The Instigator
mackoman_93
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Me100
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
mackoman_93
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,636 times Debate No: 11466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

mackoman_93

Pro

I affirm the resolution Resolved: Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

But first, I offer the following observations in order to clarify today's debate.

OBSERVATION ONE: this resolution is not restricted to a geographic region, thus we can conclude that this debate is pertinent to international issues. Therefore arguments concerning foreign examples are both topical and legitimate.

OBSERVATION TWO: "Conventionally 'illegal' sources and/or methods" does not pertain strictly to the illegal downloading of music, but can also include any means of illegally obtaining music.

I offer the following definitions in order to clarify today's debate.

Download- to transfer (software, data, character sets, etc.) from a distant to a nearby computer (from the Random House Dictionary)

Justify- to give or to be a good reason for (from the Cambridge University Dictionary)

Under these definitions I present the following BURDEN which the con must uphold in order to be considered for winning the round. The con must show that there is sufficient reason to "illegally" download music.

My FIRST POINT is that MUSIC PIRACY HURST BOTH TH ARTISTS AND THE PERFORMERS. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, the U.S. sound recording industry suffers direct losses of $5.3 billion annually as a result of global music piracy. This shows in numbers the billions of dollars that the U.S. sound recording industry alone loses every year as a result of music piracy. On a global scale Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year. Even if the con side could mitigate the significance of these numbers they still have to uphold the burden of showing them to be justified. Music piracy, both domestically and internationally, results in economic losses in the billions every year, causing financial harm to the very people who produce the music that is being stolen.

Furthermore, my SECOND POINT is that at times MONEY FROM ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING GOES TO THE WRONG PLACES. Last year in 2009 a BBC News article reported that a large amount of the money that funds Hezbollah is derived from selling illegally downloaded music. The money made form this music ends up fueling terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah. So in the case of the people who are impacted by these groups, buying illegally downloaded music further enables terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

Remember, the negative has the burden to prove that in light of the two points presented by the affirmative, obtaining music through illegal means IS justified.
Me100

Con

In today's debate we are going to look at how obtaining music via "conventionally illegal" means IS in fact justified. I accept the frame work that my opponent has provided in his observations HOWEVER, there is one thing that I would like to point out. The resolution is tilted in the favor of the affirmative. Just look at how he worded it. I am going to look specifically at the word "justified".

The word justified has special significances in this round, in that he presents it in such a way that the CON cannot possibly meet the standards which have been previously set for the round. I have several issues with this and they are as following:

1. The nature of the resolution as a whole is that it is a universal claim. As the PRO has set it, because of how the word "justified" is used the negative is forced to make a generalization that is impossible to support making the debate unfair.

2. A fair debate is an educationally effective debate. We learn to debate better by debating, not by being forced to be an advocate for an impossible position.

3. A fair debate is also a fun debate. I like to debate. I like to debate even more when the round is fun and fair. Thus entertainment is an acceptable and indeed an important standard for evaluating the legitimacy of this, or any round.

For those three reasons this resolution is unfair. For the sake of fairness, education, and most of all entertainment I urge you to vote in negation of this resolution.

But alas whining about how unfair the resolution is, is a big time sissy way to win a round. So, if you don't buy my fairness argument look to my next argument about cases that do in fact justify a negative ballot.

In his first two contentions my opponent tries to give you a mere handful of reasons that show that the resolution is up held. What he is doing is trying to prove a positive over generalization as valid. He does this with three examples. This is no where hear adequate. He must show you that it is NEVER justified. All I must do, on the other hand, is give you one instance in which it is justified. Consider the following counter example to his point one...

Every time a band comes to town every one knows. Why is that? This is because live performances are SO MUCH MORE COOL than listening to a some song on your iPod. Music groups make thousands of dollars off of ONE PERFORMANCE verse about 99 cents (give or take) on one song on iTunes. Artists don't make their money on Napster and iTunes, they make it on tour.

His point two doesn't establish anything beyond the fact that some random terrorist group in Lebanon uses illegal music to make money. While this is uncool it does nothing for the claim that downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified. I has no warrant and can be disregarded.

I light of thus I urge you to vote in negation of the resolution.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
mackoman_93

Pro

My opponent begins with a theory argument about how unfair the topic is. There are several problems with his claims. Starting with his points...

1. Professor David Zarefski of North Western University says that argumentation occurs only under conditions of uncertainty. The implications of this statement mean that if true argumentation is occurring, then any position is debatable. This topic is no exception.

2. Debate is educational when both positions are more concerned with the topic at hand and less concerned about whether or not they agree with and are confident debating their position.

3. A debate is more fun when the topic is being debated and not whether or not the participant likes debating the topic.

My opponent tries grouping my two contentions together saying that all he has to do is provide one counter example. If the resolution is a universal claim, then it is not unfair to assert that the negative must also universally prove that obtaining music illegally is ALWAYS justified. Even if you don't buy my resolutionary argument the one example that my opponent has provided is not one that shows that obtaining music illegally is justified AT ALL.

