Debate Rounds (4)
This debate is about Net Neutrality.
To those who have no idea what Net Neutrality is; Net Neutrality is this, "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."
Source for the definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
I accept and I would like to thank Tyler5362 for the challenge.
First, I would like to thank Con for accepting the debate and look forward to debating with him or her.
First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again.
-Net Neutrality (n) :
Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks.
Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.
Thanks Tyler, here we go.
Main Contention- Resource Prioritization
Net Neutrality advocates proffers a case that of non-discriminatory. This is a major flaw when it comes to resource prioritization. Large companies such as netflix requires huge amounts of data, while users such as ourselves require very little. The complexity of technology leads to a path of optimisation. Resource optimisation is key in technological advancements. Thus, Each user should be optimised to its own needs.
Tyler, the success of newer start-ups, again is correlating with resource prioritisations. Newer starters rarely need any additional incentives, they usually arrive with whatever they need. Furthermore, the resources that they need are nothing compare to the power core companies. This is just a matter of prioritising and optimising everyone to suit everyone needs. Nothing more, Nothing less.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no violation of the first amendment. The right to free speech is still upheld, unless Tyler wishes to go to specifics.
Thanks Tyler, I hand it back to you.
Yes, the FCC's decision to have companies, such as Netflix, pay for faster service is discriminatory. IF a company like Netflix or any other company of the sort wants to stream media over the internet; the company would have to pay to stream their content faster. If that company doesn't then that company will have slower streaming speeds. ISP's have control of that as we all know. Secondly, this decision WILL harm start-ups. Why? The company WILL still have to pay the ISP's for faster service to the consumers. This will definitely harm their profit. They would be losing money while trying to gain a profit. The money they earn will have to be, not only taxed, but they also have to pay ISP's. That is discriminatory. How is one going to succeed when you have to pay for basically everything. This will harm our economy as well. Entrepreneurs DRIVE our market-based (capitalistic) economy. SOONER or later, the ISP's will monopolize on the internet. That brings me to our ANTI-TRUST laws. AntiTrust Law states that no company can determine the policies of a certain market. (That market being the internet). So, yes, this is VERY illegal, it will harm our economy and it will harm our entrepreneurs as well.
I hand it back to you, Magistrate.
Much Gratitude Tyler. I will be defending my previous case to ensure a solid win.
Solidifying Main Contention - Resource prioritization is just and non-discriminatory
The idea of abandoning the concept of net neutrality is just under social terms. Google as well as Microsoft have taken measures in preventing the spread of abusive images such as child abuses(1). The action taken is morally and socially just in order to prevent paedophiles and rape from laying out their agendas. Without this firm action, abusive images would be just 1 click away in a search engine. Therefore, these actions are just. Resource prioritization should be given on other aspects, such as education, not one which serves as a detriment to society.
Just for the sake of net neutrality, that factor alone will cause these things to happen and we have job as human beings to prevent that to ensure that our children will live a better life, free from harassment. This case alone, warrants that net neutrality be dropped regardless of the bullies made by the regulators.
Tyler, the concept is justifiable even in discriminatory terms.
You are essentially establishing correlation where none exist and at its best and worst, illogical. Like I said before, the complexity of technology allow nothing else except resource prioritization. This is just a matter of supplying each to its own needs. If we have extra incentives without even using them, what is the point of having it in the first place?
Thus, the concept of egalitarianism is flawed. Consider this, Social Darwinism for example. It dictates survival of the fittest. This is highly evident in nature, but it cannot be applied to humans because we have a 'different way'. Likewise, the same can be said with technology. Your case is simply touching things in vacuum.
Strengthening rebuttals - Concepts and actions are both inconclusive
Tyler, you are proffering a case where regulators abused their privileges. As what was outlined above, the concept is justified irrespective of its peers. If its peers abused it, this is a matter of authority, not the concept itself. The concept remains just, hence I have proved my case.
Tyler, with all due respect, your case is simply a case study, an isolated one if we look at the bigger picture. One abusive act hardly represents anything. Which do you prefer? Abusive images of juveniles or a few mishandled actions?. No system is perfect. Anti-Trust laws are irrelevant, the company abused its privileges, therefore its the company's fault, not the concept adhering to opponents of net neutrality. The abuse of net neutrality is even more severe than a few losses made.
His contention of door mat companies have been successfully rebutted. He did not provide sufficient sources or evidence to support his case(other than definitions) while I have bolstered mine by the following source below.
Tyler's notion is disapproved. The resolution is negated.
I would like to thank Magistrate for debating with me. I enjoyed it. I hope you did as well.
I definitely enjoyed it. I am glad that you did as well =) It will be a privilege for our debate to scour a few votes.
I sincerely hope that the voters enjoyed this as well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con addressed each of pro's argument but the use as a limited resource was not really addressed by pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.