The Instigator
bored123456
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Radicalguy44
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Radicalguy44
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,889 times Debate No: 11580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

bored123456

Pro

hello, this is my first time debating on debate.org but not my first time debating, and just to see how debating here is like, i decided to make this round. good luck to my opponent.

first, i would like this debate to be similar to Lincoln Douglas debate, where the negative has the burden of refutation, to attack my case, except i would not like to use a value/criterion in this debate.

Resolved: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses

definitions:
internet: a way of communicating,getting information
and other miscellaneous activities on a computer or portable device

good: positively benefiting in some way

harm: negatively affecting something in some way

united states businesses: a company or industry created to distribute products or provide services to people in the united states and united states allies

contention1) the internet allows people all over the world to communicate. in industries, you could have customers all over the world. you need an efficient way to communicate about your products and/or services to these people. by using the internet people can talk anytime, anywhere that they have access to it. if they cannot communicate with their clients then they will be losing money.also, if people know about their products/services and are happy with them, then they can use the internet to communicate with other people around the world that they might know, and might want to use their product/service

contention2)the internet allows people to get information. businesses can create a website for their products/services so that people all over the world can know about it. they need people to know what they offer so that they can have a successful business. it also allows the business to know what their competitors are doing. with the internet they can have easier access to know what the other people have to offer. with this information, they can get ideas on how to better their products/services.

thanks for reading, and i hope that my opponent is able to respond soon
-bored123456
Radicalguy44

Con

Welcome bored123456 to debate.org, and I hope you will have a nice experience while at debate.org. Haha, I actually know this guy, (Julian) and I hope that he will have a nice debate today.

I am Radicalguy44 and I will be debating negative for the resolved:
On Balance the internet does more good then harm for the united states businesses.

I will say one thing. All the negative has to prove is that the internet does more harm than good, not that the internet is ALWAYS bad for businesses.
I will first start by stating my case, and then move on to attacking my opponent's case.

I accept my opponent's definitions, and will therefore go by them

Value: Danger= liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
Criteria: Cost Benefit = pertaining to an analysis or study of the actual cost of a project in relation to the potential benefits that will come from it

CONTENTION 1: While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk.
SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. "A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U.S. prosecutors.
The U.S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering "Executive Dating" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services." Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless.
SOURCE: http://www.king5.com...

CONTENTION 2: The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to attacking my opponent's case

1) "contention1) the internet allows people all over the world to communicate. in industries, you could have customers all over the world. you need an efficient way to communicate about your products and/or services to these people. by using the internet people can talk anytime, anywhere that they have access to it. if they cannot communicate with their clients then they will be losing money.also, if people know about their products/services and are happy with them, then they can use the internet to communicate with other people around the world that they might know, and might want to use their product/service"

My opponent stated that we need an efficient way to communicate with people. He has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet.

2) "contention2)the internet allows people to get information. businesses can create a website for their products/services so that people all over the world can know about it. they need people to know what they offer so that they can have a successful business. it also allows the business to know what their competitors are doing. with the internet they can have easier access to know what the other people have to offer. with this information, they can get ideas on how to better their products/services."

I agree with my opponent in one thing. "they need people to know about what they offer". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls.

In conclusion, the internet fails quite a lot, even more than TV. TVs cause a greater advantage to businesses than the internet does, since there are way too many risks that a company could be taking while using internet access

~Radicalguy44
Debate Round No. 1
bored123456

Pro

i would first like to thank my opponent marin for responding so quickly, and would like to start the round by defending my case on my opponents attacks, and then refute his case

for my first contention he said "My opponent stated that we need an efficient way to communicate with people. He has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet."

my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t.v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet?

for my second contention, my opponent stated "I agree with my opponent in one thing. "they need people to know about what they offer". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls."
first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now i would like to go onto attacking my opponents case
for his first contention he said"While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk.
SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. "A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U.S. prosecutors.
The U.S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering "Executive Dating" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services." Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless.
SOURCE: http://www.king5.com...;
he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information.they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer.

my opponent said in his second contention:"The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people."

he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not.

