The Instigator
iluvkitty4ever
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Buying AntiVirus Programs

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 9889
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

iluvkitty4ever

Con

You spend so much money buying a computer, routers, and monthly internet usage. You would think that's all you have to spend it on, yet there's millions of hackers and viruses on the computer that might come to your computer without your permission and completely mess up for hard drive, it's bad enough you have to suffer that, but on top of it, buy an anti virus program to protect your computer. how fair is that? shouldn't the internet be automatically filtered for this stuff to protect users? instead of having their ultimate goal keeping users protected, their job and living expenses is counted on people getting viruses. f there were no more viruses, those companies would go out of business... so their aim is to keep viruses on the internet, right? really think about it; what loser just lives to make viruses and Trojan spy-ware? who is just that out of a life? the only person viruses benefit is the anti virus companies that "protect" users. if no one was being affected, why would anyone buy the programs? the internet should be remodeled in a safer and more organized way, but that's out of the question, what at least should be done is to stop the virus makers instead of focusing only on "protecting users"

rebuttals are accepted :)
Danielle

Pro

Con basically has 2 arguments:

1) Stop the virus makers
2) Anti-virus protection should be "free" on the internet

First, obviously if people knew who were responsible for creating the viruses, they would be punished. At attempt to inhibit them includes incorporating penalties such as a sentencing for up to ten years in federal prison as well as paying a fine if they are caught [1].

Second, anti-virus programs work because there are employees (techies) at various companies who work to stay up to date with the latest internet trends and problems. These people are paid handsomely for their expertise. Since the internet is not nationalized, who do you suppose would pay for the techies who help keep our computers safe? You can't expect the owner of every single website or domain to be able to protect everyone. The system we have now allows people the freedom to choose whether or not they want to purchase protection or accept the risk of being affected. Products like McAfee, Norton, etc. compete for your business and pay their employees by us purchasing their products. I fail to see how a better system would work, and Pro hasn't explained how it would be feasible for the internet to be "automatically protected." So until then...

Also, I'm pretty sure that my opponent's stance in this debate is not that people should opt NOT to buy protection. Obviously protection is important and I would advocate buying it even though we have to pay for it. If my opponent objects, I'll address it in the next round. For now I'll send the debate back their way -- good luck.

[1] http://www.fmew.com...
Debate Round No. 1
iluvkitty4ever

Con

that was very enlightening.... and i agree with u, i didn't realize that, but,

if viruses on the computer are increasing and not decreasing, that means the precautions used isn't as efficient, the anti virus companies themselves are multiplying, if so many people are depended in that marketing business in protecting people's computer against viruses, when is the trend going to stop? u have to admit, if viruses decrease and people stop buying their products, they are going to go out of business, so how can stopping viruses be their ultimate goal?

im not trying to be a very negative person, as ur thinking, but im trying to be serious; all this anti virus stuff sounds like a endless circle that takes you no where...all you do is keep paying and paying and paying... and people who even pay for their anti virus, might get a virus! like it's ridiculous, i've known people who've bought their anti virus for 3 years, paying every month, and still got infected, im not saying anti viruses don't help, they totally do.. but im saying it seems too repetitive, and doesn't seem to have much of a solution... and it is very expensive..

im not even saying protection shouldn't be taken, it should, but i'm saying that the market and the economy of the protection is corrupted.. the process the anti-virus business is headed is more downhill and consists of false hope, and a losing battle....
Danielle

Pro

Here are my opponent's points:

1. If viruses on the computer are increasing, that means the precautions used aren't efficient.

Wrong. Hackers find ways to try and beat the system all the time. That's what they do; they make a living out of it. Once they come up with something new, techies at the anti-virus places pick up on what happened and fix it. Then they stop it from happening to more people's computers. In other words, there isn't a way to stop what's happening EXCEPT to have this software in place. Inevitably they won't be able to pick up on EVERYTHING because new viruses come out all the time. What they do is detect it, fix it and prevent it from becoming an epidemic.

2. Anti-virus people need viruses for there to be jobs.

Uh, sure? There are a lot of things techies can do, but there's a demand for them in the market which I don't think is their fault but the fault of the virus makers themselves.

3. Anti-virus programs don't provide a viable solution.

I'd tend to agree with you. However, they are at least somewhat effective, which is better than nothing. People can choose to pay for them to obtain SOME protection, or choose to not pay and go without it. The reality is that there are sick people out there who get off on harming other people's computers; anti-virus programs are currently the best solution. Because of your position in this debate, you would have to provide a viable alternative or solution to the product.

4. The market and the economy of the protection is corrupt.

You have to prove that this is the case.
Debate Round No. 2
iluvkitty4ever

Con

iluvkitty4ever forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

I'm betting 1,000,000: 1 odds that my opponent has anti-virus software :P
Debate Round No. 3
iluvkitty4ever

Con

goodness, fine, you've won this debate....

so yeah, i do have one... but its avg free, so im not contributing to the never ending cycle of virus and anti virus economy... the reason it's corrupt, in my opinion, is because it isn't going anywhere, and if hackers where just "so clever" they would instead find a job in networking instead of wasting their lives away making viruses... and a more valid solution to finding protection is by which sites you go to.. i personally only go to a handful, all which are 100% safe because they are official, non official sites are the ones with viruses, and i really dont have viruses problems, only when non safe sites are attended to. i think the "solution" to the problem would be to strict-en the internet... right now is as unorganized as it could be. government officials should be able to delete sites in which servers detect viruses and such....

yeah, i don't know much about the topic, but i just wanted to know the other side, thanks :)
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lwerd 7 years ago
Lwerd
My account was closed, so.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
iluvkitty4everDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
iluvkitty4everDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
iluvkitty4everDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07