INTRODUCTION
WATCH OUT, HERE COMES MY WEIRD LAYOUT!! The internet is very important in our world: Argument introduction To the right lists some very basic important (generalized) uses of the internet that I will elaborate in later rounds. This outlines my later argument as I plan for right now. I might change it later if I find more information online. THE DEFINITION OF "INTERNET ACCESS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF CONCLUSION | 7,181,858,619 POPULATION; -Helps government The definition of "internet access" is very debatable. Does it mean Wifi? Now who has the Burden of Proof in this debate? For once it is not entirely on pro. Although I do technically have more burden to prove that internet access should be a human right... This will certainly be an interesting debate. I'll try not to use this layout for the further rounds, it's hard to set-up and read. | 360,985,492 | INTERNET USERS, -Helps the people in many ways Or does it mean giving access just to a computer? My opponent also has the burden to prove that humans don't have to right--or don't need the right--for internet access. But without further ado, I hand the debate over to my opponent, who will accept, ask for definitions, and clarify, as the debate rules say. | 2,802,478,934 of INTERNET USERS' LATEST DATA, -Helps society It is up to interpretation. Therefore.... | 39.0 %OF THE POPULATION USING THE INTERNET, -Helps THE WORLD. But what is NOT up to interpretation... is Wikipedia's official definition of "Internet access", copied on the right. It can be concluded that the resolution is more or less normaltive, with such a shared BoP. Good luck... | 676.3 % GROWTH SINCE 2000, and 100.0 %USERS OF TABLE "Internet access connects ...computer networks to the Internet, enabling users to access Internet services, such as email and the World Wide Web." Therefore we can conclude that internet access is more or less synonymous to Wifi. [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access] And have fun. |
Return To Top | Posted:
Introduction
This will be a very interesting debate. I will be arguing against that 'Internet access should be a human right'. I will provide my arguments in the next round.
Definitions
Internet: The global network connecting computers. We all know what it is. [1].
Internet Access: Access, and ability to interact, with the internet. It does include wifi, as long one is able to access and interact with wifi-provided internet.
Human Rights: The fundamental rights by being a human, such as rights to life, rights which cannot be removed or created by government. [2].
[1] www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/Internet.html
[2] www.businessdictionary.com/definition/human-rights.html
Looking forward to a good debate!
Return To Top | Posted:
As I outlined in the previous round, the internet helps THE WORLD, generally speaking, in many ways.
For the government, they have databases to keep records of criminals, or terrorism attacks, and access them easily. Plus, they can communicate quickly over the internet and be able to tell each other information about their plans.
As for the people, this is obvious. They can access much information and learn the recent news very well on the internet. They can even debate online, or for people who are bored, there are games out there for them to play. People can also communicate with each other, and even if they are separated physically by thousands of miles, they can still easily "talk" to each other.
The society can release news, as obviously. They can also have community webpages so that you know their updates and can contact them without meeting them face to face.
It must be noted that, as this website shows: http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wikileaks-internet-human-rights/38526/, The internet access is already recognized as a human right by the United Nations. What right is it? The right to express. You see, whether accessing databases, viewing or posting comments to blog, communicating to each other, the internet is indeed basically a vast, easier version of expression.
The right to express oneself is outright stated in the Bill of Rights. [source: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/your-right-free-expression]
Therefore it is easily concluded, that, the internet is not only incredibly helpful, but it also helps us express ourselves, one of our basic rights.
Onto you, DebatingMaster.
Return To Top | Posted:
Rebuttals
As I outlined in the previous round, the internet helps THE WORLD, generally speaking, in many ways.
For the government, they have databases to keep records of criminals, or terrorism attacks, and access them easily. Plus, they can communicate quickly over the internet and be able to tell each other information about their plans.
That isn't what a right is. A right is something that everyone should have, not just governments. Of course the government needs to have access to the internet (which, they pay for).
As for the people, this is obvious. They can access much information and learn the recent news very well on the internet. They can even debate online, or for people who are bored, there are games out there for them to play. People can also communicate with each other, and even if they are separated physically by thousands of miles, they can still easily "talk" to each other.
That would be classified more as entertainment, or something non-vital. For something to be a fundamental right, it has to be pretty bad without it. Games, news, or even chatter via internet wouldn't be comparable to other rights. For example, is there a right against boredom? Besides, wouldn't a mobile phone be a better alternative as a right based on communication?
