The Instigator
jameswalters
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
BriMarie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

are we real when we are online?

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 1 vote the winner is...
jameswalters
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 37583
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

jameswalters

Con

Whosoever answers this call to arms I must gladly say...

Hi...

First we must ask who we are online.

The world is shrouded in illusion and social media is making it worse in some areas.

We can be whoever we want to be... online.

It's too easy to just say we are who we aren't in reality...

But when we can't see the people judging, or them see us we can be whoever we want to be.

Note to you debaters out there, this debate is 5,000 characters long (just warning you).

I'm James Thomas Walters and I have just started my third debate.
BriMarie

Pro

I agree that we can be anything on the internet. BUT most people know that almost everyone is being safer now on the internet and taking precautions as to who they talk to. Since people do this now, anyone who usually fakes who they are give up knowing that whoever they are trying to fool will most likely look into his/her fake identity.
Debate Round No. 1
jameswalters

Con

Dear BriMarie,

Thank you to answering my debate. I love this and do it... I suppose you could say "for sport" (I'm not a hunter). Thus you should automatically know that I have respect for my "target" and I will give you the highest respect.
I don't permit swearing or corse language of the type.

Like I have just said lets start with asking "who we are online"

allow me to start with a modified quote,

"Who are we"
"Who... Who is but a form following the function of what and what we are, are people in masks"
"Well you can see that"
"Im not remarking upon our powers of observation I'm merely mentioning the paradox of asking masked people who they are"

(from V for Vendetta (modified and off the top of my head)),

Now down to business,

Your idea is revolving around the point that people are exercising caution at a high level, but we all know how to be innocent, and writing as if we are innocent is easy. I could (for instance) be a illegally using drugs, but I come across as kind and fair when you don't see me face to face.

If I were in front of you (and if I did use drugs) you would find "hints" of me using drugs (smell for instance), but I'm not on any (non medicated) drugs.

Can you trust what I have just said?

I'm James Thomas Walters and I don't do drugs (I could tell you that much about me and that would be all you know).
BriMarie

Pro

BriMarie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jameswalters

Con

As my beginning proclamation I must say that I might of said that I'll wait for pro's opinion (and quit this round) but its been three days, I don't have any other rounds, and I still haven't found an answer to my friend request (Single teardrop).



When I said,


"Who are we?"
"Who... Who is but a form following the function of what and what we are, are people in masks"
"Well you can see that"
"I'm not remarking upon our powers of observation I'm merely mentioning the paradox of asking masked people who they are"



What this means is that no matter how honest you are you cant be trusted because it is impossible to find ones true identity without (as I may put it) "taking off the mask" and in a virtual world it's almost impossible to take off this mask by hand.

Note: it's not as simple as looking at superman and looking at Clark Kent and putting two and two together, now our faces are invisible (online) and even if you use Skype or a program like face time you can choose to have a photo instead of using your actual face (and thus another mask).



I'm James Thomas Walters and I kind of miss pro (pro had good arguments).
BriMarie

Pro

BriMarie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
jameswaltersBriMarieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff