The Basis of the Good
All considerations having to deal with what one “ought” to do are, by definition, ethical in nature (as ethics is the study of proper action). As such, it is only proper to elucidate the nature of sound morality.
Moral systems all aim towards one goal: the establishment of the standard of good and bad in order that actions may be judged in relation to these. The good is to be sought, while the bad to be avoided. It is evident that that which is the highest good should be pursued over all lesser goods, for that is what is meant when it is called greater.
What makes an action better than another? Since morality is only a concern to beings that act with volition, viz. humans, it is clear that it is only in relation to these actors that actions can be judged – actions cannot occur in a vacuum, without causes. If this is so, then morality is only applicable to those entities – all other concerns are irrelevant to morality, so the good cannot be said to be to the benefit of non-actors. Narrowing this down further, the good is good because it is good for individual entities, as abstract groups cannot claim this level of primacy. Therefore, an action is to be judged based on how good it is for a particular entity, which an action that is better being judged more highly than an action which is lesser.
If such a skeleton metric can be established, the specific ethical details relevant to this debate can be found via its examination. If it holds true that an action is better than another if it advances one individual, and this advancement is desirable, then actions which advance multiple lives are better in both magnitude and quality than those which advance fewer lives. If one “unit” of good is desirable in its own right, then it is plain to see that two units is even more desirable. Therefore, it holds that actions which further the most individuals are better than those which further any number of individuals lower than the number of those which are furthered by the greater action, and, as such, those greater actions should be the aim of everyone.
The Proper Power of the State
The study of statecraft is directly linked to the previous principle – the greatest collection of people is the state, and it is the most moral state that is able to produce the most amount of good overall. As such, the state should be valued above all else – it has the ability to be the highest of all things if it is ran correctly.
It is obvious that the entity which is given a free range of movement is able to do more than the entity which is restrained in nature. A man is able to accomplish more when his hands are free than when they are tied behind his back. This is true of the state as well – the unconstrained state has much greater potential than the state which is bound. If the proper function of the state is to act morally, and if this function is hampered by constraints, the most moral state is one which is unlimited in power.
It must be made clear that this does not mean that the moral state must be totalitarian – in some cases, the freedom of the citizens advances the good more than their subjugations. It merely means that the proper state must be able to do whatever is necessary to be proper, meaning that it must always have the option to exert power, no matter how much, over its constituents when it is necessary. Therefore, morality necessitates that the state is able to act in whatever way is needed at the moment, and that this ability can never be hampered.
The Darknet as Rebellion
The Darknet, a portion of the Internet which is hidden from normal view, acts as a limit on governmental power. Let me illustrate this with an example:
A user logs on to the Darknet. He proceeds to hire a hitman to have his boss assassinated. Since the Darknet is designed to be virtually anonymous, no action can be taken against either the user or the hitman based solely on this interaction.
In this case, it is clear that the power of the government is directly undercut – instead of allowing the information of the two people to be accessed by the anti-crime divisions of the state, the users of the Darknet subvert the ability of the government to even demand that their information be accessed. The Darknet, in simple terms, allows people to effectively act outside of the limits of the government, and, since the proper government is unlimited, the Darknet is immoral and can be justifiably stopped. Even if the Darknet can be used for non-criminal activity, the very potentiality of letting it be accessed for nefarious purposes makes it possible that the greater good is damaged, and, as such, the state is obligated to eliminate it.
This may seem like a simple argument, but, in order for it to be defeated, one of three things must happen: my opponent must show that the state is not capable of the greatest good, the state does not need unlimited power to achieve said good, or that the Darknet does not limit its powers.
I'm passing the debate over to Con – good luck!
Return To Top | Posted:
There is a stereotype of the Dark-net such as it being a gateway for drugs and violence. Nevertheless people often don't see both sides of the story. I entered this debate being a devil's advocate. Thinking the dark-net is a evil place where criminals and hooligans band together to commit illegal acts. after viewing both sides. I can tell that view isn't entirely true. People don't often see the bright side of every story.