The society can release news, as obviously. They can also have community webpages so that you know their updates and can contact them without meeting them face to face.
News is also something (mostly) for entertainment. Even when it is important, it is still not comparable to other rights at all.
It must be noted that, as this website shows: http://www.thewire.com/
You may express your views in any way, however, the ways to express should not need to be provided to you. For example, you can obviously talk face to face (without limitation), but would it become a right to provide everyone with every way possible to express? Just because we have the right to express doesn't mean we should gain access to every means to express. It is just that our expression should not be restricted.
The right to express oneself is outright stated in the Bill of Rights. [source: https://www.aclu.org/
Therefore it is easily concluded, that, the internet is not only incredibly helpful, but it also helps us express ourselves, one of our basic rights.
Onto you, DebatingMaster.
Arguments
What you're doing is lowering the bar of a right. What a right is the the basic of the most basic things humans need. Internet is a luxury - it is not necessary at all for human survival/basic fundamental rights.
However useful the internet may seem for us - it is not the basic of the basic rights. Paper is useful too, but what tells us that paper access should be a right?
Example of rights we agree on:
Life
Freedom of speech
Freedom from torture
etc. These protect you from unnecessary harm.
If I asked you - would you prefer to have the right of life and freedom from torture - or access to internet? The answer is obvious. These things are incomparable to access to internet. What does the internet provide? Communication, and news for the most part. Communication does not have to be done via internet. Could you tell me one time where if you missed one internet article of news it would cause you direct harm? Even if you could name one, if the right to life weren't there, you could imagine what would happen. Turmoil everywhere.
As you can see, the internet is a method of advanced communication/recreation which is not necessary at all, as a basic, basic, right. As helpful as it may be, it is not necessary.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted:
If there was an immediate earthquake coming or some tornado going to swipe your way, certainly you would need to go online to see the news/report that they are coming.
It is just that our expression should not be restricted.
Exactly, so why restrict internet expression? Let us express ourselves on the internet freely. Let us have the right to internet access.
http://occidentalweekly.com/opinions/2013/03/05/21st-century-high-speed-internet-a-necessity-not-a-luxury/
The source above clearly complain about bad internet speed. Imagine how much complaint the article would give if people couldn't access the internet at all! It would be a disaster! Nowadays within not only school, but also in work, assignments have to be done on the internet. Without the internet, students would get terrible grades, fail their classes, and many people would lose their jobs. We need the internet; it has to be a human right.
Return To Top | Posted:
"Internet, would only be one, of many ways to access news."
Return To Top | Posted:
"But that doesn't mean it should become a right."If the internet should exist and is helpful, then why should we not make it a right?
"important" topics, as he says. Of course these take priority over
internet access. It still doesn't stop the argument that at least it
SHOULD be a human right. Even if it can't be right now, eventually, in
the far future, when almost everyone lives with the basic food rights,
and the death rate is maybe only 100 or so per year from starvation and
thirst, then internet access will be ideal and it will succeed.
those (water, food etc.) issues are more important than lack of internet
Now, those (water, food, etc.) issues need dealing first and should be dealt with (agreed). Internet access, while beneficial, should not be a right and is not par to the issues aforementioned. Saying that internet access may not be able become a right now refutes your own point the internet access should become a right. If I should do something, that means there is an obligation or duty for me to do it [1]. If something should be come a human right, it is correct to become a human right. And if something is correct, it should be done NOW (unless specified otherwise). Something that is impossible is thus not 'correct'. For example, magically expanding the Earth to solve overpopulation is not possible, and so I wouldn't say it should be done, or is correct. [1] Besides, how can you even tell that malnutrition etc will be gone? Due to overpopulation, it might even worsen!
Arguments
Cost - the cost of providing internet access to everyone (actual connection + medium to access it). Let's first calculate the cost of the actual connection. A extremely cheap cost of internet access, and is unarguable, is $100 per person, a year. The figures are more around $2000 a year. We've got 7 billion people, so that's 700 billion dollars a year! And with the cheapest medium to access this connection, at $50 a person (unarguable), that would be 350 billion dollars! Those substantial sums would obviously be better spent on other, more important, issues. That much spent, when alternatives that are reliable (such as radio) are available.
