That we should ban anonymous online accounts
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this challenge, and in the course of the debate will demonstrate that
1) Banning anonymous accounts does more harm than good for citizens
2) Cyber-bullying is far from "the worst" thing to happen to the upcoming generations
3) The current system is more than capable of dealing with serious threats. Serious threats.
I wish my opponent bonam fortunam as we both spar at each other from behind anonymous screen names in which to express our point.
Now onto my substantive,
I've defended the common people however now I need to protect everyone.
White collar criminals use anonymity to cover up their crimes however banning online anonymity will act again as a deterrent against this new kind of criminal who is using this anonymous status to steal you're money. Think about that.
Remaining anonymous has been a corner stone of this country. Our voting habits, shopping habits, and yes, personal opinion have all been given some degree of privacy. The ability to express oneself without fear of retaliation enables the press to do its job, as well as a person's well being when expressing contrary positions to a majority.
How is being anonymous online beneficial?
Consider the following: what would happen if the press could no longer find their anonymous sources for pieces? What variety of potential oversight would be available if at all times a name must be attached to information. The fear of reprisal now becomes the issue, and one with much more gravity than a case of hurt feelings. No more can the whistle be blown when some one of power wields it to the disadvantage of many others, the protections that could be offered as a front line are now immediately taken down: there is a name, and with that name, can come consequences that become much more far reaching than just one source.
Is cyber bullying that prevalent? Sure, its a wide spread phenomenon, however its only as harmful as the "victim" wants it to be. As a high average, roughly 25% of teens will have experienced some variety of cyber bullying through their wireless devices, (1) However this in mind, exactly, what has been the result of such a large statistic? Wikipedia attributes 15 suicides to bullying. Not cyber bullying, bullying in general, from as early as the late 1800's. (2) I don't feel I need to quote how many suicides resulted from sexual abuse or rape for teens, however if your curiosity has a morbid bent, its safe to say, much more than 15 over the course of a century. Please see (3) for evidence on that if you feel like being horrified, however I have no problem calling cyber bullying far from "the worst" thing to happen to upcoming generations. At best, this is sensational hyperbole. At worst, its a slap in the face to those abused teens and children.
The Real Solution.
So, how does the current system prevent cyber bullying from happening? By putting the power to halt the cyber bully's attacks in the victim's hands. Block calls. Change numbers. Report to whatever social media group the "victim" is part of. An instant message is only as powerful as the strength you give it. Sure, human nature craves conflict, but that conflict can only turn real if the victim allows it to. The solution is not law enforcement. The solution is not halting anonymous online capability. The solution is better parenting. Teach your children fact from fiction, teach your children how to handle adversity, and teach your children to unplug some times. Social media is supposed to be for social causes, the best solution is simply the common sense realization that when its no longer about being social, and instead about being personal, its time to ignore the source.
To what end?
I can honestly think of no reason to want to know of my harasser's identity. My desire, usually in my teens was to ignore what I could and deal with what I couldn't. Well... hang on. In retrospect... in thinking back to my teen years, I did want to know whom made the prank phone calls, and who did what to me, and its not for a sense of justice or corrective action. Revenge. Retaliation. To do unto others. Righteous vindication. I submit that such a tool would not be used for "good", that being personal information immediately available to all online members. I submit that the flighty and capricious nature of teens might immediately exploit this to bad ends. Possibly even violent ones. Where does that leave this model now?
In the next round, I will proceed to demonstrate how
a) banning anonymous online accounts actually hurts "everyone"
b) anonymous status isn't used to steal money
c) offer closing remarks
WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO TACKLE CYBERBULLYING?
