Claim: The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political

Social media has impacted our lives in many ways, and the author makes a good point by stating that it has negatively impacted political discourse by weakening its quality. Because we are constantly interacting via social media, whether that be through Facebook posts, YouTube videos, or Instagram photos, we are also sharing our political opinions. As a result, all characters in a democracy now have a voice, with individuals stating their opinions either explicitly or implicitly on any of the aforementioned platforms. It may seem that, because individuals who are uneducated are sharing their opinions on topics of political interest, social media has weakened the quality of political discourse. However, by giving those same individuals a voice, social media has increased its quality.

Social media gives politicians access to new ideas, insights, and judgments because of a much broader and more diverse range of voices. Politicians often make their judgments according to their political party's affiliation or from their own backgrounds. This may silo their thinking and prevent exposure to the "others." With social media, we hear from the student who graduated from medical school and is struggling to find work, a father of four who recently lost his job and is struggling to afford health insurance, and even from me, who can post and share a video on YouTube speaking about my frustration with the lack of infrastructure funding in my country. Of course, some of these new ideas may be poorly argued or lack reasoning, all ideas nonetheless broaden politicians' views on any political topic. Best of all, it increases the fodder politicians have available when forming public policy, the efficacy of which reflects our political discourse.

By increasing political discussion, social media users learn how to cull the quality of news. Since individuals now constantly partake in political discussions, because they have become omnipresent on social media platforms, they are forced to learn, on their own, what said is and is not true. This constant atmosphere of discussion increases learning by example, so, while political discourse may, at the beginning, indicate poor quality, it improves as people learn more. By the time that we have a clear idea of what the issue at hand is, people have shown their better informed judgments.

We also need to consider the strength of the writer's claim. He or she bases his claim on presumptive reasoning. The author claims that social media weakens the quality of political discourse in the United States because the more easily that political opinions can be published, the more weak the standards for covering news and political topics will be. The author offers no logic behind this reasoning, instead assuming that because anyone can publish political opinions, the quality of political discourse must weaken. Perhaps if the author were to offer alternative reasoning or empirical data proving his or her claim, then his or her claim would be stronger. Therefore, before we can even discuss whether the quality of political discourse in the United States is weakening, we need strong reasoning that backs the claim.

The most important consequence of the writer's claim, however, is not the claim; it is the implications. Regardless of whether social media has weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States, its impact is here to stay. Social media has become a constantly increasing force in our lives, so it will continue to shape the quality of political discourse. Rather than focus on whether the quality of political discourse is weakening, we should focus on ways to better moderate political discussions on social media so that we only see improvements.