The Instigator
usi_debsoc
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JackDChicken
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

celebrate the rise of hacktivism

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 2 votes the winner is...
JackDChicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 78939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

usi_debsoc

Con

So i'm against hacktivism while my opponent will defend why we celebrate the rise of hacktivism. I will dicuss why hactivism is not good while my opponent will dicuss the benifits of having hackers in our society.
i'm against this because it could cause us more harm in our country and also because that hacktivism is part of a cyber crime law so we should not tolerate them instead of hacking they can do something worthwhile like finding a decent job or focusing om their studies or use theit,intelligence to help our society or gov. than hacking .someone ot something.
JackDChicken

Pro

I am not against hactivism. I believe hacktivism to be an important part in politics and the judicial system, in that hacktivism can bring about truths. Whether they be good truths, or bad truths. For example, revealing info about pedophiles who shoot and distribute CP (child pornography), revealing info unavailable to anyone but the government (thereby giving birth to websites such as wikileaks), revealing holes in security, acquiring information to further proceed trials, and lastly, but not least, revealing crucial, confidential ongoing information to the general public.

I would like it, if you could specify exactly what it is, you do not like about hacktivism.

-Regards, your favorite debating Chicken, Jack D Chicken
Debate Round No. 1
usi_debsoc

Con

I don't like it whenever thier is the word hacktivism is around danger follows it so that's why i'm very concerned about hactivism because it may cause a conflict to that community by just one person and mind you it is illegal and you know why it's illegal because it's bad and dangerous for everyone because by hactivism everyone be a target.
JackDChicken

Pro

You're coming short of an argument, and I think you're not using the correct term for what it is you're describing. There is a difference between a so called 'hacktivist,' and a normal hacker. You see, you're talking about groups such as Lizard Squad, who are hackers because they aren't politically or socially motivated to hack and therefore just do it for the fun of it, and then there are people such as Aaron Swartz, who are politically or socially motivated to hack. Aaron Swartz campaigned for the public to have free access to information and scholarship. To quote him "It"s up to you to change the system" Let me know if I can help."

It is very crucial that you know the difference between a hacker and a hacktivist, though they do basically the same thing in the end, but are motivated by different things. This means that the intend of the hacking is different too.

Just because it's illegal, does not mean that it can't be good. I still stand that hacktivism is important for us as a society, because if we didn't have hacktivists, then the government would have free reins to put the general public in the dark on everything that is happening inside of the government.

Another thing is, that hacktivists can help solve internet crimes with their knowledge on hacking. This means, as I pointed out before, that we can catch people who film and distribute CP (child pornography), people who murder on camera and so on.

-Regards, your opponent and Chicken, Jack D Chicken
Debate Round No. 2
usi_debsoc

Con

So they basically do the same thing so it's still risky for us to celebrate hactivism because you will never have the assurance that they will use it for good not bad because at the end of the day we can never control how people decidebecause you never know he's motive change suddenly because of some particular reason so can never have the assurance so it's risky and early for us to celebrate the rise hactivism because people even if they're grown ups well they'll still have this immaturity inside them.

-thank you for those great arguments now i have an idea when we ever debate this matter
JackDChicken

Pro

I geuss I'm gonna have to elaborate on the 'basically the same thing' part. When I said 'they do basically the same thing in the end,' I meant it in that both hackers and hacktivists hack. But, as I hopefully got through in the same reply, they are motivated by different things. A hacktivist aspires to help you, while a hacker aspires to screw you over. That's the crucial difference between them.

It is not likely, that you will ever get a hacktivist to change his values and stance on what he does with hacking. Yes, we are all immature, but some are better at controlling the immaturity than others. For example, if this was not on debate.org, we would not have to control the way we speak to eachother. We would be able to sling whatever name at eachother. That is not to say that I am restricted from doing this here (the rules tells you not to, but you can still do it but with the risk of getting banned). But would we really do that? Well, if you're interested in debating, then you probably would follow basic debating rules, even when those rules don't apply. The same way, hacktivists follow their interests, which varies but is often socially or politically interests.

This was my first debate on debate.org. I am glad you enjoyed it as much as I did (even though I didn't reply for 2 day)

-Regards, your chickenly opponent, Jack D Chicken
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Fighter_1944 2 years ago
Fighter_1944
To me, saying we shouldn't celebrate hacktivism is like saying no one should participate in civil disobedience movements. Hacktivism is not exactly the same as hacking in the sense that hacktivism is really another civil rights activists can spread their message. I mean, without hacktivism, how can you actively participate in civil disobedience online?
Posted by ThalesofMilesia 2 years ago
ThalesofMilesia
There are two other issues that need to be addressed. You suggest that hackers "should not be tolerated". You should provide a definition of tolerated, and additionally should clarify what con must prove in order to win this debate.
Posted by ThalesofMilesia 2 years ago
ThalesofMilesia
When you say hacker are you referring to individuals who know how to hack or individuals who illegally hack?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
usi_debsocJackDChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the pro, that the con has a misconception of what hacktivists and hackers are. However I won't hold that against him, given our media's harsh criticism and lighting of such hactivists (eg. Edward Snowden). Overall, I thought this was a good debate in terms of conduct and spelling. I do wish that both sides would have used evidence to back up their claims.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
usi_debsocJackDChickenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that "hacktivists" have the interests of the public in mind when they do their work, and Pro also explained how hacktivism is a way to keep government's in check, by bringing out the truth. Con's argument was lacking compared to Pro's, Con was simply saying that you never know whether or not hackers are good or bad, but the resolution states the debate is specifically about hacktivists, who, as Pro said, aspire to help you. In conclusion, arguments to Pro because they showed how hacktivists are helpful and keep governments in check.