The Instigator
andre
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
TurkeyProphet
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The Internet has had an overall positive effect on our society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 28,706 times Debate No: 8989
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

andre

Pro

The Internet is probably one of the greatest, most powerful, and most useful tool to be invented perhaps of the entire last millennium. This is arguable, as you will no doubt see in my opponent's argument the negative effects of the Internet on our society. Definitions are simple: the Internet is used here to mean the World Wide Web, and other Internet-based communications. Society means the world as a whole, internet users and hosts alike. Positive effect is to convey that the Internet has been beneficial to society. Furthermore: I have classified this debate under "society" to indicate that the debate is not primarily about the technology of the Internet, but, as the title suggests, its effects on society.

The Internet has become a crucial tool in modern life. It is estimated that over 1 billion people have regular access to the internet. The modern economy, and most modern businesses now have a heavy reliance on it. The internet itself is a huge profit centre. Many people now cannot imagine living without the internet. It provides easy access to even the most obscure of information, allows people to share their opinions and other often useful content with anyone who has access to the internet, and it enables users to have cheap communications with anyone around the world, even instantly. It even has given people the chance to fall in love with like-minded people within just minutes! It can be used for educational, commercial, social, and entertainment purposes, and while many people have many complaints to make about the Internet, even they cannot deny the usefulness of the Internet.

So, I await my opponent, with some idea as to what they might say. May the best debater win.
TurkeyProphet

Con

Although my opponent has not given one single source I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance and assume that over 1 billion do have regular access to the internet and that the modern economy does rely on the internet. (I find it odd that someone espousing the wonders of the internet was not able to find sources when Google is only a click away).

Google shows that their are 6.7 billion people in the world. I don't believe that 1 billion is an accurate figure so for the sake of simplicity I will say that 1/6 people have access to the internet. If we were to take 6 people and we were to give to give 1 of these 6 people an iPod, this person doesn't share the iPod or any of its benefits, would you suggest that this iPod overall had a positive effect on the group of 6 people? Now if we take this further and put those 5 people who do not have an iPod and put them in areas where no one had an iPod and people do not have have the money or the ability to benefit from iPods can we really suggest that the 1 person with an iPod is somehow benefiting the entire group? Whilst it probably wouldn't have a negative effect it surely wouldn't have a positive one. So it is fair to say overall the internet had little effect on our society.

As for your benefits to society most of them exist without the internet, the economy still exists, people can still make huge profits (the internet is simply a new medium in which to do so), people can still find love. Clearly we cannot communicate 'with anyone around the world' since the majority do no have the internet.

Perhaps the only point I saw that was actually dependent on the internet was a massive database of information (especially obscure information) that people can educate themselves with. However I fail to see why this is positive to society as a whole, how does obscure information benefit society? Why does the plumber need access to articles on quantum physics or the farmer an explanation of set theory? My opponent must show why having education beyond secondary school level will make a person happier and why it is necessary for the majority of society to know these things.

My opponent must also say why being entertained is important to society or more specifically why people need the internet to be entertained and for that matter must explain why it is better for commercial purposes.

Since we have four more round I shan't use all my points too early but I will address the social one. My opponent suggest it is good to meet like-minded people, I suggest that it far more beneficial for people to meet people with different views and opinions. If people only visit sites that contain people of a similar mind then they will not become familiar with different people.

Furthermore some research* shows that the internet can be detrimental to social skills, it suggested that people who used the internet a lot were lonely and lacked some social and emotional intelligence skills. It is likely that many of these people already had poor social skills and turned to the internet for that very reason, however this has meant they cannot develop their social skills properly. I'm in a bit of a rush now and don't have time to find sources for this but I believe that many teenagers turn to the internet and that is a crucial time in a person's life when they should be developing these skills to help them later on in employment.

I'd also like to add that from my own personal experience has been detrimental to my education, for instance I have a pile of books next to me that I should be reading but I am instead trying to argue that the internet is bad.

Thank you for the debate, I look forward to round 2.

*http://www.liebertonline.com...
Debate Round No. 1
andre

Pro

First of all, I think you can trust my word that it is that many people, I didn't bother to put in a source that you could as you say, research yourself, nor a source that was only a small part of my argument.

While the majority do not have the internet, I did manage to secure myself with a definition that states that by overall, I meant those who are affected by the internet: both users and hosts. And just because someone does not have the internet, it does not mean they cannot be affected positively by it. You have no reason to say they aren't. If, for example, a charity organisation for the homeless reaches out to a huge community that it can do most easily by email, meaning larger amounts of donations, the people who receive the donations in the end, who do not have the Internet, are still positively affected by the Internet in receiving donations. The burden of proof is on you on that point.

Furthermore, while the economy still exists my point was not economic existence but economic blossom. My point was the Internet is a huge asset for the economy. And people still find love. However, the positive thing about the Internet in this department is that it allows users not only to broaden their horizons but to find people who are most compatible. By broaden their horizons I mean that love is difficult to find and out of the few thousand people you meet, very few of these people are people you may want to have a relationship with. However, using the Internet, you can find someone, out of millions, who you otherwise never would have met. That person may well be the one for you.
And even for those who do not have the Internet, consider the potential the Internet has to track people down; or come into contact with a person who has contact with another person who perhaps does not have the internet. The Internet, even if not directly, can facilitate very broad communications.

And here you turn a blind eye to the importance of this information. Perhaps the best use of this information is instructions. Websites like "eHow" and "howtodothings.com" can come up with help for people with all kinds of difficulties. Then we have sites that help to answer questions, like Yahoo Answers, and sometimes people go to forums and other sites to ask for medical help. Information can be used to find the smallest or most diverse of businesses, perhaps which are necessary to find a rare product that you need, research for school work, access news sites, the list goes on. You can check and perform your finances online, learn language phrases, with pronunciations, for your next holiday, and even plan that entire holiday online!

As for people being entertained, my simple answer is, no-one can be against that. The Internet can relieve hours of boredom, though I admit it seems hardly a crucial use, and face it, our society likes to be entertained. YouTube, perhaps the place for entertainment, has become one of the Internet's most popular sites. The Internet provides easier access to all media of entertainment, radio stations, music, videos, TV, movies, there are even some good things to read out there. Youtube, by the way, is not only a hub of entertainment, but has been used, and I say this from my personal experience and the experience of people I know, to do research. You can find rare video clips on the website that are relevant to a wide range of topics. Or clips that explain things visually.

And on the topic of commercial purposes, online shopping is a huge phenomenon, that like small businesses, gives us access to rare products that may or may not be found in your country, and they get delivered to your door. Advertising on the Internet is also very widespread, keeping other websites alive. eBay, of course, and similar sites, have given regular people the chance to buy and sell useful goods for low prices.

I agree that we should meet people with different views, but lucky us, the Internet facilitates this too. Here we are, on a debating site, filled with members of the most diverse opinions. And there's nothing wrong with meeting like-minded people too. In any case, it's a person's choice to find who they wish - this debate isn't about that. My point was simply if we are stuck, as I sometimes am, with people you have trouble being around, it is always good to have people who you are similar to to talk to. I find I make the best of friends with such people.

And the big one, social skills. Of course, the Internet has had some negative effects on people's social lives, however, I like to look at this a different way. I see this, once again, from a personal perspective. Using the Internet, I met a girl who was not only like-minded to me, but who became a very good friend of mine. I (a naturally shy person) have managed to even improve my social skills using another debating site, and on instant messengers which helped me talk to people I couldn't talk to in actual life. I managed to make progress on friendships with these people, even outside of the virtual world. Another study, I might add, (http://www.news.com.au...) shows that young people do still tend to friendships outside of cyberspace. I've even seen this from personal experience again. Many of my peers have active social lives, even though they regularly use the Internet.

As for my education, I think the Internet has been hugely beneficial. Not only do our teachers regularly set homework that requires the Internet, and justifiably so, but I have a habit of doing a lot of research and learning from the Internet. I have gained a fairly vast amount of general knowledge that has helped me to understand a lot of things at school and in other places, be it religious, political, pop culture, statistics, studies, etc. I still am not on my school debating team, but ever since I've been practising again and again online, my skills have progressed a long way, even if I don't show it in this debate (or yet), but that's for the voters to decide.
TurkeyProphet

Con

TurkeyProphet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
andre

Pro

This does not exclude all the people without the Internet, unless people who aren't connected are considered to not be part of the world." - Whatever you say, although I did, purposely try to make this more specifically about those who are directly affected by the Internet, who do live world wide.

"But whether the charity uses mobiles or the internet it doesn't effect starving people in Africa." - I'm sorry, I thought I already proved this. Yes, it does. The use of the Internet to communicate, especially for the purpose of charity, is highly beneficial as there are many means to communicate your message with many people. Websites, advertisements, even chain e-mails. The message reaches more people, which is what you want when your asking for charitable donations, and therefore it is likely that more people will know what the problem is and donate for it.

"You still haven't said why the internet has a positive effect on business." - I have, many times. It has a positive effect not only because it means the ability to buy online, which is easier than other forms of shopping, but also because it allows the cheaper creation of businesses, that is, online businesses, of which there are many. The ability to buy rarer items. Cheaper prices.

And while I may have admitted the entertainment point isn't exactly useful, I'm betting you use the Internet as a source of entertainment, or you sure like to have access to entertainment in any form at all. The Internet provides easier access to more entertainment media, even the most diverse of entertainment, according to one's own preferences.

"Is the internet creating more relationships and is there any proof they are stronger relationships? If not, then it is not having a positive relationship on relationships! You have also conceded that the entertainment factor is irrelevant." - I don't need proof they are stronger relationships, because they are, simply, relationships. And on relationships as a whole, it does have positive effect. It allows people to create them more easily, and with the people they would most like to have a relationship with. Relationship = happy people.

"I will suggest that people learn a subject less thoroughly because of the internet, prior to the internet you would have to read an entire book to learn about a subject, now a simple Wikipedia article tells the basics and people don't go and research further. Furthermore people think knowing the basic outline of a subject is the same as having read primary sources. Therefore through the internet people know very little about a lot." - I disagree with you. You don't have to read an entire book to learn about a subject, only to do so in depth. While the Internet may not, generally, facilitate a deep education on a topic, it still makes it easier to gain information. Most people don't need to access a deep understanding of a topic, that's for educational institutions to instill into someone. Your argument is also somewhat irrelevant. With the Internet, we can find information on diverse topics that are sometimes needed. This is difficult with books. You would be forced to buy expensive textbooks from other parts of the world, otherwise, to find such information, as such information is unlikely to be found in a local library, and even if you did find a book, it would take a long time to find the specific information. The Internet, using search engines, can pinpoint the exact information you need quite easily.

"You flippantly say "Of course, the Internet has had some negative effects on people's social lives", as though it is no big deal. You have admitted that it does have a negative effect on people and being social is massively important to society more so than being entertained or buying rare trinkets on ebay." - I admitted to it having some effect, and I would add, if any. I then proceeded, whether you noticed or not, to explain the positive effects, which I believe outweigh the negatives (this is because the negative effects do not occur for everyone who takes to using the Internet to socialise). And of course it is more important - but that doesn't mean access to the last two things don't make life easier for the millions of people who want entertainment and rare trinkets.
TurkeyProphet

Con

Okay I'm going to quickly address your points:

1. "Whatever you say", my opponent has conceded to my point about only a limited number having the internet and therefore agrees that on the whole it has pretty much no effect.

2. You have no sources showing that the internet spreads charity further or that it brings attention to them. Burden of proof is on you.

3. I don't see why the ability to buy rare items (that aren't needed) is positive on society. I would like to see a source showing that internet businesses profit more than other types. A market stall costs as little as ��122[1] to buy and the rental cost varies. A website can cost little to start up but when they start getting active can cost millions to maintain.

4. Irrelevant whether I use the internet for entertainment. Why does more entertainment have a positive effect on society? Is it actually necessary? Childhood obesity has increased during the same time that the internet became popular[2], now I'm aware that this is a correlation does not equal causation fallacy but it is possible (and I think quite likely) that the abundance of entertainment on the internet and the ability to work at home from the net has meant people are less active. Certainly it has not made them more active.

5. If as you say "because they are, simply, relationships" then what difference does it make whether you find them online or not? "It allows people to create them more easily", I'm not sure where you got that idea. If anything the internet allows you to create virtual relationships with people that you can never meet, perhaps not a negative things but I fail to see how having a cyber relationship is positive for society.

6. "You don't have to read an entire book to learn about a subject" This depends what you define as a subject, in this instance I will refer to it as a 'A course or area of study'. Now obviously learning something limited such as how to butter toast doesn't require a book but that isn't what I call a subject. However areas of study such as Philosophy, Biology, Theology etc. etc. do require an entire book.
You say "Most people don't need to access a deep understanding of a topic", I agree and even to the extent that they don't need even a basic understanding. The only essential knowledge that the internet provides are things such as howto guides but most of them are either not necessary to society or common knowledge.
"You would be forced to buy expensive textbooks from other parts of the world" You can order books in from a local library (and they don't need the internet to do that).
"it would take a long time to find the specific information" Nonsense, if you need short, relevant information you get an encylopedia which only takes a matter of seconds. Nearly all books are well indexed and finding information is never that hard. A lot of esoteric knowledge will take a lot of reading and research on or off the internet, I however find that books are better written and usually more in depth.

5. "I then proceeded, whether you noticed or not, to explain the positive effects, which I believe outweigh the negatives" what you actually said was "Using the Internet, I met a girl who was not only like-minded to me, but who became a very good friend of mine. I (a naturally shy person) have managed to even improve my social skills using another debating site, and on instant messengers which helped me talk to people I couldn't talk to in actual life. I managed to make progress on friendships with these people, even outside of the virtual world. Another study, I might add, (http://www.news.com.au......) shows that young people do still tend to friendships outside of cyberspace."

You gave a personal anecdote about how you met a girl online, you can't use personal anecdotes in a debate because you may very well be lying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but you did not show why it is superior to meet like-minded people online than in real life. "young people do still tend to friendships outside of cyberspace.", this isn't a positive. Just because people don't become hollow after using the internet doesn't mean it outweighs the decremental effects it has on your social skills.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far my opponent has only present three real positives of the internet: It is a place to buy rare items (that are most likely useless things like lava lamps), it provides in depth guides to common sense or knowledge and businesses have a new platform to play on.

I will now present some negative aspects of the internet:

I. Law abiding citizens will turn to crime because the internet provides an anonymous blanket to do so. Illegal downloads of movies, music and software is huge. One article claims 18% (of Australian internet users) download things illegally[3], now 80% of Australians have the internet[4] but only 0.115% are in prison at the moment[5]. Now obviously the number of people in prison isn't representative of how many are criminals but let's even assume that 1% were criminals then then internet is encouraging a massive amount of people to commit crime that wouldn't have before. Now I am aware that many people speed and shoplift and commit other crimes that they wouldn't get prisoned for, but the fact remains that the internet is encouraging people to become criminals because they don't fear being caught. And I am of course assuming that the rest of the internet using world fits a similar pattern to Australia.

II. The internet provides illegal pornography and other illegal material including terrorist manuals and places for like-minded people to plan illegal activities without fear of being caught such as http://news.bbc.co.uk..., cannibals meeting online. Not wanting to have my search engine filled with terms regarding child porn I'm just going to assume paedophiles who before may have been afraid of acting on their urges now have a way of finding illegal materials as do many other groups.

III. "90% of children have accidentally viewed online pornography, The average age for first exposure to pornography is 11, A third of teenagers say they learn about sex by viewing porn"[6]. This place where you say is the perfect breeding ground for finding loves is also the place where a lot of the internet using youth are also coming across material that can be damaging to their future development and whether you feel this way it does mean children are going against society's beliefs and laws.

I'm not naive enough to suggest that these three bad points make the internet a terrible place. However it is clear that for most of the positives of the internet there is also a negative. However many of the positives simply facilitate activities that would continue without the internet and would happen at the same rate. But the negatives have long term damage on social lives, turn people into criminals and provide unsavoury material for those who want it and those who don't. It would be fair to say then that considering most people don't have the internet and that on the whole the internet has something of a neutral effect.

[1]http://www.market-stalls.co.uk...
[2]http://www.iom.edu...
[3]http://www.smarthouse.com.au...
[4]http://www.internetworldstats.com...
[5]http://www.pariahnt.org...
[6] http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com...
Debate Round No. 3
andre

Pro

"So far my opponent has only present three real positives of the internet: It is a place to buy rare items (that are most likely useless things like lava lamps), it provides in depth guides to common sense or knowledge and businesses have a new platform to play on."- Not to mention communications, but don't forget that these points are valid and very useful. Also, I would first like to congratulate you for finally coming up with your own new points.

I. Crime: I have several points to make here. The first would be, of course, this use is a negative of many things, for example, since the beginning of TV, telephones and mail, scams can be carried out with ease. The Internet is simply another new way to do commit crimes. The good outweighs the bad, as it does with the other inventions. My second point is a little outlandish, but I believe, valid. The crime you are mostly referring to is of course, piracy. I once had a debate on the same issue. It is my belief that business are, inadvertently, encouraging the piracy of their products. The typical product that is pirated is usually quite expensive. Had these businesses priced these goods at a reasonably, there would be no need to pirate and they would have ended up with more money. (A typical movie DVD is usually between AUD$20-30. If only one person bought it, and then the rest copied it from this one DVD, the producers earn $30. If it costed just $5, the cost of using enough Internet to download the movie would probably exceed $5, or at least be not worth it. So 1000 people might buy it instead, one for each. The producers earn $5000 from this cross-section.) Furthermore, movies and TV shows are often released in countries such as Australia months later than their original release dates in the USA. Why would I want to wait 7 months for my favourite TV show's new season when I can find it online the same day it is released in the US? However, if the producers made it reasonable, I would watch TV and therefore they get their ratings. Piracy rates are very high, you might think the businesses would start getting the picture: people don't want to pay $30 for one movie. They don't want to pay $70 for programs that do only little jobs. Or more expensive programs. Even if people are turning to piracy, by the way, it does not make them more likely to commit other crimes. It is estimated that more than 1/3 people in Australia pirate, but that has not made our overall crime rate lower. And lastly, I would add that some businesses are actually sponsoring "legal piracy" now, where users can pay a fairly small fee to download files in the same way you would illegally. This is more reasonable. Some countries are making their laws looser. If you don't distribute your illegal downloads, and use it only for personal use, you won't be prosecuted.

II. As for more serious and, I would say, real crimes, illegal pornography, terrorism, and cannibalism, here again the Internet is just another medium for crime to be committed. There were already these crimes being possible to commit before the Internet, and I would remind you, the good again outweighs the bad. These sad cases make up only a fraction of all Internet users and hosts. And governments can and do track them down. (I would also point out that I don't agree there was a lot of criminal intent in that case of the cannibal - the guy asked for it, I think if that's what he really wanted, that's his choice, but that's another matter entirely.) The Internet is not the cause of these problems, these crimes are just a sad fact of life that we must deal with.

III. Yeah, OK. Why don't you give me the percentage of that 90% that was actually mentally damaged by seeing pornography? As for teenagers, the interest in sex is biological - if they choose to look at pornography I also think that should be their choice. Does it make any sense that the law (at least here) allows them to have sex at age 16, but they are (supposedly) not allowed to see pornography until age 18? That is illogical. Also, about your source, the tips on how to prevent them from seeing porn, mention that the parents need to talk to the child. This is true. Psychologists say that it is important for children to learn about sex from their parents. So if the parent doesn't, it certainly isn't the Internet's fault. By the way, most of the "damage" that comes from seeing pornography is "moral" and other unfounded reasons. Kids learn about sex early these days, people have lamented this, but it hasn't done any real harm. There certainly is little proof to say so. I know that even as young as 12, I had classmates who could make jokes with sexual overtones, there is no damaging effect. I don't have any classmates who have STDs, or who have yet even had sex.

"This place where you say is the perfect breeding ground for finding loves is also the place where a lot of the internet using youth are also coming across material that can be damaging to their future development..." - Be more specific. The place on the Internet that facilitates the finding of love is dating sites, not porn sites. I would remind you that dating sites are in fact advertised on TV, regularly, and quite early on in the night as well.

"However many of the positives simply facilitate activities that would continue without the internet and would happen at the same rate." - I disagree - the Internet's positives have allowed the flowering of all people's personalities and interests, knowledge and even productivity, and etc., at rates that never could happen without it. I have friends in foreign countries, certainly friends that I never could've made without the Internet. I learnt a language using thanks to the Internet, faster and more efficiently than I would have without it, for free rather than for money (let's not get into a whole thing about that though), I aided my social skills on the Internet, I learnt all about politics and social issues from the Internet, and a lot of other interests from the Internet, adding a lot of general knowledge and new ideas to myself. The Internet may have it's down sides, like all inventions, and like all things, but generally, it has been a huge help in many ways, to almost everyone who uses it.

(Note: I am at a complete loss as to what your first source proves. On your second source, I don't think this is the fault of the Internet, but of the child and their parents. It's simply about self-control. If they aren't taught this, and if they aren't doing anything, that isn't the Internet's fault. I don't do sports, and I eat right, and I'm thin. I am interested in my own academic progression. It is about self-control. And I would say that, although this definitely does not apply to all children, if they are expanding their knowledge using the Internet, at least they are getting smarter.)
TurkeyProphet

Con

I would firstly like to say that I did not need to provide any new points at all in this debate. It's not simple my word against yours, I really only have to dismantle your argument.

Considering my opponent seems to have ignored my rebuttals I think it is safe to assume that he agrees with them and therefore has no argument.

I. It is irrelevant whether TV or telephones have led to crime we are discussing the internet. Your second point is in no way valid, just because you can justify your crime does not make it legal in the eyes of the law. People are committing theft, and it is a crime they would not have committed otherwise. Even if you steal chewing gum from BIll Gates it is still a crime regardless of the fact it doesn't harm him in the slightest.

"Even if people are turning to piracy, by the way, it does not make them more likely to commit other crimes. It is estimated that more than 1/3 people in Australia pirate, but that has not made our overall crime rate lower." I'm not suggesting it does make people commit more crime besides theft, but I was showing that the internet increases the number of criminals by 17%. And obviously people committing theft wouldn't make the crime rate lower.

II. "here again the Internet is just another medium for crime to be committed." This would be a valid point for some crime such as fraud, however you cannot deny that the internet provides an opportunity for people to find illegal material which they could not find otherwise. Many people wouldn't actually go out and harm children, but with the anonymity of the internet are more likely to look up CP. You could try and justify CP but it is still a crime. Terrorists ideals are another problem that is unique to the internet in the sense that someone may not actually want to associate with terrorists at first but after reading material online may not be afraid. Cannibal case was just one example where like minded people to meet and commit crime. May I remind this is a debate not just your opinions, just because you think mentally unstable people such as cannibals deserve what they get does not make it law.

III. "Why don't you give me the percentage of that 90% that was actually mentally damaged by seeing pornography?" Okay, 90%. Pornography is age restricted for a reason, it is dehumanizing to all involved and does not give a realistic view of sex or more importantly developing a loving relationship. Most hardcore pornography shows abuse and no aspects of humanity. I must admit I find anyone who masturbates to images of women being abused to be a disgusting human being.

"As for teenagers, the interest in sex is biological - if they choose to look at pornography I also think that should be their choice." Pornography is not realistic! A teenagers first experience of sex shouldn't be violent and abusive, it should be showing them how to be safe and to have a loving relationship.

"Does it make any sense that the law (at least here) allows them to have sex at age 16, but they are (supposedly) not allowed to see pornography until age 18? That is illogical." It is not illogical. I'm going to assume you've never had a proper relationship or have learned about sex from pornography. There is nothing wrong with sex it is natural and it is beautiful thing. It should not be dangerous or abusive. That law is not to stop teenagers having sex with each other but to protect them from older people, for instance to stop 30 old men sleeping with 9 year olds. Once again your opinion is irrelevant.

I am sorry to sound patronizing as I imagine I am not much older than you but there is a big difference between porn and real life and learning about sex from porn is damaging, it makes girls think they must look like little boys with large breasts and must abuse their bodies and that men can abuse them.
Debate Round No. 4
andre

Pro

Sorry, I didn't ignore them, I missed them accidentally, so here, I will also take the chance, hopefully briefly, to address them:

1.) You can continue to provide my sentences without a context, twist my words, and pretend I didn't give a rebuttal, but if you ignore my rebuttals, you're just wasting your time. By the way, "whatever you say" is not a concrete admission, and I did not at all agree that on the whole it has pretty much no effect.
2.) I don't need sources, because it was a hypothetical. Even you have to admit it is possible what I sed about charity was true.
3.) The ability to buy rare items is positive for people. I didn't say that Internet business profit more, they just are a good addition to the economy, and do make profit at all, which is something.
4.) Luckily enough for me, I rebutted this one accidentally at the end of my last argument.
5.) My aim is to show to you, which I have, repeatedly, that far from making us more socially isolated, the Internet has connected us in other ways. And clearly you don't know the value of a friendship or a relationship. I have a feeling I'll be hearing about this again. And again.
6.) OK, well, when I said that, I wouldn't have defined subject as broadly as you. Perhaps, a smaller section of those subjects, which would not require a whole book.
You can take in information you're preferred way, but the point is, which you cannot rebut because you know it is true, is that the Internet has the potential to provide us all with vast amounts of information, in depth or otherwise, on even the most obscure of topics. Whether you choose to use it or not, well it's your choice, but I do and I feel it has made me smarter. Our schools choose to use it these day because they see it, and in fact the Internet as a whole, as a vital tool to education and, what will be our future adult lives.
7.) However you read my argument, do it correctly. Anyway. You can choose, again, not to believe, unless you want me to find proof you would find acceptable, which probably isn't possible without delving into my private life, but you could also choose just to believe it, because it is true, and I'll believe most of what you say, whether you provide your source or not. And once again, I'll have to explain to you why it is a positive to meet people online. Because in real life, you don't choose who you meet. And you may well be meeting very few people. But on the Internet, you have the choice of all the millions of people who use it, and therefore, you can meet who you want to meet instead.
And, by the way, my news article was not to show that it is a positive, but to counter what you believed, falsely, to be a negative.

Yes, but the adding of new points certainly livened it up.

I.) Because I can justify it, I prove it is not a negative, even if it is illegal. And I would submit that many things that should be aren't legal. Just because the law says it, does it make it right? No.
As for the 17%, that may be interesting, but as I said, it is just a crime against, what is debatably, and unfair law.

II.) No, I would say the laws against CP, and terrorism, and cannibalism (well I have a special opinion on that but let's not go there) are justified. And I would point out my opinions are also other people's opinions. But you haven't said why these negatives outweigh the positives, (which I admit you have twisted my words about a lot in this debate). Furthermore, I put to you that the Internet is anything but anonymous. These people are caught when their IP addresses are logged and when the government raids the site, they know everyone who has been there.

III.) Oh come on, if all those ninety percent were damaged, you would think we could tell if our teenagers were scarred by it. It does not affect their ability to have an actual relationship, and, contrary to your underestimations, they do know that porn is only for adults' pleasure. You may have been damaged, but most aren't. Our minors aren't as stupid as the government gives them credit for. It doesn't matter anyway - in Australia, here, teens are, at the very least given sex education as young as 12. In some schools when we were 10. They know it is not realistic.

And it is not just my opinion it is the opinion of many. The interest in sex peaks long before many teenagers will lose their virginity anyway. And they are certainly not so stupid as to ignore being abused by 30-year-olds. Even at 9.

I understand that there is a big difference, though I suppose that varies, but it doesn't mean teens won't know it.

Since this is my round 5 -

Overall, the internet does have a positive effect on society, at least, especially in the West. It has allowed us access to large amounts of information, there is even Open Universities options for people who want to go back to university without leaving their jobs in Australia, the communication possibilities are endless, and are in fact used in our courts, for example, those who don't wish to, or can't, travel to Canberra for a High Court session can join by video link (Internet) from their local courts. It allows to feel part of something, or get involved in things, cheaply, as you can join clubs, competitions or events using the Internet, most businesses use the Internet to promote their product, and gain customers, as email is cheap and easy. You can find any service or product we need this way. It saves paper. Emails prevent people from receiving bills in the mail, some services don't even do that anymore, Yellow Pages is now online, so Yellow Pages could stop delivering to homes, although they haven't yet... It creates new business opportunities and is beneficial for people who need products and services that may be difficult to find. Adds to our economy. Creates jobs. Admittedly, it has its faults, like all things, but it also allows people to track down these faults and report them if need be. We can receive news from around the world faster than ever. Something could happen on the other side of the world one minute, the next minute our Internet newspapers and TV's might just break into a news update. The Internet has advanced our society and connected us in a meaningful way. It allows people to gain access to almost anything they otherwise couldn't. Well, if I need say anything more, I'll do so in the comments.
TurkeyProphet

Con

In this last round my opponent has simple restated his previous points and not defended them to the criticism I provided. My opponent also claimed I twisted his argument but provided no examples of deceptive uses of quote mining or the like. I would like to remind my opponent that this is a debate, I am obviously going to pick holes and 'twist' your points, if you haven't outlined them in such a way so that I can't twist them then this is due to your skills as a debater.

I really want to emphasize this point to the audience, this is a debate not simply a 'have your say' section of a website. Please note how many times my opponents argument hinges of their personal opinion and personal anecdotes and also note the extreme lack of sources.

Onto round 5. I would like to point out my opponents first contradiction. "Sorry, I didn't ignore them, I missed them accidentally, so here," My opponent clearly says they didn't provide a rebuttal but then goes on to say "You can continue to provide my sentences without a context, twist my words, and pretend I didn't give a rebuttal". I'm not sure if my opponent was confused or was purposely trying to lie.

1)"whatever you say" is not a concrete admission," Whatever you say is essentially a way of agreeing with me. Perhaps you shouldn't use slangy phrases that can be misinterpreted here if you don't want to be twisted.

2)My opponent claims they don't need sources because it was a hypothetical, I'm confused how my opponent can call it a hypothetical. A hypothetical would be an example of something that could happen (and not something that happens), therefore it is not a real example of positivity spawned from the internet but its potential.

3) "The ability to buy rare items is positive for people." This is not a worthwhile point in a debate you gave no evidence for this nor even basic reasoning. This is what I meant in my round 5 introduction, my opponent has simply ignored my criticism and restated their point.
"I didn't say that Internet business profit more" If they don't profit anymore than when they don't use the internet then it's not an overall positive thing. It just happens to be a thing people use for what they were doing anyway.

4) You did not negate the fact that there have been more obese people since the popularization of the internet.

5)Your aim is to show that the internet has a POSITIVE EFFECT ON SOCIETY, you made the resolution not I. You have not shown how these relationships on the internet have a positive effect on society, nor how these relationships are actually superior to ones forged off line. This is the very point of the debate. You have simply said you can meet new like-minded people many of whom you are likely to never meet.

6) "OK, well, when I said that, I wouldn't have defined subject as broadly as you." You accuse me of twisting the debate, and yet you simply reject my dictionary definition and substitute your own so it will fit your point.
"is that the Internet has the potential to provide us all with vast amounts of information, in depth or otherwise, on even the most obscure of topics." You have yet to say why accruing any information beyond basic survival level is positive to society. You are simply stating the functions of the internet not how they are positive on society.
"Our schools choose to use it these day because they see it, and in fact the Internet as a whole, as a vital tool to education and, what will be our future adult lives." Out of 6 billion people on a small minority are at schools where the internet is used as an educational tool, how can this be a positive effect overall?

7)I don't know why you are ignoring the fact that you can't use anecdotes in a debate. Has the internet increased marriage rates and divorce rates? No. Are people happier than before with their relationships? No. Are relationships the same? Yes. Just because you are too socially inept to know how to meet people outside of the internet does not mean like minded people only exist on the internet. You can't choose who you meet on the internet and if you could this would be a negative because it would narrow your horizons because you'd never be introduced to new ideas or types of people, just those you are happy to have around.

"And, by the way, my news article was not to show that it is a positive, but to counter what you believed, falsely, to be a negative." Your article said people who used the internet still have friends, my research showed that people who use the internet a lot become more socially inept. Yours does not negate or counter my research, they can have friends but be terrible at being social.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I) I did not say the theft of movies and the like was negative, I said turning quite a high percentage of people into thieves and criminals was a bad thing. For example smoking marijuana isn't bad or negative however it is illegal and so getting caught smoking it can lead to negative consequences later in life because having a criminal record is bad. Furthermore it was just your opinions that it is a just crime, it is my opinion that it isn't. See why you can't use opinion?

II) I'm confused as to your point in this instance. You say laws against these things are justified so therefore the internet allowing these people to commit these crimes (easily and without fear of the law) is a NEGATIVE thing. I shouldn't have to spell out the obvious to you. Anyone who doesn't know how to surf the internet anonymously is an idiot, you have no sources for this so I have no reason to believe the government does crack down on lots of people.

III) I can't believe you completely ignored my point. Porn is not a depiction of a healthy relationship it is abuse and children shouldn't learn from that. "It doesn't matter anyway - in Australia, here, teens are, at the very least given sex education as young as 12." Being taught how to have safe sex and how sexual reproduction works is not the same as being shown violent images of women being abused by men and teaching children this is normal. You say porn has no effect on children, however how many teenage girls do you see wanting to have blond hair, massive breasts and the body of a little boy? How many do you see dressing in a manner similar to that of a pornstar? Clearly teenage girls think this is how they should look because porn tells them to. They do no know it is not realistic. If that is their first visual experience of sex why would they think it were fantasy?

"The interest in sex peaks long before many teenagers will lose their virginity anyway." Again no sources but regardless this doesn't mean that watching violent sex is healthy.

"And they are certainly not so stupid as to ignore being abused by 30-year-olds. Even at 9." This is just plain idiocy on your behalf. Many girls aged 15 or so will have sexual relationships with men much older than them, this law is to protect them. If they don't have a law against 30 year old men having sex with 9 year olds how are we going prosecute them? It is very logical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout my opponent has ignored my points, used no evidence and ignored the resolution. Very little of their argument gave clear reasons as to why the functions of the internet were positive to society but simply what the functions were.