Dark Net Positive Purposes 1#:
Since my opponent has argued that the Dark-net possess much negative activity such as hiring a hit-manor obtaining illegal guns, drugs, etc. I will rebuttal these arguments by providing the many benefits of enabling access to the Dark-net. For example, political protesters who are denied of their right of freedom of speech can post anti-government messages which display the harsh laws the government imposes on its own people. The best part is that the protesters who commit these heroic acts leave no trace of evidence of their existence. So they don’t fear of prosecution in the future and will continue posting valuable information. If the Dark-net was banned, we would never know if a country is oppressive until word comes out on the dark-net. Their might tragedies or disasters we might not know of, being silenced by the government.
A cliché about the Dark-Net is that it hosts criminals and delinquents, however that case isn't true. Anonymous, a hacker group, has used the Dark-net to take down several child porn sites and take down the villains behind this evil act. Anonymous is also planning to track down more evil-doers with the dark-net and sending them to authorities. The dark-net isn't always harboring criminals, it also stores many vigilantes.
Track and Trap:
The E-Government could use the dark-net for trapping and tracking buyers and sellers by faking an offer. This will reduce cyber crime and criminals will be forced to work underground and not on the web.
Pro States that users can hire hit-men using the dark-net. Even if the dark-net was banned from existence, that user will probably find another hit-man without using the internet. Banning the dark-net won't affect the number of hit-men hired. It would just lower the chances of clients getting one. This can also be used to illegal drugs, weapons, ammunition, etc. Criminals will always find a way in committing their harmful acts in society.
if the dark-net was removed it would violate our freedom of speech and suppress our ideas and ideology. Meaning that it is unconstitutional .The government will be comfortable on taking more rights away.
People should have access to the dark-net and the government shouldn't intervene on business transactions. It violates a person's privacy and even worse, violates a persons freedom of speech.
I'm done, the debate will be handed over to pro.
Return To Top | Posted:
Protesters:My opponent’s argument about the Dark Net being a place where individuals do not have to fear the government fails in light of the fact that I have argued that the government should have absolute and total power in all cases. If this is so, there is no reason to go against it - anyone who does so would necessarily be trying to diminish the greatest entity by imposing restrictions on its power, which cannot be justified by anyone who wishes to act in order to further the good.
If these vigilantes are not subject to the power of the government because of their anonymity, they are directly stemming the ability of the state to do whatever it wants. Even if they do some measure of good, this is irrelevant if they denigrate the principles that stand behind the greatest good possible - the state.
Track and Trap:
My opponent seems to argue that the government should use the Darknet to drive drug dealers to work “not on the web” as an alternative to banning access to the Darknet outright. If, as my opponent seems to imply, it is moral to evict criminals from the Darknet via means such has baiting, it obviously seems to follow that it would be moral to just deny those criminals an entrypoint into the Darknet to begin with. If the point is to remove criminals from the Darknet, effectively killing the Darknet accomplishes the objective.
My opponent blatantly self-contradicts: he says that "Banning the dark-net won't affect the number of hit-men hired”, and, immediately afterwards, says that doing so would “lower the chances of clients getting [a hitman].” This is nonsensical - if clients are unable to hire hitmen, then, quite obviously, the number of hitmen hired will decrease. Even if the premise that hitmen could still be hired elsewhere is taken as true, it is irrelevant in regards to the issue of banning access to the Darknet - if the Darknet facilitates the placement of hits and denying access to it will decrease said behavior, then the number of hits placed through other means doesn’t matter. The effect of the ban itself is what is important, not random statistics.
I have proven that the government should have unmitigated power and that citizens should have no ability to do anything that would interfere with this power or its exercise. As such, “rights” or “the constitution” are rendered immoral concepts and cannot be used to support any sound argument about justness.
My opponent has effectively done nothing to mitigate the moral arguments I have raised for the absolute power of the state, and, as such, has not fulfilled his BOP as of yet. His points are all refuted by my case, either directly or indirectly. He appeals to “privacy” and “rights” without recognizing my arguments against such concepts, and, thus, his case is built on thin air.