now for my conclusion: in conclusion the resolution states: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses. which means that i have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, my opponent stated the harms of viruses and that it is unpredictable, but i have already attacked those arguments. my opponent has tried to attack my case saying that there are better methods, but i have already defended that, and the other methods aren't even reliant to this debate, the resolution is only talking about the internet and nothing else. my opponent said that there are other ways to get information,but as i have already stated we aren't talking about anything else other than the internet. i have proven the benefits of the internet to businesses, and i have attacked the harms, so, that means that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, so that is why i urge you to please vote for the affermitive in this debate
thanks,
-bored123456
Radicalguy44

Con

Thanks to my opponent (bored123456) for responding quickly. I will first give a road map of what I will do

I will first attack his case, and defend mine.

"my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t.v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet?"

I shall kindly ask my opponent to read the resolution once more. "the internet does more harm than good for united states businesses." He is making arbitrary comments here, not referring to the topic. We're talking about how the businesses use this, not how the people use the internet.

"these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet?"

Just because it's cheaper, doesn't mean it's better. By using telephones, or a TV, you easily gain more clients than you would by using simply the internet. And besides, we are talking about BUSINESSES in America, that may get more people in the outside world. Therefore we ARE talking about people in the outside world.

To answer his question: "does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet?"
Yes. Many small businesses don't use the internet to communicate. There are many of these. I can name quite a few. For example: the company "spectrum dental" does NOT have email, because they don't have internet access, according to one of their doctors.

"first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business.

The practical solution is not using the internet. Polls can easily be manipulated if used in the internet. The term for these people is "hackers". Just because you find a lot of them online, doesn't mean anything. You can also find a lot of viruses online, a lot of men online, etc. This is arbitrary to the resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to defending my case

"he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information.they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer."

Actually, we are talking about dating sites, because they are part of a business. A business that went wrong. There were also plans of taking over that industry, but failed because it was a scam. My opponent also stated that there is a way to get viruses out of computer. That does not matter! Because some viruses actually hack into your information and erase your information! sure you can take the virus off, but the information is one that is lost in cyber-space and can't be recuperated.

"he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not."

I would like to point out that my opponent did NOT use a single piece of evidence, therefore if he is bringing this up, he also needs to bring up the fact that he did not use a single piece of evidence. Nothing is perfect he says, of course not, but there is a best way, which is using other forms of advertisements. My opponent also is making an argument to ignorance, by saying that I am using a lot of hypothetical s on whether or not internet fails. This is a fact, not a hypothetical, checking the recent internet fails, I see that there are a lot, therefore this does not fall under the category of a hypothetical

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MY OPPONENT DID NOT ATTACK MY VALUE NOR MY CRITERIA, THEREFORE LETTING THE HEART OF MY CASE GO THROUGH.

For my conclusion: In order to be on the safe side, and in order to guarantee selling, you do not need to use the internet. On balance it does more harm than good.
Debate Round No. 2
bored123456

Pro

bored123456 forfeited this round.
Radicalguy44

Con

It seems as though my opponent has forfeited this round, thus having a hole in the flow.

I have proven why the internet is a hazard for businesses all around the world. There are way too many dangers that could get a company to a bankrupt status, and this he has not defended adequately. I have attacked all my opponent's points, and I have maintained the burden of refutation

Please vote CON / NEGATIVE for this debate!

~Radicalguy44

P.S: Thank you for a great debate. You were an excellent opponent and I hope you do good in debate.org!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bored123456 6 years ago
bored123456
oops,only supposed to comment once on that :/
Posted by bored123456 6 years ago
bored123456
lol,thank you
Posted by bored123456 6 years ago
bored123456
lol,thank you
Posted by Antonio12 6 years ago
Antonio12
bored has my vote
Posted by Antonio12 6 years ago
Antonio12
no i won't take off my pants radical
Posted by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
hello kid who i dunno
enjoy the debate buddy! :)
Posted by Antonio12 6 years ago
Antonio12
it is me jorge
Posted by Antonio12 6 years ago
Antonio12
hi juilan and marin
Posted by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
tricky resolution.. and also businesses is mis-spelled :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
bored123456Radicalguy44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07