how to protect our privacy on the Internet?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will start off with my rebuttals first.
Resolution and Pro's argument
I would like to start off by mentioning that my opponent is arguing off-topic. The resolution is "how to protect our privacy on the Internet?". The resolution is more of an advice question rather than a debate resolution. Thus this is impossible to debate and neither my adversary nor I can "prove" their point and uphold their BOP. What's more, this debate could have actually been used as an advice area, but my adversary turns it into an actual debate instead. Therefore, my opponent is willfully off-topic.
In case my adversary wants to continue debating what he seems to want to debate, I will refute his arguments the normal way:
1. My opponent states that groups like Facebook and Google are violating our private life. This is a fallacy on two levels:
a) The "life" that my opponent seems to be talking about isn't private. It's public life. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be what it is like today: a SOCIAL network.
b) Since it is public life, it cannot be "violated". Even if it were possible, they aren't trying to violate our "life".
2. Another fallacy my adversary states is that they can earn billions of money by selling our information. This simply isn't true. Only the least rational thinkers would pay a billion bucks for a bunch of private info. What's more, this info is for the purposes of friend-making.
3. Adblock isn't exactly relevant to this debate, as it has nothing to do with private info. It seems to just be about a faulty advertisement blocker.
4. As a conclusion, Pro finally states that we have to be paid for our "private" (or rather, not) info. This indirectly contradicts Pro in one of the things he notes down. In it, he says "We all love those tools because they help us in many ways, like web searching, keep connected with friends, etc. ".
It is a contradiction because it is simply illogical for a person to be paid for doing something that the person wanted to do in the first place.
Ok, to clarify, I have to argue that social networks are no harm to our privacy (even though it is not really what the resolution says).
Might I add, social networking sites only make money off of how many likes, shares, comments, posts, applications and whatnot are on the site after a period of time. They do NOT sell our information for money, or else thy would haveclosed down by now.
As you can see, my opponent has created a faulty conclusion and has failed to uphold his BOP (or lack thereof).
(1) https://www.facebook.com... "We require our applications to respect your privacy..."
To answer your most important point that people know that they selling your information it's not true. Even if these informations are present in term and policy nobody really take time to go further and now how Facebook work. I'm 20 year old and i wanted to develop my commerce. Like every commerce i need marketing to make people know my products. So i went to Facebook to put some ads, and then i see what i could not imagine. When you are a commerce you can choose target marketing in Facebook with consist to take a target of people and advertise just for them. This is a genius concept and the only brevet Facebook have is for this audience target. When i learn that i refuse to market on Facebook because even there's term and policy, there's something calling law, moral and ethics. And they don't respect that
Your second important point is that it's a contradiction to say Facebook and Google are great tool but they violate life privacy. I don't know where is the contradiction. If a friend of you make some really good things, but do some other bad thing you are not obliged to see him everyday or don't see him anymore. You can say: "i like my friend really much so i will try to make him a better person". It's the same for Facebook and Google. We like them very much but we will try to make them better.
1. Pro's statement is way too general. How would he know that no one goes through the terms of service and privacy policies? I know I do. And I've been informed of others on DDO reading the TOS before debating. Therefore this statement is instantly fallacious.
2. I honestly do not understand how having audience targets is disrespecting terms of service. All advertisements, as I had learned in school, have audience targets in order to specify what their product is about, for, and for who to use. My adversary even goes as far as to say that it violates the law. What's more, advertisements don't correspond to this debate.
3. I did not say it contradicted the point that it violated our privacy. I stated that it contradicted the point in which you said that we must be paid for our info (or vice versa). To clarify:
A) We all like Facebook and Google as useful tools.
B) We must be paid for our info.
These two statements are contradictory, as you are basically stating that we must earn money for using a service that we like, that the founders had to work hard for. This is very illogical.
4. Not knowing how to type a resolution or where to type one is no excuse in a debate. It may even cost my opponent conduct points.
My opponent has again failed to fulfill his BOP (or lack thereof).
With that, I hand the floor to pro.
We are starting to converge, and you don't see it.
1- I have some marketing courses, so we learn that we have to find our target market to sell our product. But what i think personally is that the notion of target market don't have any signification today. With internet you don't have market, you just have people from everywhere that have different needs. So even if you are not thinking of target market, your product can be advertise
2- I am 100% with you that Facebook should still exist. I'm just asking you if we found a way for them to still earn money and don't violate our private life, will you agree for that?
At this point, I honestly think that my opponent is arguing even more off topic than before. I will show it here.
1. My opponent states that our points are starting to converge, but provides absolutely no clarification as to how this is true. I ask my opponent to elaborate.
2. My adversary completely drops the point that I made at the end of this section, in which I stated that this is off-topic. Never once has he ever addressed this so far.
3. I have two things to say about this section:
A) Pro again drops my argument that social networking sites make money solely off of the things I had listed in the first round.  He even drops another one regarding that the notion that these sites invade our privacy are simply not true.
B) As I had already proved, they already are making money without the need to sell our information. There is no need to figure another way they could do this.
Pro is now more willfully off-topic and still hasn't addressed that fact that he has created a faulty resolution.
(1) My first round argument.
Yahyal forfeited this round.
Extend all my arguments.
Yahyal forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: full ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.