Seventh Graders Debate Impact of Social Media

Now in its 12th year, Colorado Academy’s Seventh Grade Debate stands out every spring as the culmination of the essential Critical Thinking course, a full-year learning experience designed to provide students with the tools and time to explore new ideas about themselves, their communities, and the world. 

As the only Middle School course that is offered pass-fail, Critical Thinking encourages Seventh Graders to venture “outside the box,” taking risks and questioning their own beliefs—and those of their peers—as they work through a series of challenges carefully constructed to hone key disciplines and skills, such as close reading, creativity, persuasive writing, public speaking, digital literacy, and multimedia design.

The theme of this year’s debate unit, explains Middle School social studies teacher Elisa Stolar, is perfect fodder for young minds, which by May are primed to deploy every tool in their intellectual toolbox to make an argument: Does social media have a positive impact on society?

 

Preliminary discussions pro and con in the classroom surprised many Seventh Graders. “They hear so much from their teachers and parents about what’s negative about social media, they rarely get the chance to think about the ways it might be a force for good,” Stolar relates. But in considering the examples of “Arab Spring”—social media-fueled protests in the early 2010s against authoritarian regimes—and the “Black Lives Matter” movement that arose on Twitter and other platforms after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, students realized there was much more to investigate on both sides of the widespread societal debates over social media’s positives and negatives.

Working in teams of two, Seventh Graders develop comprehensive dossiers of research to support both sides—they’re assigned one or the other at random to defend through arguments, evidence, and rebuttals in a series of eliminations leading up to the culminating semifinals and finals.

 

By the time this hotly anticipated combined session takes place in Knowles Hall in front of the entire Seventh Grade, the remaining teams have honed their speaking points, which they must present before a judging panel of Eighth Graders, the previous year’s debate finalists. According to Middle School Principal Nick Malick, “Throughout our curriculum, we are well aware that students learn more, and more deeply, when they study things that interest them. The debate is a great example of using an important current issue to give students a real sense of ownership and engage them on multiple levels.”

Semifinals

On May 28, two semifinal rounds featured four teams of debaters. In the first matchup, Daphne Dias and Tucker Mohraz argued their side—positive—against Logan Adrian and Jamie Urband for the negative.

 

Social media, began Mohraz, is above all a powerful educational tool. “Content available through social media enables independent learning. Thanks to platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook, students can ask questions, discuss class topics, and share resources in real time, which in addition to promoting greater participation also allows for more fluid and constant learning.” Mohraz also emphasized social media’s role in encouraging and showcasing creativity, further inspiring individuals and building community around ideas.

On the other hand, Adrian offered in his team’s rebuttal, if education is so important, then what is the purpose of in-person learning in an online world? The COVID-19 pandemic, he noted, demonstrated the ways that digital education fails to serve the needs of all students. As for creativity and community, Adrian added, “People’s personal expression can just as easily harm others. And how do we know that the connections supposedly fostered by social media are actually good, honest, or truthful?”

 

In their main argument against the resolution, Urband emphasized the ways that social media does not have a positive impact on society. “Trends you see online can harm or even kill people,” he underscored, citing well-known examples of social media “challenges” that resulted in injury or worse. Equally damaging, Urband argued, is the evidence showing that social media’s depiction of beauty standards and influencer lifestyles can cause reduced self-esteem, especially for young people. “Social media has even been linked to anxiety, depression, and sleep loss,” he added.

Rebutting these arguments, Dias pointed out that it is not social media that causes harm: “It’s the people using social media who are responsible.” She also emphasized the supportive, positive content that is shared via digital platforms. “Finding others who share your interests and experiences boosts self-esteem, rather than harms it.” And social platforms have steadily added tools and parental controls that allow users to limit or block content that could have a negative impact.

 

In the second semifinal round, the team of Oliver Lopez and Zane Dean argued the affirmative side, while Gigi Snyder Hanks and Cooper Krapfl took the negative.

Dean began by citing the power of social media to raise awareness and create social change. The Black Lives Matter protests, organized via Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, proved the positive impact digital platforms can create, he said. “Social media is a key source of information, not just in the case of injustice, but also during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was an important source of health information.”

 

However, Krapfl argued in his team’s rebuttal, social media-fueled protests have sparked riots and caused damage, and “false news” has become just as prevalent on many platforms as accurate information. Snyder Hanks continued this theme in her main argument, noting “False news spreads six times faster on social media than true news, and it often contains more emotionally charged content. This increases engagement and profits for social media companies.”

 

Snyder Hanks also pointed out the data demonstrating the harms of social media “addiction,” which prompts the release of dopamine in the brain in the same way that addictive drugs do. “This can lead to a loss of interest in the real world, and even an altered idea of reality that can cause harm,” she said.

 

After both sets of semifinalist teams concluded their arguments, the Eighth Grade judges handed over their scoring sheets to be tallied, and Middle School social studies teacher Danielle Kelly announced the finalist teams: Logan Adrian and Jamie Urband versus Gigi Snyder Hanks and Cooper Krapfl.

Finals

Taking the affirmative side in the final debate, Adrian and Urband drew on the research they had completed in their Critical Thinking class to argue the opposite of the position they had defended in the semifinal debate. “Social media strengthens connections that are becoming increasingly important in a more disconnected world,” Urband began. “For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, social media became a lifeline for millions of people.” He also noted social media’s powerful economic impacts. “It boosts the economy with business growth, marketing opportunities, and job creation, and it provides small and independent businesses with cheaper tools to reach bigger audiences, grow their customer base, and increase profits.”

 

To rebut these strong points, Snyder Hanks pointed out that social media is responsible at the same time for lost jobs and online scams. Job seekers can be victimized by fake employment offers that result in unpaid work or outright theft, she argued. Snyder Hanks also challenged, “Social media may help build relationships, but aren’t many of those with predators or criminals?” The impact of disturbing content and images on users’ mental health is another strike against social media, according to Snyder Hanks.

In their main argument against social media’s positive effects, Krapfl relied again on his team’s successful semi-final approach: Fake news and emotionally charged content create social division and harm, even as they enrich the bottom lines of large companies. “You have very little control over what you see on social media, even with parental controls and other tools. Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube use algorithms that automatically show you content based on what gets the most clicked, regardless of whether it’s harmful or upsetting.”

 

Responding for his team, Adrian retorted that communication apps such as Snapchat are driven by connections, not algorithms. “And there are many trusted sources for news and information available via social media—not just misinformation.” He went on to emphasize, “It’s up to us, as the users, to make sure the information we’re getting from social media is accurate.” To counter claims that social media harms teens’ mental health, Adrian argued, “Seeing positive images of other people’s lives could motivate you to become the best version of yourself.”

In the end, both finalist teams demonstrated that strong arguments exist on both the positive and the negative sides of the social media debate. But in the eyes of the judging panel, Adrian and Urband did the best job making their case. 

“Seventh Graders have been working on this unit for months,” summed up Kelly as the winners were announced. “Reaching this point is a very big moment for all of you.”