The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

This house regrets the rise of anonymity in social media

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,308 times Debate No: 83724
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Ladies and gentlemen. The social network has been affecting many people's life. We all know what social network is. It includes something like facebook or twitter, and it is very rampant, widespread in our community.

What i mean by anonymity here is, a state when people do not disclose their real identity. They can change their name into somebody else's, or into something like Superman, Snow White, or Barbie to falsify their whole identity in social network.

This is what we do when we sign up in facebook or twitter when we are asked to give email address or username, we can type any names that we want to use, but we don't have to disclose our real identity. While actually facebook can do a more complicated measure by putting in our real identity, something like putting in the name of the country where we live in, to let us access the facebook which makes our identity become real such as some company always require people to have ID card

Now i will move on to the arguments why i want to defend this statement.

Firstly, the nature of anonymity is people think that they are anonymous which makes them feel more free to talk their mind.They can be extremely abrasive in their words or speech, they can give their hatred speech, such as showing hatred to another races without being judged or accessed. There is also sexual predator which can utilise this matter to approach younger people and in the end rape them when they meet up.Because they can falsify their real identity, something like lying about their ages,name or gender, which is anonymous and makes them harder to be detected.

This is my first argument and the next argument will be presented by myself on the second round, as well as the rebuttals that will be made against my opponent. Now, I look forward to my challenging opponent


I will be arguing that anonymity in social media is good and not something we should regret. First of all, I will say that there will never be 100% anonymity in social media. The moment you mention social media, we all of us accept that this is a tool which will never be 100% made up of authentic people. Moving on...
My opponent says that social network sites like Facebook and Twitter allow people to use fake identities. First of all, I think that yes, it is true that you can use names which are funny or names of iconic fictional characters etc and these names are not your real name. However, these days, social networking websites, especially the most popular ones nowadays have strict security measures that make it very difficult for a person to pose as someone else. (Regrettably, is not yet such a website and we can see this from the amount of spam and troll debates, but at least, they too have certain measures which include you completing 3 debates before you are actually allowed to vote :) ) My opponent himself agrees that Facebook has, in his words "complicated measures" that make it difficult for a person to create a fake account for unhealthy purposes.

Yes, ultimately you will be able to create a fake profile if you try hard enough, but arguably your fake profile will not be very good at achieving its aim. Most probably if you had a fake profile on Facebook, for instance, you would want friends to get an audience. How many times have we gotten friend requests from fake profiles on Facebook and we know those are fake profiles by just spending a minute to look at the user's wall, mutual friends etc and deciding that that particular account is fake. It really is not difficult to spot a fake account.

The point here is my opponent makes it sound like it is so easy to create fake identities on social networking websites, but this is certainly not the case. Some other measures include the ability to "report" or "flag" fake users or posts and comments that are damaging to the community. If a person is gullible enough to fall for a fake friend request, they should be more educated in how to use social media safely, and it is not the fault of social media.

My opponent then says that since people are anonymous, they become more free to speak their mind. However, I would argue that people are already speaking their mind on social websites without being anonymous. A famous porn star ridiculed the Quran on social media in full view of the world. Ultimately, Facebook banned him and deleted his profile. Thus, being anonymous is not the issue when people are already being so open in their opinions and arguments online.

Yes, there are fake profiles whose only intention is to spread falsehood but I would argue that these arguments and ridicule ultimately open the door to discussions and making people think. If there are people who love reading these mockeries, these show that they must want to know more or they are interested about a certain topic or issue, and ridicule is one of the ways for them to discuss them. It is no point trying to block people from making fun of certain ideas because, in reality, people are going to have them anyway.

My opponent then talks about social predators. I would argue that it is up to the user to accept someone as their friend. It is up to the user to choose to meet up etc. If an anonymous person chats you up you should be alerted. Again, the user should be more aware of their safety not just online but in their real-life interactions.


Finally, I will bring up my argument for why anonymity is a good thing on social media. Anonymity allows people channel ideas they've always had without fear of being judged. We wish to express our interest and ideas on a host of different things but most of the time, we fear what people will think about us. Anonymity allows people to do what they want to do in the privacy of social networks. This opens up possiblities never before expereinced.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent made a very strong arguments i will proceed to rebut.

Now, before jumping to my argument, i would like to send some rebuttals regarding to what my opponent said.

Firstly,my opponent stated that we always want friends for audiences when we have fake profiles or is anonymous. Well, no, i disagree with this totally. People are not always aiming for audiences when they are anonymous. Mostly, anonymous people always aim for doing something harmful , something like cyber bullying, humiliating others, cursing bad words or stuffs because there is no filter and because they do not care what people think. Therefore, it makes them become irresponsible and the idea that irresponsibilty is good is surely promoted by anonymity because people do not care about the bad consequences for their actions.My opponent also said that it is easy to detect fake account, which i also utterly disagree with. My opponent is being too assumptive about it and he did not even try to explain how it is easy to spot fake accounts. I challenge my opponent to explain this on the next round.

