DIALOGUE SCRIPTS

"In 2019, Facebook's own researchers concluded—and I'm quoting their internal documents—'We make body image issues worse for one in three teenage girls.' The company saw this data. They buried it. This resolution isn't about whether social media could theoretically be better. It's about what social media actually does. I affirm."

"My first contention: social media is engineered to harm. Not accidentally—deliberately. Former Facebook VP Chamath Palihapitiya admitted that the platform was designed to exploit 'a vulnerability in human psychology.' Instagram's algorithm promotes the content that generates the strongest emotional reactions—and research consistently shows negative content spreads faster than positive. This isn't a bug. It's the business model."

"The evidence is overwhelming. A 2022 study in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology found that rates of depression among U.S. teens increased 63% between 2009 and 2017—precisely tracking smartphone and social media adoption. Correlation isn't causation, my opponent might say. Fine. But Jonathan Haidt's research at NYU controls for confounding variables and still finds a causal link. Teen girls who deactivated Instagram for one month reported significant improvements in body image and life satisfaction."

"The impact isn't abstract. Youth mental health crisis. Suicide rates among teenage girls have doubled since 2007. The American Psychological Association now treats excessive social media use as a clinical concern. This is the outcome of a system designed to maximize engagement at the cost of wellbeing."

"My second contention: social media degrades democracy. A 2020 MIT study found that false news stories are 70% more likely to be shared than true ones. And it's not random—the algorithm actively promotes misinformation because it generates engagement. Russian interference in the 2016 election reached over 126 million Americans through Facebook alone. That's not a communication platform. That's a weapon."

"The evidence compounds. Frances Haugen, Facebook whistleblower, testified before Congress that the company knew its platform fueled ethnic violence in Myanmar and political polarization globally—and chose profits over intervention. This isn't about individual bad actors. It's about a system that rewards division."

"My third contention: the benefits don't outweigh. My opponent will likely argue that social media connects people. And yes, it can. But the data shows those connections are often shallow and anxiety-inducing. A University of Pittsburgh study found that the more time young adults spent on social media, the more likely they were to feel socially isolated—not less. The connection is illusory. The harm is real."

"They'll say: what about organizing social movements? Fair point. But Black Lives Matter organizers themselves have noted that social media activism often substitutes for real action—slacktivism instead of activism. And platforms regularly suppress organizing when it threatens their bottom line. These aren't reliable tools for change."

"Let me crystallize. The question isn't whether some good exists on social media. It's whether the net effect is harm or benefit. The evidence is clear: engineered addiction, mental health crisis, democratic erosion, and illusory connection. The harms are documented, systematic, and growing. The benefits are scattered and diminishing."

"This is what social media actually does—not what it could do in some hypothetical better world. I urge an affirmative ballot."

"You argued that social media enables connection. Who benefits most from these connections?"

"Let me focus on one: marginalized communities. Do these communities experience harassment on social media?"

"A yes or no: marginalized communities experience harassment on social media?"

"According to the Anti-Defamation League, 41% of Americans have experienced online harassment. Would you say that's consistent with a platform that does 'more good than harm'?"

"We'll get to weighing. Right now I'm establishing facts. You conceded harassment happens. Let's move to your small business point. Do small businesses on social media pay to reach their own followers?"

"Right. Organic reach on Facebook for business pages has dropped to about 2%. If you have 1,000 followers, roughly 20 see your post. Unless you pay. Is that a benefit or an extraction system?"

"A tool they increasingly have to use because customers expect them there. Let me ask about your evidence on social movements. You cited Arab Spring. Did those movements ultimately succeed in establishing stable democracies?"

"Tunisia is the only country from Arab Spring that remained democratic. The rest: military coups, civil wars, or authoritarian restoration. If social media enables organizing but not sustained success, is it a net benefit or a distraction from real institution-building?"

"I'm not blaming. I'm asking whether the benefit you claimed—organizing—translates to the outcomes you implied. Last question: you said connection is the primary benefit. Do you have evidence that increased social media use correlates with decreased loneliness?"

"I'll note for the judges that my opponent couldn't provide that evidence. I have studies showing the opposite. Thank you."

"Of course—depression is multifactorial. My argument isn't that social media is the only cause. It's a significant contributing factor, which the evidence I cited demonstrates."

"I don't have a precise percentage, and I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims one—these are complex causal systems. What I do have is controlled studies showing that reducing social media use improves outcomes. That's the evidence that matters for this resolution."

"The same way we weigh most policy tradeoffs—by examining the evidence we have. Controlled studies, internal company research, expert testimony. The question isn't 'can we achieve scientific certainty?' It's 'which direction does the evidence point?' It points toward harm."

"I'm citing what the company found and tried to hide. If there were equally strong findings showing benefits, Facebook would have published them. The asymmetry in disclosure is telling."

"I'm affirming the resolution as stated: that social media does more harm than good. What policy follows from that is a separate question. This debate is about the factual assessment, not what to do about it."

"Sure, in some ways. And I've also seen the harms firsthand. Personal anecdotes don't determine who wins this debate—evidence does."

"My opponent's case rests on three claims. Let me show why each one fails, then extend my own case."

"First, they argued connection benefits. In cross-examination, they conceded harassment affects marginalized communities—the very people they claim benefit most. They couldn't provide evidence that social media reduces loneliness. In fact, the University of Pittsburgh study I cited shows the opposite: more use correlates with more isolation. The connection they're selling is illusory."

"Second, they cited small business benefits. But organic reach has collapsed to 2%—businesses have to pay to reach people who already follow them. That's not a benefit; that's a toll road. And when small businesses become dependent on these platforms, they're vulnerable to algorithm changes that wipe out their visibility overnight. Ask any creator who built an audience on YouTube or Facebook about what happens when the algorithm shifts."

"Third, social movements. They cited Arab Spring. One democracy survived—Tunisia. The rest: Syria, Libya, Egypt—civil war, military rule, or authoritarian restoration. If social media helps people organize but doesn't help them sustain change, is that a benefit? Or is it a distraction from the hard work of institution-building? At best, it's neutral. More likely, it creates the illusion of progress while undermining the real thing."

"Now let me extend my case. My opponent didn't deny that platforms are engineered for engagement over wellbeing. They didn't contest the mental health data. They didn't challenge the misinformation research. These arguments flow through."

"They did say depression has many causes—and I agreed. But that doesn't negate my argument. Smoking isn't the only cause of lung cancer, but it's still harmful. The question isn't whether social media is the only problem. It's whether it makes things worse. The evidence says yes."

"The weighing is straightforward. My harms are documented, systematic, and growing. Their benefits are contested, diminishing, and in some cases, actually harms in disguise. I urge an affirmative ballot."

"Here's why you vote affirmative. This debate came down to one question: does social media do more harm than good? Not whether some good exists—of course it does. But whether the net effect is positive or negative. And on that question, the evidence is clear."

"First voting issue: documented systematic harm. I brought internal corporate research showing these companies know they're hurting users. Peer-reviewed studies linking social media to depression and anxiety. Research on misinformation spread. My opponent didn't contest this evidence—they tried to muddy the waters with 'depression has many causes.' But they never provided counter-evidence. The harm is documented. The benefit is asserted."

"Second voting issue: their benefits collapse under scrutiny. Connection? Conceded harassment, no evidence loneliness decreases. Small business? Pay-to-play exploitation. Social movements? One success story out of many failures. Every benefit they cited was either contested by evidence or revealed as a harm when examined closely."

"Third voting issue: the burden of proof. The resolution says social media does more harm than good. I've demonstrated systematic harm with evidence. My opponent needed to show the benefits outweigh—and they didn't provide a single piece of evidence that wasn't challenged and turned. The affirmative burden is met; the negative burden is not."

"Even if you're skeptical of some of my evidence—even if you think the mental health link is overstated—ask yourself: what evidence did my opponent provide that the benefits outweigh? Anecdotes about connection. Vague references to organizing. Nothing that survived cross-examination."

"This isn't a close debate. The harms are documented by researchers, whistleblowers, and the platforms themselves. The benefits are promises these same platforms make while cashing checks from advertisers who profit from our attention."

"Remember where we started: Facebook's own researchers found they were making body image worse for teenage girls. The company saw the data and buried it. That's not a platform doing more good than harm. That's a corporation choosing profit over people. Vote affirmative."

"I understand the urgency, and I share the goal of hitting this market window. Can I share some data that might affect how we approach the timing?"

"Our QA backlog right now is 47 tickets, and about 12 of those are high-severity. If we launch in two weeks, we'll ship with known issues that affect core workflows. The competitor we're trying to beat launched early last quarter and spent three months in recovery mode—their reviews tanked and they're still rebuilding trust."

"Absolutely, we can patch. The question is whether launch-day reviews and first impressions are recoverable. First-week reviews on the App Store are weighted heavily. A buggy launch could mean we're fighting a 3.2-star rating for months."

"A middle path: we launch in three weeks instead of four, which still captures the window, but gives QA time to close the high-severity issues. And we do a soft launch to a smaller segment first—1% of users. If it's stable, we roll out fully. If not, we fix before the broader audience sees it."

