does not logically follow that social media should not be restricted, as the platform's role in creating addictive behaviors remains unaddressed.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument concedes the opponent's core point, but then attempts to shift blame without providing any supporting evidence for individual susceptibility or a clear logical link for why this negates the need for restrictions. For stronger arguments, ensure your claims are backed by evidence and that your conclusions logically address the implications of your opponent's points.
Final Verdict
65
For
43
Against
The verdict stands. The Oracle rules FOR.