school block to many useful websites on the computers at the schools

==Analysis of the "Resolution"==

I doubt that the title of this debate is the actual resolution, because of the inherent disadvantage I would have. However I can formulate one based on what the instigator is trying to say. I think the topic concerns whether or not schools are currently justified in their internet filtering system. To win this debate, I have to prove that filtering systems protect and do more good than harm.

==Argumentation==

In most cases, internet filtering systems are used to protect the students themselves. CIPA (Child's Internet Protection Act) requires schools to use filtering systems in order to block out harmful content, obscenity, or sexually expletive material [1]. This directly disproves my opponent's claim that schools block "useful resources".

The act also allows adult patrons in some cases to temporary disable filtering for a site [1].

I will finish my case/refutation later


Sources:
[1] http://www.ncsl.org...

Conclusion:

Apparently, my opponent's case is founded on the assumption that filtering systems will block all good sites.

However, this is false. I do not see how photos can be "off-limits", especially when there are plenty of photos of concentration camps or starving children.

Access to google images, which allows you to search up images of the holocaust or starving children, are mostly available.

My opponent also claims that obscene pictures can be "helpful" in learning - however there has to be a limit on what children can access on school. Looking up pictures of gruesome and bloody images are not neccessary to learn.

Furthermore, my opponent drops my argument that adult patrons have the ability to disable filtering for a site if they deem it appropriate in the current circumstances.

Also, my opponent argues that the schools should refine the firewalls and improve, but it is not the school who makes the filtering system, but a third party, who are probably constantly improving.