EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That the internet has a damaging impact on society

0 points
7 points
AsmaAsma (PRO)
Internet is a basic accessible broadband network through which we can know the current past situations of the world. From my point of view i dont  think internet has a damaging impact on soceity as it helps us in every possible way. Moreover it has made our work easier and nowadays we can order foods then taxi and other essential things. The biggest advantage is through internet we can contact or talk with loved and dear ones. once we talk to our loved ones we dont feel that we are in a long distance relationship as we can see each other. Actually internet has made everything easier even in universities it is doing a great task as it helps us to join  online courses with social interaction with the teacher.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-03-28 09:33:05
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I think my opponent for their opening statement.

My opponent is arguing that the internet does not have a damaging impact on society. This is the contrary (con) position of the topic. So for the purposes of this debate, we will pretend that the topic reads "That the internet does not have a damaging impact on society," and I will negate that (even though it is the opposite to the sides we were supposed to argue).

First, my opponent has put forward several reasons why the internet is good.
  • She mentions it makes work easier, but doesn't explain how. In fact, for many people, the internet is nothing but a distraction at work with social media, online games, funny cat videos on YouTube, and exciting online debate websites.
  • She also points out we can order food or taxis online. This may save time, but it's unclear how this helps wider society. Indeed, taxis fill up our roadways, delivered food is less healthy, and both encourage an unhealthy sort of consumerism.
  • She mentions the ability to talk with more-distant loved ones online, but people already did this before the internet using telephones. She never explains how the internet has made this more possible.
  • She mentions online courses in universities with social interaction. That is all well and good, but I remember when I was in university, there was social interaction in offline lectures. Whatever happened to the radical idea that "going to university" means, quite literally, going to university?

Now I intend to show the damaging impact of the internet. I'll start with these four arguments.
  • Not everything and everyone has a home on the internet. People, communities and ideas are routinely targeted, bullied and victimized. This is much worse online because it is usually unclear who is behind these attacks. The impact on society is that people in real life feel less safe, and more emboldened to attack the ideas of others.
  • On a similar note, the move for increasing digitisation of real-world applications has created a marketplace for cheap fraud, especially in the forms of fake news and identity theft. The latter is a serious issue facing applications such as online payment gateways, with some consumers drained of all their finances, while the former has proven to be politically dangerous with serious real-world harms to democracy.
  • Even if this were not the case, information overload and big data through the internet has necessitated the development of artificial intelligence to maintain a competitive advantage for many companies. This intelligence has been repeatedly linked to layoffs with significant economic harms; failures of these systems then may create further economic harms, especially those that predict loans and stocks.
  • People's commitment to a system that allows them to access information quickly has led to a global culture of instant gratification, which in turn has caused mass global depression and other mental disorders. The long-term impact has been a kind of dissatisfaction, coupled with access to information, that fuels criminal activity, such as lone wolf terrorists.

The (changed) resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2020-03-28 12:18:12
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
Seems like this debate won't have too damaging an impact on society, I guess...
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-04-15 05:44:20
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2020-04-15 14:28:05
ChasmJudge: Chasm
Win awarded to: admin
Conceded by Asma :/
0 comments on this judgement
2020-04-16 05:10:49
dpowell3543Judge: dpowell3543    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Con forfeited.
0 comments on this judgement
2020-04-19 00:48:35
Postuma601Judge: Postuma601
Win awarded to: admin
Admin explained in detail why when Asma was unclear with each premises.
0 comments on this judgement
2020-04-20 00:51:09
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Another debate, another win to Admin.
OK this one is easy - firstly PRO started off arguing the wrong side. CON has graciously accepted the change up so we'll overlook this one for the honest mistake it probably was.
PRO led off with a short paragraph of rambly thoughts. There were the beginnings of some decent points there but not substantiated or built up in any effective way.
CON proceeds to give us all a lesson in efficient rebuttal in what I think might just be one of the best rounds I've seen on this site. He quickly and succinctly restates PROs points then explains why they are weak, and then introduces a counter argument for each one. The Counter arguments themselves are not that much stronger than PRO's initial points, but they are definitely effective at countering any juice that PROs points had.
CON then presents his constructive for the first round, and each point is clear and well supported. As constructive go, it was pretty good - probably the only thing missing was some citations for physical evidence, but given the vibe of the first round, I have no problem with that.

PRO then forfeits the rest of the rounds, so an uncontested win to CON.
TL:DR - Good sportsmanship, effective rebuttal, effective constructive, and uncontested points. Win to CON.

PRO - make sure you know the side of the resolution you're arguing. Don't feel bad if you made a mistake, we've all done it - but just take the time.
As CON pointed out, you need to support your assertions - preferably with evidence, but definitely with narrative or logic. Don't assume that we all think the same way you do - because as judges, we are definitely NOT going to think that way. We're waiting to be convinced. And in fact, as PRO, on most resolutions, you'll actually be arguing AGAINST the status quo. (of course in this case you were arguing CON, even though you were PRO.... but the point is still valid.)

The other critique I'll make is to look at your sentence structure. You are trying to make too many different points in the same sentence. Slow down. Break it up a bit. If you want to make three or four points, then don't make me work to pull them out. List them and address each one separately.

CON - I know this was a relatively weak argument for you to break down, but you did it so efficiently it was like a master class.
The way you restated each point was fair (not always a given!), then you explained what they DIDN'T say, then you gave a series of short counter arguments. Had they come back for a second round, they would have used up most of the character limit just building their shambles of an argument back up again. And, to be clear, they had some good points there, so they would have had no option but to do this. Tactically, it was pretty cool to see.

Then you followed it up with several points made very clear using exactly the type or formatting I wanted PRO to use in the first round. There wasn't as much physical evidence cited there as a "normal" argument might contain, but at this stage the goal is to match and better the energy you're getting from PRO - and this you did very well.
Had you gone over the top and cited a bunch of evidence and sources, I don't think it would have been as effective. Since PRO had kept it very short in the first round, you kind of needed to match that tone, and expounding on your points too much at that stage was not only unnecessary, it may have actually lost a lot of judges.

I'll be honest, I don't have that much constructive feedback for you, but I definitely learned a lot from this one.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 5 days
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29