2018-03-13 15:35:39 Judge: Penrose stairsWin awarded to:
Mharman did not even say a word, and Paul did explain his stance, so Paul should be the winner. Feedback:
For Paul, he should explain more. Yes, internet access is essential to education, social media is an important part of people's life. But so what? Why the government should provide free internet? Are people too poor to afford to pay for internet access? It really depends on which country you are talking about, unfortunately, this topic is unclear. It does not state which country it is referring to, and which country is an important factor to this topic. If it is more developed country, then most people, schools can afford internet access, why do we still need the government to pay for it? Shouldn't the government's money be used in a better way such that the people's life can improve? If the government doesn't pay for internet access, people can just pay for it themselves and it makes no big difference. In less developed countries, providing free internet access can benefit a lot of people, only if the people have a device that can go online. In poor countries, many people don't have mobile phones and computers. So providing free internet may means the rich spending less due to no internet fees, but the poor cannot get anything. So it is just making the gap between the rich and poor greater, isn't it?
Paul should also explain why social media is important. It has a lot of users, but how does it affect our lives? People rely on social media, but are they really essential? Can you live without social media? If not, is it only because you are addicted to it or you really need it?
You may say social media is a great platform for business to promote their products.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2018-03-14 20:13:37 Judge: arbdyWin awarded to:
As the CON side has furthered no arguments, Paul has won. Feedback:
The arguments advanced seem to require better reasoning to drive the main point home. Argument 1 mentions how the internet is requisite for schools and hence government should come forward to facilitate it by providing it for free. However, it does not explain how the internet as a requirement is any different from other facilities that schools require and are not provided for free, does the argument indicate that every such requirement should be funded by the government? If no, specific reasoning for this stand becomes important. Argument 2 mentions how social media has become a big deal and the government should be catering to such an interest, but it does not offer any reasoning as to why it should be on the government's priority to use public money on this when there are other competing causes which require attention. Similarly, the argument for blocking porn websites is not brought out well to be compelling enough.
0 comments on this judgement