Abuse- The moment you put internet access as a right - free for all, abuse happens everywhere. Since you can't be kicked out of the internet, you, literally can do anything you want to do. ISPs have nothing to do to prevent that - they cannot kick you out of the connection. Mass (and sometimes illegal) downloads happen everywhere, some just trolls uploading and downloading huge terabyte files on many computers to give others a connectivity issue, and waste even more money. Prisoners have the function to use the internet to plan with other prisoners, and outsiders, an attack, and other disasters. And prisoners planning an escape attack can't be punished (or even their connection cut) - because the internet would be a right - and it's fundamental - so it can't be removed. Chaos, mass chaos would occur.
Internet being a right would not only remove emphasis on other more important issues, waste money, create massive chaos and abuse, but also devalue what is a human right.
Return To Top | Posted:
Even if we have internet access as a right, that doesn't mean we have to buy computers for everyone. We can just make sure they have access to a computer--maybe through a common computer hub center within each city. It's not like everyone will be able to go on a computer at the same time. That way, we can efficiently make sure people have rights to internet access while still being cost efficient.
Return To Top | Posted:
Rebuttal
Even if we have internet access as a right, that doesn't mean we have to
buy computers for everyone. We can just make sure they have access to a
computer--maybe through a common computer hub center within each city.
As a right, everyone needs to be able to access the internet at any time. The hub has significant problems fulfilling that. Firstly, some people may hog the computers all day long, preventing others from getting on the computers (the people who hog the computers cannot be kicked off due to internet access being a right). Secondly, you'd need to provide everyone access to the hub, for access to the internet. If they cannot manage to get to the hub, and no help is given, that is the same as denying them internet access, violating the right. So you'd need to fund taxis, give out train passes, and much more. That also includes releasing prisoners. Thirdly, the hub needs to have it's operation continued at night (to ensure internet access at any time). And any sort of transport to the hub needs to be continued at night too. Besides, how many computers would you need per hub? 1 per person, if everyone comes on at the same time (which you need to assume). What a waste of money. Any other guaranteed access to the internet for each person would involve buying one computer for a person.
It's not like everyone will be able to go on a computer at the same
time. That way, we can efficiently make sure people have rights to
internet access while still being cost efficient.
As a right, everyone NEEDS to be able to go on at any time they wish. If they can't, that's a violation of a right.
Conclusion
Internet access is not comparable to other rights. The vital freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are incomparable to the right to internet access, in terms of importance. A simple which would you rather would tell you which ones are important. Would you want your freedom of speech restricted, or have no internet access? The answer is obvious.
There are millions of things that are more important and need dealing with such as water, food or sanitation. Wasting lots of dollars on internet access is just silly - important issues are left undealt with, even though there is apparently enough money to fund internet access. Simply, it is not possible to properly implement internet as a right without problems, and so the $$$ get wasted! So, with so much money being spent, would you rather get nothing (the unsuccessful implementation of the internet as a right), or food, water, and proper sanitation? The answer is simple.
A internet access right will cost billions of dollars a year. You know the cost it takes to access the internet. $2000 dollars a year? However, I'll take it down to $100 a year - the cheapest accessible. And $50 for a medium to access. Times that by 7 billion (people). That equals $1t for the first year, and $700b for every subsequent year. That much money wasted on internet access, rather than the basics.
A internet access right would suffer from mass abuse the moment it is implemented. Since you can do anything you want on the internet - and cannot be kicked out, there is a lot of disturbance that can be caused. It includes trolling, disrupting other people's connections, prisoners using the internet to plan escape attacks (sometimes encrypted) and much more. You never know the limits of the abuse possible.
Pro has not provided a conclusion as stated in the rules.
Thanks for the debate!
Vote Con!
Return To Top | Posted:
dangit....I feel like I'm on the losing side of this topicPosted 2014-11-06 07:05:15
dangit....I feel like I'm on the losing side of this topicPosted 2014-11-06 07:05:04
Oh man that first round hurts to look at. To be fair, Spaceman you might need to restate some of that data if it is important. I can't follow that at all.
Posted 2014-10-28 15:42:44
because the chart-style wouldn't budge, so I just went along with itPosted 2014-10-27 05:38:29
Why DID you use that format?Posted 2014-10-26 18:22:09
lol, "traveling upward"Posted 2014-10-26 11:18:22
I like the format if it weren't for the paragraphs travelling upwardPosted 2014-10-26 11:17:09
I'm surprised my round one didn't break the system.Posted 2014-10-26 10:57:34