About his example. He claims that artists and performers do just fine with out the Internet, therefore stealing from them is fine and dandy. While it's true that that lots of money is made from performances it is also true that billions are lost from illegal music downloads. A guardian.co.uk article elaborates, " At least 7 million people in Britain use illegal downloads, costing the economy billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, according to a report. Shared content on one network was worth about �12bn a year according to the research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property". It doesn't matter how creatively my opponent can excuse stealing from people. He can't prove that it's justified.

My opponent's arguments against my second contention a based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what my argument establishes. This argument is a statement of fact. It illustrated the horrors that illegal music downloading can lead to. In a world without illegal music terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah would have no funding. THis si something that my opponent has not acknowledged.

Thank you and I urge an affirmative vote.
Me100

Con

So lets look at the two arguments that have been mainly presented within this debate. First I shall cover the resolutions debate, then move on to the actual case.

My opponent in the beginning of the second round begins by saying 1) "argumentation occurs only under conditions of uncertainty" and 2) "Debate is educational when both positions are more concerned with the topic at hand and less concerned about whether or not they agree with and are confident debating their position." and though my opponent may be correct that a debate requires two sides and this debate can be educational, he fails to see some of the more critical things making the debate worthwhile. One of these things that the resolution doesn't meet is fairness "Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified." automatically has the wording that "Illegal" is unjust, and therefore by affirming the resolution the affirmative already has a much more ground and arguments to present against the negative. Secondly in order to have a proper and reasonable debate both sides must stick to the argument he/she presents and should be concerned in whether they are supporting their decision in terms of the resolution as for that's what makes a good case in a good debate.

And to the second part of the case
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
from the following source above, they point out that though downloading of illegal music may be wrong it is unstoppable, even if the producers release it FOR FREE, many fans/listeners still continue to pirate the music illegally rather than just going to the site to get it. So whether "illegal" downloading is justified cannot be shown but in the eyes of many fans and even to certain music artists it certainly is, and can even be taken advantage as to promote profits, rather than continual resistance against music pirating,

To address his terrorism funding argument
I will point out many key flaws that he has to this and those are...
1)Illegal downloading is free? therefore provides no funding... so in the case of this resolution it does not fund terrorist organizations rather the selling of it does though which is not a problem the neg should deal with.
2) a turn on his case that music can be justified by allowing the masses access to p2p sharing sites (which don't cost money) therefore the selling of music will become obsolete and musical artists (as presented by evidence above) will still continue to make money off concerts and other such methods rather than trying to sell their music.
Debate Round No. 2
mackoman_93

Pro

So let's start off with the theory...

1) Fairness. The affirmative has the burden of proof to establish that what they say is true. Given the burden of proof of course the affirmative will have more ground. This is just the nature of argumentation. Just because my opponent doesn't understand that doesn't mean that the debate is stacked.

2) He ignores this point. My argument that the debate is educational when one actually debates the topic still stands. This can be considered a drop.

3) My opponent mentions point 1 and point 2, but he never once even talks about point 3. He completely dropped this point conceding that the debate is MORE FUN when one DEBATES THE TOPIC AT HAND. This means that he agrees (by not responding to my argument) that by whining about how "unfair" the resolution is he is in fact HURTING the value of entertainment in this round. He dropped it and this is my last opportunity to present arguments so I don't get to respond to anymore of his arguments after this. In light of this I ask that you the voters do not allow my opponent to bring this argument back up.

Thus this debate has been proven to be fair, educational and entertaining. Voter affirmative

The only response that my opponent offers is that people will download illegally any way. What my opponent does not bring to your attention is the fact that this is not what we are evaluating. We are trying to determine whether or not it is justified not if people will do it any way. His entire argument is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what we are debating about. His point falls however interesting of a thought it may be...

On to my second point... My opponent starts off with his first point contesting my evidence analytically. The words he is attacking are not mine they are BBC's. BBC is a legitimate source for international media. Plus they are BRITISH!!!!! Take it up with the editor. Second point he makes is him basically him restating his point that I already refuted. I showed the numbers. I gave you statistic's showing how just because they make money off of concerts doesn't make stealing okay. He drops my points and ignores my statistics and has given you no reason to vote in negation of the resolution...

Thank you and vote affirmative.

:D
Me100

Con

Me100 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
FFFuuuu******** forgot to rebut.. lol totally remembered it yesterday and fell asleep :|
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
Yes for reals... :D
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
"In a world without illegal music terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah would have no funding. THis si something that my opponent has not acknowledged."

for reals? lol
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
yeah, thats the problem with this resolution, hence the theory arguments
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
For the sake of me I could never figure out a decent argument against this - either you support stealing on a regular basis or downloading music illegally is somehow...not stealing?
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Lol, yeah mack and I are pretty chill with each other... I just idk, can't get s**t straight in my head anymore lol, debate is falling apart
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
I started this debate before I started ours. Besides he attacks the res in a different way. I no this guy. He is pretty theory intensive. I can deal with theory. Stuff that doesn't make sense I have a harder time with :P
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
lol don't learn from your mistakes, do you?
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
You only have 30 hours left...
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Thank you for making quite a difficult resolution.. imma see what i can do
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
mackoman_93Me100Tied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
mackoman_93Me100Tied
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:70