The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
bossyburrito
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Resolved: The Middle East should not be allowed access to the internet

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 4 votes the winner is...
bossyburrito
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2012 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,948 times Debate No: 25647
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

imabench

Pro

This debate is that the Middle East should not be allowed to have access to the internet because every time the people in the Middle East find something offensive on the internet, they lose their mother f*cking minds and start blowing sh*t up. In the past week alone dozens of Americans have been killed and at least a half dozen embassies across the Middle East have been attacked. And what caused all of this outrage? A MOVIE ON THE INTERNET THAT THEY FIND OFFENSIVE.

How the bloody f*ck can we expect a group of people like them (some of which are armed with nukes) to be able to use the internet and not fly off the handle every time they find something offensive? People in the civilized part of the world (civilized = predominantly white) know how to keep their sh*t together when they see something offensive. When the movie "Avatar the Last Airbender" came out did you see Americans start attacking Indian Embassies, Or Pakistani ones, or whichever is the one that M Night Shyalaman came from? NO, because the civilized world has their sh*t together unlike the Middle East.

"Ok, so they react bad to anything they see as offensive, but we shouldnt ban them from having it!" - Opponent

YES WE SHOULD, F*CK YOU. Think of any whiny baby youve ever met on the internet, do you think they should be allowed to be on the internet in the first place? NO. Some people naturally cannot respond well to something offensive, and when its one or two people, then its fine, they get mad and then b*tch about it for a few days then move on. But we are talking about THOUSANDS of people all across the Middle East completely losing their f*cking minds over this, which is something that White people can take with a grain of salt and still run the world perfectly fine.

So why we should not let the Middle East have access to the internet? Because 1) They cant handle anything offensive, 2) They are naturally an easily p*ssed off people, 3) They already kill innocent people whenever enough of them get annoyed, 4) They are armed with nukes, 5) Have you seen the f*cking internet lately? Its PACKED with material offensive to people in the Middle East, and 6) Its all just a time bomb waiting to go off that will result in the death of more innocent Americans, which is why we need to strike first to neutralize the threat, just like we did in Iraq (that worked out well right?)
bossyburrito

Con

My position is that the Middle East should not be kept off the Internet.

P1: Restricting the flow of information to everyone
The Internet allows information to spread like wildfire. Knowledge is important for civilization to succeed. The more you restrict access to knowledge, the more you hurt the common everyday family. If the Middle East is banned from the Internet, then where will the citizens get their information? From the Government? This opens the door to mass brainwashing. You would be punishing thousands of people for the actions of few.

P2: It would not solve the problem
If you ban the Internet in the Middle East, what do you accomplish? You cut off one unbiased medium (or at least a medium with enough different viewpoints to balance out) in favour for Television and Radio. What happens at this point is that the bias against people attacking Islam is amplified. This is because there is no way for reason to be casted across the Internet. Islamic leaders would build hate by preaching to the choir. With the Internet, the average person can actually make their own decisions using logic.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

1) Flow of information (?)

"The Internet allows information to spread like wildfire"

Just like how it allows hatred to spread through embassy fires....

" If the Middle East is banned from the Internet, then where will the citizens get their information?"

They have Al-Jazeera and they seem to know how it works.

"This opens the door to mass brainwashing. You would be punishing thousands of people for the actions of few."

Yes, we would be punishing thousands for the actions of a few, and its because those thousands of people simply stood by and let all of this crap happen rather then step up and get everyone to calm the f*ck down. Wanna know the last time a large group of people just sat on the sidelines and didnt intervene to quell a movement built on violence and hate? Hitler came into power, thats what happened. Only 10% of Germans were Nazi's and the other 90% just let Hitler destroy Europe.

http://www.historyplace.com...

If we dont ban the internet in the Middle East, Muslim Hitler will rise up and trigger WW4 (WW3 would have occurred before then)

2) It would not solve the problem

"If you ban the Internet in the Middle East, what do you accomplish?"

Embassies dont get raided, Americans dont get killed, and Arabs do something productive rather then just burn a bunch of sh*t that isnt theirs, for starters.

