While assessing the debate over Dean’s article, I found that evaluating both sides fairly was a relatively easy task, as I had not needed to take a stance going into the debate and therefore had no preconceived biases. After hearing each argument either for or against the assigned resolution, determining a winner proved more difficult. Having a neutral opinion leading up to the debate, I noticed that my perspective shifted back and forth quite often as one side asserted a claim and the other refuted it. Almost all information presented was well-evidenced, followed by swift and effective rebuttals. Several points were brought up both sides that I had not given thought to. For instance, the for side demonstrated that social media provides a level playing field for its users, masking whether or not someone is an expert on a given topic. In contrast, the the against side reminded me of the significance of hashtags in raising voices to the top rather than letting them be drowned out. Overall my role put me in a position where I was more receptive to any argumentation, so long as it was backed by stable evidence. This allowed me to assess each case more objectively, remaining open to persuasion. My initial perspective on social media as a contributor to sociopolitical change shifted in that I now see how it can be manipulated by users to circulate the same types of conversations without making any real progress.
Listening to the Castells debate offered additional insight on the power of social media as well. It was very interesting to hear how each side argued for or against the impact of internet access in aiding the Egyptian Revolution. The Castells debate also highlighted the modernity of technology as a contributing factor to its efficacy in being used to incite change, which I found to be a less obvious yet crucial point to bring up nevertheless. Aside from their resolutions being opposites, a major difference between the Dean and Castells perspectives was that the former emphasized social media usage on a more general level, while the latter discussed it in a far more specific and urgent setting—the Egyptian Revolution. It was this narrower focus that made the two debates stand apart from each other, while also adding a new and compelling voice to the topic at hand.