As an assessor of the debate, I was able to take a neutral stance on the given prompt of “be it resolved that social media enables socio political change” and fully listen to what both sides had to deliberate on. While assessing both sides of the debate I noticed a shift in my own perspective on Castell’s resolution when the opposition had delivered their rebuttal. It was quite apparent from reading Castell’s article about the Egyptian Revolution that social media played a pivotal role in advocating and spreading awareness about the events that were happening in Alexandria, Egypt. For this reason, I was interested in hearing what the opposition side would rebuttal and was surprised to hear their stance on how yes, social media acted as a catalyst for the revolutionaries but did little to create a lasting impact for the people; which was true. As a judge, I had come to acknowledge the perspectives from both sides of the debate and discovered insights as to how social media might not enable socio political change which I admired the opposition for, seeing how it was not an easy argument to rebut.
While listening in on the debate regarding Dean’s article on the prompt of how social media inhibits socio-political change, I think I was able to gain new insights on the role that social media played in the Egyptian Revolution. As an observer who wasn’t necessarily engaged within the debate myself, I had come to acknowledge many of the points made by the side arguing for Dean’s resolution— that social media inhibits socio-political change by slowing down the process and by spreading miscommunication amongst online communities. This point is true which can exemplified even in today’s digital world as people, even individuals in higher networks such as newscasts can be seen to spread misinformation to various audiences sometimes even intentionally. This was a significant difference that I noticed from hearing points made about Dean’s article and Castell’s article, where Castell is more focused on the salient impacts of social media while Dean notes its drawbacks. Overall I enjoyed hearing both sides of Dean’s debate and had come to admire what people had to say regarding their given positions which was a really enlightening experience.