By virtue of the fact that only a small minority of the world has access to the internet or can benefit from it at this time shows that the internet cannot have a positive effect on the whole. Many of the functions of the internet do little more than allow people to keep doing the same thing.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JTHunter 2 years ago
JTHunter
No,
It needs to be regulated.
It's the only thing the government doesn't regulate.
Posted by TurkeyProphet 5 years ago
TurkeyProphet
Nonsense!
Posted by andre 5 years ago
andre
We'll have agree to disagree. I could continue to talk about this with you, if you'd like, but I'd rather not. I am not a poor debater, and in fact in real debate, no evidence, or citation of sources is required. I could understand if you asked my for a source on a specific topic, but otherwise, you had no reason not to believe me. You yourself based much of your argument on hypotheticals, as I did I, which you didn't prove could not happen, and there is nothing wrong with using hypotheticals at all. And by technicalities, I mean debating technicalities, which I don't consider to be the primary source of a real argument against the opposition anyway.

Certainly you're a pretty good debater, but very much an extremely tedious one to oppose.
Posted by TurkeyProphet 5 years ago
TurkeyProphet
Technicalities I invited? This is your biggest problem in the debate you make claims but provide no evidence. Nor even solid examples that weren't from personal experience. Personal anecdote is fine but you can't base your argument on them.

"You based all your arguments on technicalities you basically invented" All of my arguments (the arguments that weren't rebuttal) revolved around criminality and how the internet is used to that purpose. I suppose you consider paedophilia and theft technicalities I made up?

No solid rebuttal? In some of the rounds I provided only rebuttal. None of which you addressed. You went into this debate assuming your position was infallible and so ignored my rebuttal and provided no evidence for what you were saying. You assumed that I should fill in the blanks in your argument. For instance you said it could be used for business but you needed to say it meant people all around the world can communicate instantly with online conferencing and that, for example, companies in China can now invest in places like Africa. With the rare trinkets argument all you needed to say was companies can buy cheaper products online from other countries and pass on the savings to society. You didn't even put a reason why education was positive, all you needed to do was show that people with better education earn more and are probably happier. But you assumed all of these things were just axiomatic but I am not here to help you and give you the benefit of the doubt.

I may be an idiot but you are a very poor debater. Your position was ridiculously easy to argue and yet you somehow managed to give a poor argument. The most important aspect of the internet are its uses for communication, for instance people in Iran exposing the atrocities they are facing over Twitter or people being able to self diagnose themselves with the internet. You only mentioned communication once and only in passing.
Posted by andre 5 years ago
andre
I'll be honest with you, TurkeyProphet. You're an idiot. You based all your arguments on technicalities you basically invented, then gave no solid rebuttal to any of my points, and instead decided to pretend I had none. Or perhaps it just was that you had no argument, because you originally had no intention of even taking the debate.
Posted by TurkeyProphet 5 years ago
TurkeyProphet
I will address some points here:

You said"I meant those who are affected by the internet: both users and hosts." However what you said was "Society means the world as a whole, internet users and hosts alike.". This does not exclude all the people without the internet, unless people who aren't connected are considered to not be part of the world.

The burden of proof of what exactly, what am I trying to prove? Large areas of Africa and S.America are not connected to the internet, yes charity may use the internet to communicate to one another but whether the charity uses mobiles or the internet it doesn't effect starving people in Africa.

You still haven't said why the internet has a positive effect on business. Is the internet creating more relationships and is there any proof they are stronger relationships? If not, then it is not having a positive relationship on relationships! You have also conceded that the entertainment factor is irrelevant.

So your points that are valid are: Lots of information relevant to education and online shopping for rare items and small businesses.
I will suggest that people learn a subject less thoroughly because of the internet, prior to the internet you would have to read an entire book to learn about a subject, now a simple Wikipedia article tells the basics and people don't go and research further. Furthermore people think knowing the basic outline of a subject is the same as having read primary sources. Therefore through the internet people know very little about a lot.

You flippantly say "Of course, the Internet has had some negative effects on people's social lives", as though it is no big deal. You have admitted that it does have a negative effect on people and being social is massively important to society more so than being entertained or buying rare trinkets on ebay.
Posted by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
Forfeiting one round doesn't necessarily lose you the debate. Forfeiting more probably will.
Posted by TurkeyProphet 5 years ago
TurkeyProphet
Ooops... didn't have internet access for a few days. Oh well, guess I lose.
Posted by TurkeyProphet 5 years ago
TurkeyProphet
Ummm... I didn't really mean to accept this debate I was just seeing if I could have a debate without confirming my identity. I shall persevere anyway. Sorry in advance.
Posted by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
I'm racking my brain...without making some pretty unwarranted claims or whatnot, this is a tough con to bother with.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 5 years ago
tmhustler
andreTurkeyProphetTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
andreTurkeyProphetTied
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:12