When scrolling through Facebook, it can be overwhelming. Between videos of cute animals, the trending tags of current events and need-to-knows, and stalking that kid you went to high school with, until you realized that you've gone too far and wound up almost liking a photo of your friend's fifth grade crush's cousin's brother-in-law, there is certainly a wealth of information flashing across your screen at once. It it undeniably easy to fall into the pit of the Internet, only to crawl out and face reality hours later after you told yourself that you would only spend ten minutes to watch a YouTube video, check the latest tweets, or like a picture on Instagram.

And while I could discuss the implications of whether or not we have become detrimentally addicted to our screens, my current concerns rests more so on whether or not we ruin the ability to hold intellectual conversations because of the influx of news with which we find ourselves constantly bombarded.

I think everyone will agree that anything that winds up gaining traction on the Internet spreads like wildfire, both by word of mouth and notification bells. Of course, some pop culture topics spread faster than those that require knowledge to understand - for example, everyone heard about the Logan Paul controversy within hours of the video's upload because the Paul brothers can be understood by all without much context whereas a person would need to understand the workings of the United States' political system to understand implications when President Trump fired Rex Tillerson.

What comes to mind, however, in framing my argument that the Internet could prove to actually make intellectual conversation possible, is the most recent Parkland shootings and the March For Our Lives Protest.

In order to frame a conversation, particularly one that can be considered intellectual - and, by that, I mean a conversation that has groundings in reason, fact, and truth that can be proven and further discussed if morals and opinions need to be entered into the equation - it is important to start with a basis of information. For this, the media does a remarkable job of providing to the public. While the concept of writing articles and broadcasting important events is nothing new, I find it remarkable to think that, in the hours of the Parkland tragedy, reporters were able to flood the Internet with articles and streamed, real-time updates from the outset, continuing into the subsequent gun debates and protests. While it may be difficult to sift through the sheer volume of information to pick out the hard facts and evidence, it is the first step towards a conversation.

While providing information, the Internet also allows a multitude of platforms for the conversations to build and begin. Between Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube alone, offering a perspective is easier than ever, and can reach hundreds or more people with a few clicks.

I think that it would be easy to assume that the Internet is merely a way for people to state their uneducated opinions and state what they think to be correct, only to hide behind a screen. While I do agree that this is true, I would dare to argue that the potential is there. The Internet is not inherently bad because some users do not take the time out to form an opinion in facts, instead only regurgitating something they read out of context, or formed on their own half-baked prejudice. The Internet and social media provide the information and the platform, but it is up to each person to decide for themselves what they will say and how they react, or if they will at all.

The Internet is not the issue, nor should we assume that every user on social media is destined to shove their agendas and politics down another person's throat. Instead, the Internet makes use of the resources humans have created, and the blame is on those who remain uneducated. The reason that so many debates come to no conclusion is because, it seems to me, that our capacity for absorbing information is too small. We read headlines and bolded lines, but not the fine print. That, indeed, is our own hindrance and mocks the potential for intellectual conversation that could be had.