"What happens at this point is that the bias against people attacking Islam is amplified"

No its reduced, because the craziest people live on the internet, not on TV or on the radio. It would reduce the amount of stuff Muslims find offensive and start burning American embassies over as well.

"Islamic leaders would build hate by preaching to the choir."

They do that anyways!

"With the Internet, the average person can actually make their own decisions using logic."

Ok timeout, what part of the internet holds logic and reason!?!?!??! The internet is 49% porn, 49% Google that helps people get to more porn, and 2% everything else that can easily be seen as offensive, there is nowhere on the internet that can help people make rational decisions using logic. Saying that the internet helps make people smarter is like saying that television helps people not get distracted while trying to listen to the sh*t their girlfriends are talking to them about that isnt important.

I think Muslims smell funny

^ Thats going to result in the deaths of 14 people in about 2 weeks.
bossyburrito

Con

"How the bloody f*ck can we expect a group of people like them (some of which are armed with nukes) to be able to use the internet and not fly off the handle every time they find something offensive?"
There are ~ 77,020,995 {1} internet users in the Middle East. The people committing these acts are an extremely small minority. I do not see how cutting off millions of people that have NO part in this is a good idea.

"People in the civilized part of the world (civilized = predominantly white) know how to keep their sh*t together when they see something offensive. When the movie "Avatar the Last Airbender" came out did you see Americans start attacking Indian Embassies, Or Pakistani ones, or whichever is the one that M Night Shyalaman came from? NO, because the civilized world has their sh*t together unlike the Middle East."

Just like how Germany had their sh!t together during the Holocaust? Just like how the US had their sh!t together during the Cold War? Just like how white Christians have their sh!t together whenever Liberals try to legalize gay marriage?
You're looking at this like EVERYONE in the Middle East are evil, primitive, uncivilized scum. This is a vast oversimplification.

"YES WE SHOULD, F*CK YOU. Think of any whiny baby youve ever met on the internet, do you think they should be allowed to be on the internet in the first place? NO. "
Children =/= grown adults that are capable of using logic.

"Some people naturally cannot respond well to something offensive, and when its one or two people, then its fine, they get mad and then b*tch about it for a few days then move on. But we are talking about THOUSANDS of people all across the Middle East completely losing their f*cking minds over this, which is something that White people can take with a grain of salt and still run the world perfectly fine."
Let's see... 77,020,995 internet users in the Middle east.
Around a thousand people losing their minds {2}
So there are 77,019,995 Internet users that will be cut off if your plan goes through. Keep in mind that this is all because of ~1.3 percent of the total internet users in the Middle East.

"1) They cant handle anything offensive"
1.3 % can't.
"2) They are naturally an easily p*ssed off people"
What is this I don't even...
"3) They already kill innocent people whenever enough of them get annoyed"
So does the US. Should the US be cut off from the rest of the world? NO. That is absurd.
"4) They are armed with nukes"
Do you think that any nation that still, you know, wants to exist will launch a nuke?
"5) Have you seen the f*cking internet lately? Its PACKED with material offensive to people in the Middle East"
That's a GOOD thing.
"6) Its all just a time bomb waiting to go off that will result in the death of more innocent Americans, which is why we need to strike first to neutralize the threat, just like we did in Iraq (that worked out well right?)"
Like I said before, a major military strike from a Middle Eastern country would be complete and utter suicide. Also, if you are trying to prevent backlash, WHY WOULD YOU FORCE A COUNTRY TO BE FORCED OFF THE INTERNET? That seems like a MUCH better reason for people to get riled up. Also, Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles... In fact, the whole Iraq incident probably didn't sit well with a lot of people in the Middle East...{3}

"Just like how it allows hatred to spread through embassy fires...."
That is the equivalent to saying that we should ban Water because people drown in it.

"They have Al-Jazeera and they seem to know how it works. "
To not be a hypocrite, you would have to regulate media in the Middle East so that it never says anything that riles people up. This means that you are basically brainwashing people because you are cherry-picking information to feed them.

