The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Anonymous online communication is more secure.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 49927
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Nowadays, users create their social network images bearing in mind their biological and social characteristic and the imposed norms and other people's opinion. They communicate with real people. All these leads to suppression of their inner feelings and desires. This model imposes restrictions on the real communication, that everyone needs.

One truly anonymous social media may overcome these restrictions in online communication by creating free space, where users are not burdened by their biological characteristics and social status. A network, where they can share their positive and negative experiences, thoughts and feelings, with no concerns that this may harm their everyday life. Online interactions may finally happen due to sharing the same interests, ideas and needs, but not only from searching for specific people.
Lets take the new anonymous network Duvamis, for example. Communicating with others in Duvamis may be a result from sharing the same interests and needs, but not only from searching for specific people, as it is in other such networks.

Anonymity is possible only through computer communications. And more precisely, through mediated communications where the users do not express, but keep their biological and social authenticity anonymous.

Not less important is the fact, that everyone is entitled to his own privacy. Being anonymous more or less secure the users' personal information, that is otherwise widely shared with governments and businesses.

Please share what you think about the future of online anonymity. Thanks


I accept this debate/discussion.
Before the debate, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my opponent for having chosen this topic of "Anonymity online" which is definitely interesting given the ever increasing technological progress of the world.

Having said that, I would like to be clear on the fact that we will be debating "anonymous online communication" rather than just having a discussion.

Since the instigator has not set any rules. I would like to set a structure to the debate.

1) Round 1 should be used for accepting the debate and your position, clarifying definitions, and presenting your contentions/arguments.

2) Round 2 should be used for explaining your arguments and rebuttals.

3) Round 3 should also be used for explaining your arguments and rebuttals.

4) Round 4 should be used for summarizing your case and stating why you think you won this debate.

5) If statistics or real world examples are used, please indicate the source (both for the opponent and voter to see). If you want, provide all sources at the end of Round 4.

6) Definitions cannot be contested after Round 2.

Please ensure that you follow ALL of these rules throughout the course of the debate


Now onto the resolution/topic:
"Anonymous online communication is more secure."

Let me start by defining the key terms of the debate:

1) Anonymous - When a person is not identified by name.
[Note - this definition says that the person is only unidentified by name. It does not say that they hid their biological/social/ethnic characteristics.

2) Online - connected to a computer, over a network.

3) Communication - transmission of information or ideas through a medium (in this case as it is online, the medium can be through any form: Emails, Instant messaging, Skype, Social sites.

4) Secured communication - when communication takes place between 2 entities with exclusion of other parties. I believe this is what my opponent refers to when he says that communication should be "Anonymous or secure".

However, for this debate let us refer to secure communication as communication that takes place without a person's name being identified, as that is more sensible given the context.



Take a step back for a second and think about what this topic says. It says that anonymous online communication is more secure. Does this question sound like a debate question ? No.
Everyone knows that is communication takes place anonymously then it tends to be more secure.

Read what my opponent has written. He talks about how social network prevents real communication. How anonymity creates free space. How governments and businesses share information on people.

To me this debate hinges more on the question "Anonymous online communication is good".
This topic allows the opponent/instigator to prove his reasons as to why this is good (he has already given a few as to why anonymity may be beneficial) and it allows me to contest why this anonymous online communication is not good.

So having established a focused topic, let us examine the Burden of Proof:

As the "con" debater for this topic, I will prove why anonymous online communication can be bad.

The "pro" debater for this topic will have to prove that anonymous online communication is good. Again, saying it is more secure is not even a debate in the first place.

This debate is NOT about whether the anonymous communication is more secure. It is about if it is good or bad. I urge the voters and opponent to keep this in mind.


Let me now present my contentions/arguments:

1) "Real" communication cannot take place at an "anonymous level".

2) Anonymous sites have potential to worsen communication and act as a medium for illicit/detrimental content.

3) Information shared by governments and businesses can be beneficial.

I will discuss these contentions in Round 2.


To the opponent:
- Please carefully read the rules and contentions that I have established.
- Please keep in mind the 72 hour deadline for the debate.
- Please indicate clearly your acceptance of the revised topic of this debate.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much for accepting this debate. I accept all rules.
Here are my arguments for the thesis "Anonymous Online Communication Is Good":

1) 1) Man expresses himself in a more truthful manner when he is anonymous
This is so, because when man is anonymous he doesn't have to comply with his social status. When man participates in online communication with his identity, he is always thinking what to say in front of whom, who is going to read it and what they are going to think about him. He is concerned not to insult someone, or he intentionally say or make something, in order to insult someone. He thinks about his social status and, consciously or subconsciously, he sticks to the opinion he is expressing in front of his parents, boss, friends, etc.., no matter if he truly thinks it's right. He is even concerned what photos to upload or music to like.
When man remains anonymous and doesn't know who stays on the other side, he would be able to express what he really thinks and feels without the concerns, stated above.

2) Everyone is entitled to his own privacy
Nowadays we have completely lost our privacy. Major online platforms and companies reveal our data to advertisers and governments and we don't even know what they can do with it.
Whether a man is going to share his personal data with governments and companies should be his own decision, unless stated otherwise by the law. Someone else, meaning the existing well-known social networks, to decide for him is a huge interference with the fundamental human rights.

3) Anonymous online communication should not contradict in any way to the social or biological identity
What is more real?
The truth hidden in one's self or what one presents to the outside world?
If we define the one or the other the answer would be incorrect. The truth is that both are part of human nature, but the man is given the opportunity to be both, only through online anonymity.
According to the founders of the new anonymous social media Duvamis: "Anonymity is the regulation of the free inner individual authenticity. The manifestation of the regulated anonymity is possible only if the web space user participates not with his biological and social characteristics, but with his created virtual visions".
These virtual visions should not be perceived as imaginary fantasies or nonexistent abstractions, but as human mentality creations. They should not oppose to or exclude what the person really is and how he behaves in the real world. They only give them the freedom and opportunity to overcome the trammels and concerns.

Looking forward to hear your arguments against. Thanks again.


akrulz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Ivanas forfeited this round.


akrulz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Ivanas forfeited this round.


akrulz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by akrulz 2 years ago
Oh my god. I actually spent a whole hour typing my response and i submitted it with 3 seconds to spare but it denied it. Oh well....
No votes have been placed for this debate.