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

The 'right to be forgotten' from Internet searches ought to be a civil right.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,068 times Debate No: 64614
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The 'right to be forgotten' from internet searches ought to be a civil right.

This is an upcoming LD topic. The debate will be held in such a manner. If you aren't familiar with what LD is, I HIGHLY ADVISE THAT YOU DO NOT ACCEPT.

Rounds will be as such:

Round One: Acceptance
Round Two: Aff case, Neg case + Rebuttals
Round Three: Aff rebuttals, Neg Rebuttals
Round Four: Aff rebuttals, neg types no round as agreed upon to meet the three-two speech limits.

First round is acceptance. Gl to my opponent


I accept this debate.
I am a ld debater, and am familiar with this topic, as this is the topic we are debating right now.
Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


I value morality. Knowledge is created through the reflection of objective reality onto our consciousness. UTI:[1]

cognition takes place as objective reality is reflectedonto consciousness. …"we comprehendedconcepts-as the reflection by the mindof an external world existing independently The first step in the process of cognition is contact with the external this [is] perceptionThe second step is to synthesize perception this [is]therational cognition proceeds from sensory cognition to rational cognitionand from rational cognition to practice. … knowledge can in no way be separated from … human actionand social activities, …”

This rules out a priori side-constraints since objective reality is the only truth and human experience is the only relevant way of understanding it, making material ends ontologically and epistemologically relevant.

And, the universe is causally closed, so moral statements must be based in physical facts about our mental states. Papineau:[2]

the conservation of energy impl[ies] that if mental … forces arose spontaneously, then there would be nothing to ensure that they never led to energy increases. Detailed physiological research, … gave no indication of any physical effects that cannot be explained in terms of basic physical forces that also occur outside living bodies. … since the only laws governing behaviour are those connecting behaviour with physical antecedents, mental events can only be causes of behaviour if they are identical with those physical antecedents.

This means util since there are no side-constraints in nature – suffering is a mental state which we have a reason to avoid. Metaphysics confirms the undesirability of suffering - each agent values their own pleasure, so they must also value the pleasure of others. Sayre McCord:[3]

“the evaluative starting point is … each person thinking "my own happiness is valuable," … this fact about each person is taken as evidence, with respect to each bit of happiness that is valued, … Each person … ha[s]…reason to think … there is the same evidence available to each for the value of the happiness that another person enjoys as there is for the value of one's own happiness. … happiness is such that every piece of it is desired by someone, … in taking ourselves to have reason to see the bit we value as valuable, we are committed to acknowledging the value of all the rest.”

Even respect for the rationality of persons mandates consequentialism. Cummiskey:[4]

“If I sacrifice some for the sake of others, … I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have … unconditional … worth” …but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others … The concept of the end-in-itself thus … dictates that one … sacrifice some to save many.”

Thus, the standard is maximizing wellbeing.

Contention One: No right to be forgotten causes discrimination in the hiring process.

People’s past crimes, even if they’re old and outdated crimes that don’t apply to their behavior today, still come back to haunt them when they apply for jobs. Wright:[5]

“ “So I made a phone call and asked to speak to them,” he explains. He says his boss told him, “We found out you have a record. And you can’t work here, … At age 22, Rivera says, he committed a burglary in the Bronx. … The judge didn’t make him serve any time, just released him to his parents’ custody and gave him five years of probation. Within two years, he’d earned release from probation … But the conviction has nonetheless stalked him ever since. “Twenty years later, it’s still there.” “

And, this instance is empirically confirmed. Wright 2:

“Rivera is part of an uncounted population of formerly convicted … people trying to find work … They are failing, … thanks to the illegal but still widespread practice of employers rejecting … or firing workers solely because they have criminal records. … Following 9/11, lawmakers issued blanket bans on former felons working in a broad range of … jobs. States followed suit, and the list of banned occupations grew exponentially: … Former felons are now categorically barred from working in more than 800 occupations because of laws and licensing rules, …”

Furthermore, a lot of people stand to suffer from this bias. Wright 3:

“There’s no firm number on the population of workers with criminal records, but the NELP estimates that there were 65 million in 2010 … 28 percent of the adult population. In 2006, the Justice Department spitballed the number at 30 percent of working-age adults. … the EEOC cited a 2010 study showing that 92 percent of large employers run background checks.”

Contention Two: We need to stop unemployment

Domestically, unemployment serves significant detriment to the US economy. Simpson[6]:

“Unemployment leads to higher payments from state and federal governments for unemployment benefits (in excess of $320 billion through the end of 2010… forcing the government to borrow money … or cut back on other … 70% of what the U.S. economy produces goes to personal consumption and unemployed workers. … The production of those workers leaves the economy which reduces the GDP and moves the country away from the efficient allocation of its resources … Unemployment benefits are financed largely by taxes assessed on businesses. When unemployment is high, states will often look to replenish their coffers by increasing their taxation on businesses … discouraging companies from hiring more workers. …”


“There is a dreadful historical continuity to the abuse of the poorest and their presentation as something 'other' and inferior. This should be of no surprise given that such abuse is essential to the legitimation of persistent inequalities and the continued reproduction of poverty, … But no matter what intellectual acrobatics have been deployed the central core of the explanation remains constant: society is not to blame. Poverty and destitution are primarily problems of individuals and families - they were failures and defective,… Such arguments have historically been mobilised to explain not only poverty and the treatment of the poor but virtually every major form of social differentiation and injustice. They have been deployed forcefully to legitimate colonialism and the abuse of black people both in Britain and in its empire. They have been similarly used against women to JUstify their subordination in relation to men. They have been employed against people with physical disabilities, against those with Iearmng difficulties, against gays and lesbians. Capitalist societies have an extraordinary history of taking differences between people and using and abusing them to maintain and sustain patterns of privilege and power.”

The current outlook on the poor has caused the poor to believe that they are worthless—the focus on getting rich as the standard solution for social ills precludes alternative thinking and leads to dehumanization. Hooks[8]:

“our nation's poor believe that you are what you can buy. Since they can buy little they see themselves as nothing. They have passively absorbed the assumption perpetuated by ruling class groups that they cannot live lives of peace and dignity in the midst of poverty. … they feel no hope, … this nihilism is a response to a lust for affluence that can never be satisfied and that was artificially created by consumer culture in the first place…. the lust for affluence in contemporary society has become psychotic:… Nihilism is a direct consequence of … unrelenting class exploitation and oppression produce in a culture where everyone,…, is socialized to desire wealth…. The result of this psychosis for the poor and underprivileged is despair. … I have been stunned by the way in which unrealistic longing for affluence blinds the folks I know and care about who are poor, so they do not see the resources they have and might effectively use to enhance the quality of their lives. …”



godgirl04 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I probably should've seen this coming...


godgirl04 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Only a few more hours...


godgirl04 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
And just as a forewarning, my cards won't have citations next to them (just because this is an ongoing topic and I don't want to be handing out cases to anyone who has two brain cells and can click on this debate). If you want to see the citations I can provide them to you via PM.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by neverBSAD 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.