"People sit on the sidelines, so WW4 will occur."
So you are punishing people for something that they didn't do... Should I punish you for not being a firefighter? After all, you're just sitting on the sidelines and letting people burn.

"Embassies dont get raided, Americans dont get killed, and Arabs do something productive rather then just burn a bunch of sh*t that isnt theirs, for starters."

So putting up a wall around the Middle East won't make the small percent of easily-pissed-off Muslims want to raid embassies, kill Americans, and burn a bunch of sh!t?

"No its reduced, because the craziest people live on the internet, not on TV or on the radio. It would reduce the amount of stuff Muslims find offensive and start burning American embassies over as well. "
I meant that when you ban the Internet, Muslim leaders can basically say whatever the hell they want without people stating facts against it.

"They do that anyways!"
And only 1.3 % listen... Hmmm....

"Only porn, no logic."
So now you're saying that only 2% of the Internet is offensive? Why ban the other 98% then? Also, I disagree that there is no logic on the Internet. Look at the massive amounts of pages on sites like Wikipedia. Go on Youtube and look up some political debates. Google some peer-reviewed studies.

"I think Muslims smell funny"
Funny how the amount of these incidents are fairly low for the amount of cr@p like this on the Internet...

{1}http://www.internetworldstats.com...
{2}http://www.aljazeera.com...
{3}http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"There are ~ 77,020,995 {1} internet users in the Middle East. The people committing these acts are an extremely small minority. I do not see how cutting off millions of people that have NO part in this is a good idea."

Yeah, theyre not committing the crimes right NOW.... But they WILL once they start finding more offensive material on the internet to get p*ssed off about! If you had a room full of dynamite, and you only use a few sticks of dynamite to blow up an Embassy in the Middle East, it doesnt mean that the rest of the dynamite sitting around not blowing up embassies isnt dangerous...

"Just like how Germany had their sh!t together during the Holocaust? Just like how the US had their sh!t together during the Cold War?"

OK FIRST OFF, We knew Germany is f*cking insane, thats why we had to beat their a** in two world wars. WWI was caused because Germany lost its minds when telephones allowed them to hear all the offensive stuff being said out there, and WWII started when Germans started seeing offensive stuff through the Radio and Television. The US lost its cool during the Cold War because thats when COLOR TV took over and people could see the offensive images from USSR

Each and every major war in history was caused by one nation hearing something offensive coming from some other nation through some new form of communication.

"Just like how white Christians have their sh!t together whenever Liberals try to legalize gay marriage?"

Well duh, because guess where Christianity came from? THE MIDDLE F*CKING EAST

" You're looking at this like EVERYONE in the Middle East are evil, primitive, uncivilized scum. This is a vast oversimplification."

All Muslims ARE Inherently evil primitive uncivilized scum!!! Have you seen the people they let become Dictators??? I dont care what you say, Fox News is right, Muslims are out to kill us, all Im saying is that we simply quarantine them from the internet so that they dont get mad rather then bomb the f*ck out of them.

Children =/= grown adults that are capable of using logic.

Not even grown adults are capable of using logic (As we have seen in the Middle East) and guess what, the Middle East is made up of a HUGE amount of young people/children compared to other nations!!!

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.arabglot.com...
http://thefuturefacesofwar.blogspot.com...

"Let's see... 77,020,995 internet users in the Middle east.
Around a thousand people losing their minds {2}
So there are 77,019,995 Internet users that will be cut off if your plan goes through. Keep in mind that this is all because of ~1.3 percent of the total internet users in the Middle East."

I refer back to my unused dynamite waiting to be used to blow up embassies argument.

"1) They cant handle anything offensive"
1.3 % can't.

1.3% blew their cover already, wait for the other 98.7% to show up.

"2) They are naturally an easily p*ssed off people"
What is this I don't even...

Concession

"3) They already kill innocent people whenever enough of them get annoyed"
So does the US. Should the US be cut off from the rest of the world? NO. That is absurd.