Now i will proceed to my next rebuttal

Second argument, nowadays, people are afraid to use social media just because of anonymity, which is well-known to be dangerous. Many anonymous people steal other users real identity, harass others and cyber-bully others, as what i had mentioned before on my first rebuttal. For example, someone with high reputation is always targeted by another person who is jealous of them. The anonymous person will try to kill the person's reputation by humiliating them in social media. And the person whose reputation is hurt will end up being depressed when trying to find out the anonymous person. Eventually, when he has no chance to find out the anonymous person anymore , he will just put an end to his life out of the anguish he is having. The anonymous person must have responsibility over the death of the person. Even polices cannot track the anonymous person when he is anonymous. And of course It is not the person's obligation to die just because of anonymity.

As i have said before, i will send my last argument in this round. However, my argument has been used in the rebuttals against the opponent, about the irresponsibilty which is promoted by anonymity.

I will extend my case about the irresponsibility. Basically people are a lot meaner when they are anonymous. Because they don't care the consequences for their actions. They can say something bad like "Go to hell" or "Damn you" when they are anonymous. They can also say something bad like You-Know-What (inappropriate to mention the word due to my young age {12}, though it is bad for adults too :D)

This are all the arguments why i think this statement should not fall

I do not think i can extend my case further anymore as i am out of idea now. I am not a good debater but i enjoy debating with my opponent :)


I would like to say thank you to my opponent for this debate. For someone who claims to be 12, he has surely displayed admirable argumentative skills.

Now on to rebuttals.

My opponent said that he totally does not agree that someone with a fake account wants an audience. Looking at it again, my opponent is right. Not everyone who creates fake accounts want an audience, some just want the account to access the website and do their stuff. However, I think that whatever harm they do is something that surely cannot be avoided. In our world today, if you are walking down the street, they will always be the chance someone will kidnap you. That's just an example. Take America for example, where almost everyone can own a gun. You would be afraid to go out every day because if you think about it, there is a real chance someone could shoot and kill you one day, since there are so many guns around.

Yes, I know that this is different from being anonymous on social media. If you kidnap or shoot someone probably people can detect and find you easier compare to an anonymous account. However, my point is, in the world we live in, there will always be limitations to our capabilities to find the bad guys. This should not stop us from utilizing the various tools and technologies around us. Another example I can give is the hacker group Anonymous. They are arguably doing something very good for the world in hacking politician's accounts and exposing dirty truths to the world. However, cyber police were still finally able to stop them and reveal their true identities. No matter what steps we take in anything we do to prevent and stop people from doing bad things, there will always be cases out there and the best we can do is to continue to take measures to limit the damage.

My opponent asked me to explain how to detect fake accounts. I thought I already did when I said you should check the user's wall, mutual friends. The easiest thing you can do is to check whether they have many mutual friends as you do. It's a good sign that the person is real. But the easiest way is to not accept a request from a name you do not recognize. Another step is to see the person's wall. Look at what they have posted all this while. A real person would probably post photos from events, pictures with friends etc and that's a good bet they are a real person. A fake person will not have many things to post about and most probably they just created the account like 2 days ago for fraud purposes. But I think you will learn more about this when you experience more.

My opponent then says victims will be suicidal. I think this is an extremely general thing to say. Any bad thing can probably lead to suicide. Are there much evidence to suggest that cyber-bullying is the main case of suicide? We should probably crack down on the bullies at school and alcohol and weed first since these things are the root cause of social problems among teens nowadays. Nobody can truly say what is the main cause for a person to take their life. In Malaysia, the nation was shocked when a TV personality took his life after a difficult high school exam. He wasn't cyber-bullied. The circumstances of the present moment was too much for him.

My opponent finally says people will use bad words irresponsibly. I would argue people use it all the time in real life. They don't seem to be very bothered at all. What is offensive to you might not be offensive to others. In Australia, people say 'fuXX' almost all the time. They don't think it's offensive, it has just become an expression.

I will not be putting any further arguments because my opponent did not rebut my argument in the first around. Also, I think I have sufficiently rebutted all points put forth by my opponent.

Please drop some comments if you have any feedback. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Andrew.T 10 months ago
Posted by Andrew.T 10 months ago
Posted by Andrew.T 2 years ago
Thank my opponent for the debate. I wish for both of us to win, but if there is only one gap, I will just leave it to the voters to choose between us. I enjoyed debating with my opponent. Thank you!
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
You are never anonymous. Any time you connect to the Internet, anyone who cares can find you really, really easily. You don't have to be a professional.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sdio 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: Good debate. If Pro is actually 12, he/she is one ridiculously educated 12 year old.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Winner: Pro Before I start I want to tell the debaters what my paradigm is. I believe that debaters should win or lose rounds based solely on who was better at debating. This is indicative of things like how well you got your point across, and who was strategically better. The main reason that Pro wins is that CON doesn't make any OFFENSIVE arguments. For instance, in CON's first argumentative speech, the only thing close to offense he brings up is that we are anonymous which allows self expression. But this is hardly even an offensive argument because that is exactly what PRO was inditing. PRO's entire argument is that anonymity makes people bully others which is bad, so bc CON doesn't give detailed reasons why anonymity is good, I have to side with PRO that it leads to bullying and suicide. Con only argued AGAINST pro, he needs his own argument. Even if CON is mostly right, there is at least a risk of the harms PRO outlines. So pro takes the win as the better debater here.