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

Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 9/27/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 80246
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I think that allocating fund to cyber security is a good idea because everyone, not just us, is becoming more dependent on technology. We should believe that other countries are thinking about their cyber security, so we should build up ours.We never know when someone may attack us. If we don't think about our cyber security,the effect could be devastating.


Before I start my main point. I'd like to apologize by joining this debate before your acceptance. I hope you accept me on the debate, also sorry for the 2days of time that you waited for the point, and I have a kind of rebuttal of the proposition side.

The pro side said that other countries are building up cyber security so we should build up ours. However, this evidence

could not be accepted because it's not so concrete. It is one case of a Bandwagon. So, for example, in this party every

people has a smartphone so I have to have a smartphone. Well, sorry for a bit of getting off topic. Now moving on to main point.

First, there are more problems to tackle such as the country's military problems. Instead of tackling online problems first, we should tackle these off-line problems. In online processes it might be hacked, however, if cybersecurity is guaranteed and it leads to a situation to war, defending terror or something. Then, we could not defend terror by online worlds. It will lead to defending it physically. But, what if those military systems and weapons are raw and have a low quailty? We can't defend terror or win at war because we wil be compared to the opponent's latest technological weapons.

Second, similar to online security offline security is important. The previous speaker(The Pro side speaker) said that we never know when someone may attack us. Well, actually this is logically makes sense we never know when someone may terror us. 9 11 terrors are used by steganography. However, Al Qaeda terrored with collision of airplanes that are kidnapped. It was exploded in World Trade Center 2,996 people were killed and wounded people were about 6,000 people.
What if the US government focused on defensing terrors more, then these bloody accidents were not happened.
Debate Round No. 1


Technological advancements play a very large role in our defenses. The next terrorist attack could very well be either more technologically advanced than the last, or completely cyber based. We have, of course, been attacked in this may before. Take for instance, The Morris Worm. It dates back to 1988. It was the first recognized worms to affect the world's nascent cyber infrastructure - spread around computers largely in the US.( If Dr. Morris could create a computer virus that replicated itself that early in time, there should be no doubt that someone else, not on our side, is fabricating a horrid computer virus as we speak.
Is that not a reason to reallocate at least a little more money towards cyber security?


Thanks for the Pro speaker for posting the argument swiftly. Well, I apologize for the wait in Round 1. Anyways, I think you are starting to get off topic. The proposition or the topic of the debate is that 'Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.' This means that it's not focused on terrors or wars. It could be types of categories such as cyber privacy or preventing cyberbullying of teens.

Now, this backgroud information may lead to the next point.

Second, in cases of cyberbullying, these are cause of the 'off-line' bullying in schools. These teens bully those victims in off-line schools. In offline worlds they have problems and conflicts in their friendships and school lives. To prevent these 'cyberbullyings', we should change the cause, which is school bullying. One of the solutions could be the counselling systems. Throughout, counselling you could resolve school bullying, because counselling experts knows well about teens' psychology and solve problems wisely.

We should take care for the off-line or the real world more faster than taking care of the online or the cyber world.
Debate Round No. 2


I was not getting off topic. Cyber Security is part of our national defenses, and is in fact a whole other war entirely. We could fight a war just on the computers. Now, it being said that cyber security is a another war, it could be part of our war. In fact, it is. Now, how this connects to reallocating funds is that I am explaining how important it is. I am explaining how cyber security relates to today, which connects it to why it is so important to reallocate the funds to cyber security. As I said, if we don't, the effects could be devastating.


Thank you for the pro speaker loading the argument quickly. It's the last round, the 3rd round, so I'd like to summarize my rebuttals, my main points.

1. My main points.
1) Offline security to prepare defensing terror and having a war is more imporant than cyber security.
2) We should change the cause of cyber bullying which is it in off-line schools.

2. My rebuttals.

1) 'Other countries are taking care of cyber security, so we should take care of cyber security.' This claim is not concrete. I understand your point, but the example what you provided is only a case of US, 'a' country. You failed to explain that why other countries besides of US, takes care of cyber security.
2) Sorry, but you had rebutted my arguments wrongly. My point was national cyber security is not all of cyber security. In the debate proposition, you wrote 'cyber security', instead of 'national cyber security', and I was talking about personal security's part cyberbullying.

These worlds, there are too much problems in a country. Traffic, pollution, huge caps between rich and poor, and in small countries that are developed such as Japan, Korea, there are parking problems, too.
Besides of cybersecurity, we have too much probems to solve. It's not wise to Relocate funds to Cyber Security than other major things.
Thank you for the Pro speaker, it was a great debate.

Now, users if you saw our debate, please tell us, who won?
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.