"Happy to pull together the data on our last two launches—what went well and what cost us. Might help inform the decision."

Project Aurora—request to discuss before final decision

Hi Sarah, Dan—

I heard from the team meeting that Aurora is being cancelled. I understand the budget constraints and I know you've thought carefully about this.

Before the decision is final, I'd like to share some data that might not have been in the original review:

1. Our pilot users are showing 40% higher engagement than the core product. That's not just early adopter enthusiasm—it's held steady over 8 weeks.

2. Three of our enterprise clients specifically mentioned Aurora capabilities in renewal discussions last quarter.

3. The incremental cost to keep a skeleton team maintaining the pilot is ~$15K/month, less than 0.1% of our product budget.

I'm not asking to reverse the decision—I'm asking whether these data points change the calculus enough to warrant a 15-minute conversation before we shut it down.

Happy to present in whatever format works. And if the answer is still no, I'll support the decision and help transition the team.

— [Your name]

"Let me make sure I understand both positions. Sales—you need something that makes Johnson viable by Q2. Engineering—you're saying the full multi-tenant architecture can't ship in 3 months. Both of those can be true. The question is whether there's a middle path. What does Johnson actually need to move forward?"

"Data isolation. Is that the same as full multi-tenant, or is that a subset of the problem?"

"So the path might be: database-level isolation for Q2 to close Johnson, with full multi-tenant on the roadmap for Q4. Sales, does that meet Johnson's actual requirement? Engineering, does that timeline work technically?"

"Got it. So the tradeoff is: win Johnson but push two other Q2 features to Q3. Let me take that tradeoff to leadership with the numbers and get a decision by Friday. Does that work for both of you?"

"I agree the system is broken—that part seems obvious regardless of where you stand. What do you think a better system would look like?"

"Border security and legal pathways—I actually think most people on both sides want both of those things. The disagreement seems to be about which comes first and what 'secure' means. What would convince you the border was secure enough to expand legal paths?"

"Here's something I wonder about: the caravans exist partly because there's no legal alternative. If someone's fleeing violence, they can't wait 15 years in a queue that doesn't exist. I'm not saying open borders—I'm saying the chaos might be partly caused by the lack of legal options. What do you think?"

"That's fair. I guess my view is that smart policy would probably include both—real enforcement and realistic legal paths. The extremes on both sides don't seem to work. Anyway, more turkey?"

"I know we both have concerns about the Seattle thing. Can we try something? I'll share what I'm most excited about and most worried about, and then you do the same. No debating yet—just understanding where we each are."

"My excitement: this is the role I've wanted for five years. The team, the scope, the trajectory—it's everything I've been working toward. My worry: I know this isn't just my decision. Moving means you'd need to find new work, leave your sister, start over. And I'm scared that if we don't do this, I'll end up resenting the decision."

"So for you this is about your mom and about finally finding your footing professionally. Both of those are completely reasonable. I don't think either of us is wrong here. We just have competing good things."

"I don't know yet. But I think the question isn't 'who wins'—it's 'is there a version where we both get enough of what we need?' Maybe it's Seattle with frequent trips back. Maybe it's me taking this and us trying long-distance for a year while your mom stabilizes. Maybe it's me saying no and being okay with that. I'm not attached to a specific answer. I'm attached to figuring it out together."

The productivity question is genuinely debated, and there are real tradeoffs worth discussing. But the "30% drop" stat isn't quite right.

That figure comes from a 2020 study of call center workers during early pandemic lockdowns—not a measure of remote work in normal conditions. More recent meta-analyses (like the Stanford research from 2022) show hybrid workers maintaining or slightly increasing productivity, with variance depending on role type and management practices.

The culture question is real—spontaneous collaboration is harder remotely. But that's a design problem, not an inherent feature of remote work. Some fully-remote companies score higher on culture metrics than office-based competitors.

Happy to share the sources if anyone wants to dig deeper. The answer isn't obvious either way, which is why blanket mandates worry me more than thoughtful experiments.

"Interesting research on content moderation—suggests that consistency matters more than strictness for user trust. Platforms might do better with clear, predictable rules than aggressive enforcement."

"That's not what I said—the opposite, actually. Consistent enforcement means clearer rules that are actually followed, not looser rules. Happy to discuss if you want to engage with the actual point."

[No response. Mute/block if persistent.]

"For anyone following: the research I'm citing actually suggests stricter enforcement works better when rules are clearer. Inconsistent enforcement—taking down some content but not similar content—is what erodes trust. Thread continues for those interested in the details."