The Instigator
AggrO
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Internet Privacy (Governments have no limiting power of cyberspace)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
AggrO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 70470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

AggrO

Pro

The government of any country should not be able to limit anything being posted, or received from cyberspace, until they pay for the specific domain of the website.
A. Regulating what people may see as well as say goes against human rights, and in the Unite States of America for any American who may come across this, this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it goes against the first amendment in the Bill of Rights which states every person shall have the right to free speech
B. In the case of hiding pornography from children, the parent at home with the computer can simply use a proxy server and have everything filtered through there. The reason this statement was made is that in many of my other debates I've taken place making the same argument against many people used the fact that governments should stop children from being able to access pornography.
C. If a government were to take any action on a website, it would be illegal as they have no right to the domain. Let's run a hypothetical here. Let's say a website were to be taken down by the U.S government for whatever reason the government decided to take it down. If it were to be a website that they had no right towards, then that is illegal on the governments sake as they have no right to the domain. Now lets say a website were to have profane words amongst the text, and the government were to either replace the characters with '*' then that would be incriminating as it goes against humans right to free speech.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

My goal for this speech is to bring up my point to show you how in the real world, my side is more preferable than Pro's.

In this debate it has been set up under the idea that there are two extremes, the first being that governments should have no power regarding content on cyberspace whatsoever, and the second being that governments should have all power to do anything on the internet that they desire. I would like to point out a middle ground, which is what my case centres around, Healthy Moderation.

The reason that healthy moderation is the most desirable and good is because the government needs to set down some laws to keep people and property safe, like laws against cyberbullying, piracy, and terrorism. These laws are perfectly permissible, desirable, and legitimate and to enforce those laws it requires limiting your power to some degree.

Pro's case is basically making two extremes, when in reality the government has some power over cyberspace, just not all power.

I'm now open for rebuttles.
Debate Round No. 1
AggrO

Pro

As a healthy medium, it could possibly be beneficial maybe. But who is it really beneficial for? Is it beneficial for the government, or the people who have their rights infringed upon? The government has no right to control what we may say over the internet without owning the proper domain on which they are acting within.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

SPENCERJOYAGE14 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AggrO

Pro

Thank you for proving absolutely nothing.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

SPENCERJOYAGE14 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
======================================================================
>Paleophyte: Moderator removed vote<

Awarded 3 points to Pro (arguments). RFD: "Forfeit."

*Reason for removal.* Unless a user forfeits every single round, "forfeit" is not a valid reason to award argument points -- only conduct points.
======================================================================
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
AggrOSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro describes a happy medium and makes the claim that this medium is legal. However, she fails to rebut any of Pro's arguments that state that any regulation would be illegal. Showing legality is a prerequisite for the viability of her case, and she fails to show it. Args to Pro. Conduct to Pro for not forfeiting.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
AggrOSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to PRO for the forfeits, but CON nevertheless wins on arguments. None of PRO's initial statements bear out the resolution, and he toggles between an "is" and "ought" statement, which is inherently dishonest as he goes on to make a Constitutional argument (which was unsourced) which does not establish a normative argument even if there were a warrant for it, for which of course there isn't. Nevertheless, I was forced to evaluate this as a normative argument, in which case the Constitution does not bear out his claims, and his second contention was non-topical. He failed to adequately respond to CON's remarks on pursuing a happy medium, in which rights can properly balance. PRO provided only an attempt to mollify the point with rhetorical questions.