That's pretty lame, argonaut. OP made an interesting analogy which I haven't seen before. He is setting the stage for further discussion. It's not like he ended his post with "QED."

Why is my point lame? The funny thing is that I responded precisely because I thought the OP's analogy was lame. I think it's only slightly removed from the usual "X social network is a fad" comment. Saying "Facebook will fail [because of the above]" is closer to QED than it is to setting the stage for further discussion.

This is not a trial or Wikipedia, one doesn't have to display evidence to share thoughts.

Please retort, provide counter-arguments or share your point.

The fact that one effect of social networks is to entertain people, and the fact that TV shows also have the effect of entertaining people, does not imply social networks are therefore bound to the rules/generalizations of TV shows.

You are arguing over the logic of an analogy, but what about sharing your point of view?

The OP made a statement but didn't provide any reasons as to why the statement is true. If you want to get technical about it, it's not my burden to retort something unsubstantiated.

>You haven't provided any evidence that social networks in fact behave like TV shows.

No, but he made an argument. You have to judge it. Not everything in life is settled with "evidence".

I didn't assert that he or she didn't make an argument. I'm just saying the argument has no evidence or logical reasoning for it. Otherwise it's just speculation.

Yes, the best kind of argument, where you get to think for yourself if it holds.

^This doesn't make any sense.