Respected Members of the edeb8.com,In w
The nostalgia for the times long past has always been - and will continue to be - a common theme in the passing generations. "In our time, it was so and so." ; "We didn't have this particular thing seems necessary to your generation." are among the number of phrases the older generations diminish the ways of today's youth and glorify their own prime years. It is understandable. However, it is most certainly not the cause of the PRO side's dismissal of internet as a mostly beneficial factor in today's society.
To help define the motion, this house believes that the effect that the internet has had on the society in the way it has been used thus far had been more negative than positive.
The internet relies on the sheer availability. Of ideas and of people.
1. The availability of information - the negative side of having information at your fingertips
- False information spreads falsehoods that can have a negative impact on an individual and the community alike.
- Even with information that is correct, the easiness with which access it is damaging to the person.
- The idea that a person should be all-knowing about everything that is going on in the world at the moment as a requirement to be considered intelligent and "woke" is damaging.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-06 19:17:54| Speak Round
For the purpose of making my debates more accessible for judges and audience members, and as a courtesy to the opponent, my format will be as follows.
Important points will be bold.
Summaries from sources/paraphrases will be italicized.
Direct quotations will be "quoted."
Citations will be available at the bottom under a horizontal rule, and will be marked throughout my arguments using hyperlinks and superscripts0.
Well, an interesting opening statement from the Pro side of the argument. I never thought I would see someone suggest that having access to more information was a bad thing, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. I'll break down my opponent's argument point by point.
1) False information is bad because it's false!
Not to point out the obvious, but yes, Con agrees that false information is bad, and we will even agree that there is a great deal of false information available online. However, we would also like to point out that there are an enormous amount of resources devoted specifically to sorting through information, and separating the false from the factual. Noteworthy examples are Snopes and PolitiFact, but there are many others available for those who take the time to look.
2) Devices make us lazy!
Indeed, as technology marches on, we often see that previous necessities fall by the wayside. Blaming the internet for the things listed here is a bit of a stretch, however. Remembering phone numbers went out when the PDA was invented, and that technology was brought in with smartphones. Like my opponent, I'd like to draw an analogy. In courtroom scenarios, eyewitness testimony is put on a high pedestal, and is arguably the most important piece of evidence used in courtrooms. But that's a problem, according to two professors at Stanford University, who came to the conclusion that human memory can't be trusted in important circumstances1. If it's true that our memory can't be trusted in the first place, isn't it a good thing that we now have access to accurate information if we only take the time to look for it in an absolute instant?
3) We shouldn't expect people to be accurate!
At least, that's what I could glean from the final bullet point listed here. We shouldn't expect people to be knowledgeable when they talk about issues? I hope Pro intends to expand on this later, because it was entirely unthinkable to Con. Perhaps Pro takes issue with the idea of live fact checks, such as the one performed during the State of the Union address given by Donald Trump. During said speech, live facts from the previously mentioned PolitiFact were made available to the audience, giving people instant access to the reality of claims made during that speech2.
At the end of the day, access to the internet, along with powerful access to information and applications that are useful to us on a day-to-day basis, cannot be contested as anything other than a boon to people.
I've run out of room here, so my next portion will focus entirely on the positives of internet access for all, rather than reactions to my opponent's statements. Thanks to the Judges, the Audience, and my Opponent for their patience.
1. Fisher; Tversky. The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony. Standford Journal of Legal Studies. Webpage. (https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm)
2. Adair, Bill. An Experiment in Live Fact-Checking the State of the Union Speech by Trump. Mediashift. Weppage. (http://mediashift.org/2018/02/an-experiment-in-live-fact-checking-the-state-of-the-union/)
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-08 01:55:57| Speak Round
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-15 01:56:02| Speak Round