The opposition has stated that "By putting the power to halt the cyber bully's attacks in the victim's hands" will halt cyber bullying. That is the status quo, however when i pressed my argument it has been greatly misinterpreted. Although now looking back upon my first argument "Cyberbullying- the worst thing to happen to this generation" was probably a massive overstatement but apparently from the comments i was saying is that we should lock up 8 year olds but that is not my case. I would like us to create a new deterrent that actually works. "More than half of young people surveyed say that they never confide in their parents when cyber bullying happens to them." That's a statistic from source (1) . Another statistic i found from source one was "25 percent of teenagers report that they have experienced repeated bullying via their cell phone or on the internet." Only 25% of teens report they have been cyber bullied however source one also says that 95% of teens have witnessed cyberbullying across various mediums. I guess what i'm trying to say is implementing this ban can and will act as a deterrent against cyberbullying.
IS BEING ANONYMOUS BENEFICIAL?
My opponent was strong in stating that anonymous sources will not exist however much of the time the person asks to be anonymous because the media all ready knows their identity, All i'm arguing for is the online anonymity to be banned, news sources do not have to quote the person they received the information from. It is up to the media to decide where they get it from. My opponent also said, "No more can the whistle be blown when some one of power wields it to the disadvantage of many others." however whistle blowers don't have a secret alibi. The two most well known whistle blowers are Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Two people that I know, i've seen interviews with, i know where they are right now and i'm sure they know the whole world knows where they are. The main reason anyone will take you're whistle blowing seriously is the fact that they know you're identity. If you didn't come from inside the company and know their inner workings how can we not trust them however if they are an anonymous source we are less likely to believe them. I just wanted to point out the misleading statement made by my opponent. My view on anonymity being beneficial is that there is no point being anonymous if you have nothing to hide.
I have showed you the reasoning behind the need for a deterrent against cyber bullying and i have explained the exploitation of anonymity by white collar criminals and finally i have shown you the two clashes each falling towards my favour. This is the last time I will write so I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and I wish you luck for future debates.
Source (1) http://nobullying.com...
I have outlined my round, so lets get right to it:
Banning anonymous online accounts hurts "everyone".
The simple fact of the matter is that we as a person demand a certain degree of privacy when we conduct transactions, whatever they may be. I don't want websites to know who I am when conducting business with them, I am a person, with money, whom wants their services. That is really all any transaction should ever be. Assuming we remove the veil of being anonymous, we have now opened ourselves up to the various pitfalls of what could happen. Why should anyone do business with a felon? If you are who you are, online, I just run a credit and background check, and find you unworthy of patronage. How many "auction" based websites would simply remove the clientel they feel is not up to standard of auction for their site? The economy can't support immediate presupposition and investigation of all financial activity, which is inevitably where such would lead.
I will move on to my most damning of points regarding this later, which I find to really be the center piece of my argument when it comes to being anonymous online.
Identity theft is caused from some one being the exact opposite of being anonymous: they are posing as a real life person. They have access to your resources because they have technologically pilfered all the requisites to posing as you. Were online accounts to be restricted to a traceable source, it guarantees more information to the thieves in which to build their "you" disguise. This is point being brought up by con is such a detriment, I am surprised it was even mentioned.
Yes. I down play cyber bullying. If you are holding a hot potato, what do you do? If you are smelling an offensive smell, what do you do? If you are reading offensive material, what do you do? Pro would argue that its not your responsibility to judge what is offensive, and instead track to a source what could be construed as offensive by subjective audience. I down play cyber bullying because Pro would have you down play your involvement in how you react to what you find objectionable. Oblique sanitization is the resultant of an "closed" Internet. There is no contrary point of view. DDO would not exist were accounts traceable to a direct person, and I think my opponent tipped their hand in the following:
"My view on anonymity being beneficial is that there is no point being anonymous if you have nothing to hide."
I don't know who you are. I have no idea how strong the courage of your conviction runs, I have no idea if you would do harm to me or my family because I can and will vote against you in local politics. I have a lot to gain and hold by hiding from people of opposition. The quote given by pro demonstrates the naiveté that is part of the human condition: some people want to silence opposition. By whatever means necessary.
Frankly, I would much rather NOT give the tools to such miscreants, but... that is for our voters to decide.
Thank you all, and in light of the previous, please vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year 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: See comments for RDF
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.