The Instigator
dylan160w
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KonstanBen
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should the government be able to regulate the internet?

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 2 votes the winner is...
KonstanBen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 68656
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dylan160w

Con

1st round is for acceptance. The rest has no restrictions or format, just statements and rebuttals.

But this argument is whether or not the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the internet and regulate what can or cannot be shown or said, and even what is happening today where the government can constantly keep surveillance on the internet and "snoop" even when no crime is committed, but rather for prevention. All of these I'm against as I believe from a Libertarian aspect the government has no place in our private lives and effects, including the internet, and if and only if, we are committing an actual legitimate crime can they begin an investigation as long as they obtain a warrant, nothing preventative at the cost of anonymity, security, or privacy.
KonstanBen

Pro

I accept this debate. Thank you for setting it up and I wish you the best of luck. Say something if this is not the case, but I understand the wording of the resolution as resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet.
Debate Round No. 1
dylan160w

Con

Yes, same thing, only I put it in the form of a question. And it is correct because the stances are con/against and pro/for. If that answers your question.

Well good luck, I'll just start off with a brief, moral aspect of mine on the issue of government intervention on the internet. It is obvious that the central government has outlined powers set forth by the Constitution to provide security to the people and the country as a whole. However, I dissent with the now conventional belief that the government knows best for all of us individually and our interests. Or what we can or cannot do as free individuals. And there I believe that we, as free people, have a right to liberty and freedom over the internet. Whether it to express yourself or a view, anonymity, to browse, to leak, to share, to post etc. That is how we advance as a society and diffuse information all over the world that binds the world together.

From a legal standpoint, credit to the Constitution, the government really has no place in regulating the internet. The internet is simply the world's largest WAN (Wide Area Network), nothing but clients and servers working together to put together a giant collage of ideas, articles, and media. To say the government has power to regulate what we can or cannot do on the internet seems like a stretch of power that wasn't actually granted to them. Also, the internet is not subject to American laws, but International law, which is very limited in what can actually be done to regulate what can be on the internet for viewing.

And most important to me is the recent discussion of spying or searching and/or monitoring activities on the internet. And sometimes all of us, not just the ones actually committing crimes. We have a right to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects, and we have a right to be anonymous on the internet for our security. And in order for the government, or any federal agency for that matter, to search a person or monitor a person's activities on the internet, there has to be probable cause for the search of committing a crime, it cannot be for prevention. Prevention of crime (on the internet) is a good sounding thing on paper, but execution often leads to liberties and freedoms being taken away in order to secure laws that is in the governments agenda. And we as free people, have a right to be secure and have the right to the 100% uncompressed weight of liberty on our shoulders at all times. Unless the government has evidence to begin an investigation, the internet cannot be used as a tactic of security or prevention of crimes for the government.
KonstanBen

Pro

I am affirming that the government should BE ABLE to regulate the government.

Observation 1:
Having the ability to do something is different from doing the action. For example, the ability to own a gun is different from the ability to shoot it.

Let's begin.

Contention 1: the government needs the ability to regulate the internet in case of emergency.

In the case of cyber terrorism, the government needs to have the ability to regulate the internet for the safety of the people. In recent years, cyber attacks have exponentially increased in quantity and magnitude. President Obama himself cites cyber terror is this country's greatest threat. The oil industry, one on which we have great dependence, is often the target of these attacks. For this country to thrive, we will need to defeat cyber terror. In order to combat this threat, the government needs to have the ability to regulate the internet, even if it doesn't constantly regulate. [1]
Impacts:
1: Saving the oil industry
2: By not constantly regulating the internet, but simply having it as a stand-by option, all of my opponents impacts can be flowed to my side as well,

Contention 2: Promoting economic equality.

Government regulation can make the internet free. This is called net neutrality. In the status quo, the internet is set up so that it provides much more to the rich than the poor. When in just a year, the richest 1% will own 99% of the wealth, reducing the areas where the rich have more access can make for a more balanced society. In addition, online education is more accessible to the rich, furthering the gap of potential future income. The internet needs regulating to reverse the great economic inequality of our country. [2]
Impacts:
1: Reviving economic equality, reversing the current trend

Contention 3: Maintaining what is important about the internet.

The internet is a place of ideas and a place of learning, not a business. In order to maintain this Net neutrality, government regulation is needed. As large corporations intend to turn the internet into a business, the internet becomes a matter of money instead of a place for sharing ideas. Whichever idea had the most money behind it is seen by more people. This is not what the internet is for! In a world where companies have more power than some countries, the last thing that would be beneficial is letting them steal money via the internet. Regulate to prevent this! [3]
Impacts:
1: The internet goes back to what it was supposed to be.
2: People have an easier time using the internet. This includes cheaper and not being overshadowed by large companies.
3: Maintaining Net neutrality.

Contention 4: Maintaining privacy.

Privacy to information is important to many people. The only way to prevent large companies from stealing information from people is internet regulation. Companies have many more incentives to steal information than the government, so we need to trust our privacy in the hands of our government. This is especially important as large companies and other individuals are this day stealing information from people nationwide. Regulate the internet, have our privacy protected. [4]
Impacts:
1: Privacy is maintained. Instead of large corporations making money off peoples' information, privacy can be maintained through internet regulation.

What we're seeing in this debate is two things. First, there are a wide array of benefits that are accessible by regulation that outweigh any potential harms. Second, even if my opponent convinces you that the harms are worse, I still win this round. This is because having the ability to do something and doing it are different. The government should have the ability to regulate in case of cyber terror emergencies without needing constant regulation. Through these two points, I either access all of my impacts or all of my opponents, depending on how you view the round.

thanks

1: http://www.ibtimes.com...
2: http://reason.com...
3: http://www.whitehouse.gov...
4: http://www.economist.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dylan160w

Con

dylan160w forfeited this round.
KonstanBen

Pro

Umm...well.....extend all impacts!
I either get all of my opponents impacts except with added safety or all of my own!
Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
dylan160w

Con

dylan160w forfeited this round.
KonstanBen

Pro

Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dylan160wKonstanBenTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
dylan160wKonstanBenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made some excellent points, effectively turning Con's argument against him. Con then forfeited all subsequent rounds. Con failed to cite a single source.