NO ITS NOT, F*CK THE WORLD! WE SHOULDNT BE GIVING THEM FOREIGN AID JUST TO HAVE THEM KILL INNOCENT AMERICANS ANYWAYS

"4) They are armed with nukes"
Do you think that any nation that still, you know, wants to exist will launch a nuke?

Have you seen Iran???

"5) Have you seen the f*cking internet lately? Its PACKED with material offensive to people in the Middle East"
That's a GOOD thing.

NO IT F*CKING ISNT!!!!! Its going to end up getting us all killed if the Middle East finds out about it! Do you know how they are going to react to movies like Argo and Zero Dark Thirty??? They are movies ABOUT making Arabs look stupid, killing their leaders, and saving our own people!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org...(2012_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"6) Its all just a time bomb waiting to go off that will result in the death of more innocent Americans, which is why we need to strike first to neutralize the threat, just like we did in Iraq (that worked out well right?)"

Like I said before, a major military strike from a Middle Eastern country would be complete and utter suicide.

DUH!!!! They dont care about that though! Why do you think they are called SUICIDE BOMBERS??? Suicide to Muslims is like White people to Black People, they just arent scared by them anymore!!!

"Also, if you are trying to prevent backlash, WHY WOULD YOU FORCE A COUNTRY TO BE FORCED OFF THE INTERNET?"

TO PREVENT THE BACKLASH IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Thats like asking why you would use a fire extinguisher on a fire!!!

"That seems like a MUCH better reason for people to get riled up. Also, Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles... In fact, the whole Iraq incident probably didn't sit well with a lot of people in the Middle East...{3}"

Yeah, neither did our military invading and f*cking that country up for no reason at all! But THAT didnt get Arabs to attack our embassies, but you know what did? SOMETHING OFFENSIVE ON THE INTERNET.

Look, Muslims only get mad at stupid sh*t, and the internet is the home of stupid sh*t (Fox News is its vacation home) and if we dont ban the internet from the Middle East, they will find more and more stupid sh*t and start attacking embassies and Americans.
bossyburrito

Con

"Yeah, theyre not committing the crimes right NOW.... But they WILL once they start finding more offensive material on the internet to get p*ssed off about! If you had a room full of dynamite, and you only use a few sticks of dynamite to blow up an Embassy in the Middle East, it doesnt mean that the rest of the dynamite sitting around not blowing up embassies isnt dangerous..."
If they are like dynamite, let's rain on them.

"Each and every major war in history was caused by one nation hearing something offensive coming from some other nation through some new form of communication."
No, they were caused by the Giants.

"Well duh, because guess where Christianity came from? THE MIDDLE F*CKING EAST"
Dude, Jesus is white though...

"All Muslims ARE Inherently evil primitive uncivilized scum!!! Have you seen the people they let become Dictators??? I dont care what you say, Fox News is right, Muslims are out to kill us, all Im saying is that we simply quarantine them from the internet so that they dont get mad rather then bomb the f*ck out of them. "
They have nukes in Iran though. They can just bomb the quarantine ray field generators. Where's your plan then huh?

"Not even grown adults are capable of using logic (As we have seen in the Middle East) and guess what, the Middle East is made up of a HUGE amount of young people/children compared to other nations!!! "
The adults are of the true race though.
The children are all there hoping to hook up with Mohammed...

"NO ITS NOT, F*CK THE WORLD! WE SHOULDNT BE GIVING THEM FOREIGN AID JUST TO HAVE THEM KILL INNOCENT AMERICANS ANYWAYS"
Then stay oughtta their damn business!

"NO IT F*CKING ISNT!!!!! Its going to end up getting us all killed if the Middle East finds out about it! Do you know how they are going to react to movies like Argo and Zero Dark Thirty??? They are movies ABOUT making Arabs look stupid, killing their leaders, and saving our own people!!!!"
Black Hawk Down probably did pretty well there, and that's a movie about killing Arabs!

"DUH!!!! They dont care about that though! Why do you think they are called SUICIDE BOMBERS??? Suicide to Muslims is like White people to Black People, they just arent scared by them anymore!!!"
But the suicide bombers want to get to their Virgins quicker. Only problem is that if you die young, you get guys instead of girls. That's why these straight guys won't kill themselves.

"TO PREVENT THE BACKLASH IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Thats like asking why you would use a fire extinguisher on a fire!!!"
As Cpt. Price said, "You wanna put out an oil fire, Sir, you set off a bigger explosion right next to it. Sucks away the oxygen. Snuffs the flame."

"Yeah, neither did our military invading and f*cking that country up for no reason at all! But THAT didnt get Arabs to attack our embassies, but you know what did? SOMETHING OFFENSIVE ON THE INTERNET.

Look, Muslims only get mad at stupid sh*t, and the internet is the home of stupid sh*t (Fox News is its vacation home) and if we dont ban the internet from the Middle East, they will find more and more stupid sh*t and start attacking embassies and Americans."

I got trolled soooo hard <3
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
LOL! Oh Roy.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
"About 4% of the internet is porn. http://www.forbes.com...... Top scientists have devoted a lot of time to researching it."
Bench, you should probably label these debates better. Also, it's like 5 AM.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
roy.... its a troll debate
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I wasn't entertained by this debate. Was anyone? It was just ranting. I guess there is no accounting for taste.

There is little evidence that many in the Middle East actually saw the movie trailer that was cited as the cause for recent attacks on US embassies. The Al Qaeda guy who organized the protests in Egypt said he never saw it.

About 4% of the internet is porn. http://www.forbes.com... Top scientists have devoted a lot of time to researching it.
Posted by Paz 4 years ago
Paz
ok fair enough imabench, but please next time use a bold disclaimer at the top which states this. on sensitive issues such as this, i feel its important.

im a white westerner who actually lives in the middle east and have the experiences that majority of both arguments are baseless. its only after i reread the last round that i did see it was farcical (lol, that could be an icy treat as well).

a good western reference is "where in the world is osama bin laden?" a movie by the guy who made supersize me. he makes an interesting premise there which westerners can relate to and supports what im saying.

since i dont live on that side of the pond anymore, i cant vote on debates. but honestly i dont find it humoristic, despite that i also have very angry sentiments towards violent muslims who feel they should kill people to prove their point.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
paz you need to realize this debate is meant purely for entertainment of those reading, not for actual intellectual discussions and reasoning towards any one conclusion....
Posted by Paz 4 years ago
Paz
this is not a debate from the instigators side. its full of expletives and general assumptions. red herring, straw man, ad hominem to the brim. can we see this very important debate happen again please, this time from people who don't foam at the mouth and prove they cant really speak for one side because they have no experience of the other. that is to say supporting points actually _have_ evidence instead of insults and waging baseless generalizations
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
That's not racism i see there is it? O_o Cuz just in case it was, i gave this debate a like.
Posted by Beginner 5 years ago
Beginner
I choked on my food reading this...gasped for breath and choked some more. .____.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
You actually thought I was serious about this????? LOL

Nah dude I do these once in a while to try to keep my win percentage right at 80%, i dont actually believe that we should ban internet in the Middle East, thats just retarded!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
imabenchbossyburritoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I guess Pro was going for a "best troll" award. Whatever, it ended up as an immature rant. Pro had the burden to prove that banning the internet would have a net positive effect, and the proof was lacking. Con should have made more of fundamental rights of free speech, but successfully argued that the terrorist component riled by the web was insignificant.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
imabenchbossyburritoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: What igaryoak said. Pro's arguments may not have been "better", but they were a hell of a lot more convincing as well as very creative. Con's second-to-last paragraph sounded almost like a concession anyway.
Vote Placed by igaryoak 4 years ago
igaryoak
imabenchbossyburritoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I want Pro to win so badly, but can't bring myself to give him more than a 1 point lead. "'They are naturally an easily p*ssed off people' What is this I don't even..."
Vote Placed by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
imabenchbossyburritoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL