Cyberbullying Is A Bigger Problem Than Screen Time Addiction

The debate that is occurring is about screen time and the internet. The five articles about this topic are Cyberbullying Is a Bigger Problem Than Screen Time Addiction by Brendesha Tynes, Blame Society, Not the Screen Time by Danah Boyd, Don’t Limit Your Teen’s Screen Time by Chris Bergman, How to Regulate Your Child’s Use of Technology at Every Age by Kimberly Young, Teens and Screen Time Is a Problem, But More Study Is Needed by Marc Potenza. The authors are in stasis on the level of fact and definition. However, where they sway in terms of stasis is on how to proceed with this information. Some are in stasis at a level of evaluation by arguing whether or not it is a good thing and to what extent it should be used, however one author is completely

Brendesha Tynes article is about screen time being possibly both good and bad. She uses examples of anxiety and depression because of cyberbullying as a bad thing. On the other hand, there are studies that show possible links between video games and creativity in younger kids and also there are different programs that can come from the internet that help people, such as the example of the girl that was blind and how her classmates helped her with a code they produced (Tynes). This article is in stasis at the level of evaluation because Tines talks about the internet being both good and bad, and that it should be sought out in certain areas. Danah Boyd’s article was about how screen time wasn’t a bad thing, but a necessity for youths because they are trapped inside their own homes by overbearing parents. She uses examples of her own upbringing, a girl she met from Michigan, and how other countries have less schoolwork and don 't have as much pressure as American students in school (Boyd). This is in stasis with the other articles on the level of evaluation because she was saying that the internet is a way of expression and communication for the younger generation, which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how the audience perceives the information. Chris Bergman’s article was about not limiting screen time at all. He uses examples of people who have made

All articles acknowledge that the internet exists, which is the level of fact. Four of them go on directly to say whether or not screen time is good or bad, which is the level of evaluation. However, Marc Potenza only says that it is on the same level of addiction as online shopping or gambling. It is understood that addiction is bad. The reader can infer that Marc Potenza believes that screen time is bad and therefore could possibly be in stasis with all the other articles in terms of evaluation. The five articles are all arguing about the internet. However, in the argument there are places where they are not all talking about the same thing and the argument is not in stasis anymore. The way to change that would be to either take out the authors that are not in stasis or argue on the levels where they all line up