Return To Top | Posted:
Censorship: Still, banning users from the dark-net is unconstitutional since it violates a person's freedom of speech and subdues a person's right to spread his/her ideologies . My opponent seems confused. If the government bans the dark-net, it limits peoples ideas and capacities. Censorship lacks of freedom and deprives people of their liberty. The land of the free ? More like the land of restrictions.
Protesters:Even if the government has complete power, government protesters shouldn't be prosecuted for voicing their opinion. The dark-net is a place where the silenced can state their voice.
Return To Top | Posted:
Track And Trap:
Protesters:Negated by R.1.
It's irrelevant if the Darknet is only made up of "villains" - I've shown that anyone who limits governmental power in any way is immoral, and, since such darknet vigilantes limit governmental power, they are immoral themselves.
Return To Top | Posted:
The first amendment to the Constitution says:
''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
This amendment also applies to the internet where people can express their expressions and ideas. Any further restrictions will limit a persons individuality.
-Banning access to the dark-net = Unconstitutional and deny's ordinary people's basic human rights.
During a 2012 internet society survey, 86% percent of the participants that volunteered for the survey said that ''freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet" and during the same survey, 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right". Most people feel that the internet should be a place where censorship deny's a person right to view what ever they want on the internet. And in fact, would deny the majority of people opinion.
In conclusion banning the dark net would give the government too much power over it's people and will show that government also pampers it's own citizens.
How is saying that hitmen hired somewhere else is ''irrelevent'' ? Hiring hitmen is easy to access, not just on the dark-net. Such as email addresses and multiplayer/co-op video games, and private chat rooms, etc. Should we ban those too since it is easily accesable just as the dark-net ? Even if the dark-net was somehow banned (which it never will) criminals will just their organization to other forms of communications and media. It's like a cycle that never ends. The best bet is to use the dark-net to lure hit-men with fake offers and trap them. This will send a warning to all the contract killers to not use the dark-net because it contains risks and buyers will be forced to take per-caution and not use the dark-net anymore. This will further make cyber-crime less and will force all the criminals to work outside the web and into the real world.
My opponent says that limiting governmental power is ''Immoral''. Let's look at the definition of the word immoral.
- not conforming to accepted standards of morality:
- Since pro says that limiting government power is immoral, I will have to disagree with this since limiting some ones power is not considered in the definition as immoral. so my opponent uses faulty logic and reasoning.
- If a group like anonymous takes down immoral websites like child pornography and etc. We do not consider them ''immoral'' just because they test the governments power and authority.
- That's why they are called vigilantes because they break a few laws to make internet a safer place to browse and roam.
- So to end this in a end note: The dark net doesn't host criminals and hooligans like the media is telling and in the media hides the hidden heroes which lay beside the dark-net.
- My argument still stands. Without the dark-net, government officials and protesters who are silenced by the government do not have a voice and can use the dark-net as a way to speak and not face prosecution. If the dark-net was removed, we will not know what these protesters will face. And not to mention valuable information which dictates if a country is abusing it's government power.
- Banning the dark net = Banning valuable information from corrupt countries.
- ☒Track and Trap:
- Still, my argument still stands. The government should not waste time spending hard earned money on trying to ban the dark-net since it is impossible. There will always be replaced after being banned. The only way for users to not use the dark-net is using fear tactics such as hidden government agents sending fake offers and catching these criminals one and for all. Since then, criminals will become afraid of using the dark-net since it contains agents using fake offers.
- ▲Why you should vote for me:
- I have made more points on why the dark-net should stay unbanned and further more rebuttaled all of his arguments. His arguments consisted of the government having the power to do what ever they want and would be immoral to be against the government. So overall, I had the better points, rebuttals, and arguments.
- VOTE FOR CON ! THANKS FOR PRO FOR THIS DEBATE.
Return To Top | Posted: