EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1779

This House would ban the publication of software which is specifically designed to enable access to the darknet. WODC2015

(PRO)
WINNER!
8 points
(CON)
4 points
BossyburritoBossyburrito (PRO)

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:
2015-06-03 11:25:44
| Speak Round
RXR.RXR. (CON)

Framework:


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.



Vigilantes:


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.



Hit-man:


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.


Internet Censorship:


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.


In Conclusion:


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.


Sources:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_(networking)






Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-03 15:50:42
| Speak Round
BossyburritoBossyburrito (PRO)
 

 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. 
  

 Vigilantes: 

 

 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. 


 Hitmen: 


 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. 


 Censorship: 


 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. 


 Conclusion: 

  

 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:
2015-06-05 12:26:43
| Speak Round
RXR.RXR. (CON)
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.

Banning dark-net = Unconstitutional

Track And Trap:  Outright banning people using the dark-net won't remove it's existence. So it's better used for baiting against unknown criminals. 

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.

Vigillantees:

Even if vigilantees deny the states power, they are still living proof that the dark-net doesn't entirely  host criminals or villians.

Hitmen:

Even if the dark net was banned, criminals will still find a way to hire hitmen.



Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-07 03:56:42
| Speak Round
BossyburritoBossyburrito (PRO)

Censorship: 
This point is totally negated by my first round, in which I established that limitations on government shouldn't exist.

Track And Trap:

My opponent said that the Darknet is useful because it can be used to make sure that "criminals will be forced to work underground and not on the web." If this is so, as argued in my last round, then, by my opponent's logic, it's best to do whatever will reduce criminal activity on the Darknet. My opponent responds by saying that "Outright banning people using the dark-net won't remove it's existence." This has the effect of refuting his points about protesters and such - if banning access to the Darknet will not limit its use, there is no impact, neither good nor bad, so it cannot be said that protesters will suffer from such a ban. If my opponent wishes to drop his point about protesters, my response to his argument here would be that, contrary to his unintuitive assertion, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a decline in the use of the Darknet if its use is banned and that ban is enforced. It's common sense - a ban is an inherent discouragement, meaning that it will, as one would think, discourage people. 

Protesters:

Negated by R.1.

Vigillantees:
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.

Hitmen:

My opponent's claim that hitmen can be hired elsewhere is not relevant to this debate. If the Darknet provides easy access to hitmen, and if it directly results in hits being placed, then a government has every right to ban its access. 

Conclusion:

My opponent ignored almost all of my R1 framework, and, as such, has completely failed to fulfill his BOP. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-08 03:31:22
| Speak Round
RXR.RXR. (CON)
✎Censorship: 
My opponent still ignores the  matter that the ban on software to enable the dark-net is unconstitutional. If a ban would take place, it would limit a person's personal freedom and ideology. Not to mention oppress peoples rights for the government own interests.

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.



ⒶHitmen:

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.



☁Vilgalantees: 

My opponent says that limiting governmental power is ''Immoral''. Let's look at the definition of the word immoral.

immoral

[ i(m)ˈmôrəl, -ˈmärəl ] ADJECTIVEadjective: 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.

    ♛Protesters:
    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:
2015-06-09 17:49:29
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
BossyburritoBossyburrito
You literally completely ignored my moral framework, lol. Like, you didn't even try to address it.
Posted 2015-06-18 11:12:05
RXR.RXR.
IMO, i won 1st and 3rd round easy. Second round i admit, i lost.
Posted 2015-06-17 23:07:53
adminadmin
Removed a few duplicate comments. :)
Posted 2015-06-13 06:05:45
BlackflagBlackflag
IDK, so you're going to stop illegal routing everywhere throughout the world or just the software which you can find through a google search?

I don't agree that the judgement was a vote bomb, because a vote bomb is implicated as being a vote, whereas a judgement is not. Terjetics gave reasoning behind his decision, therefore it is a judgement and not a vote.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:41:53
whiteflamewhiteflame
@Bossyburrito

Alright, makes sense.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:17:01
BossyburritoBossyburrito
Anyone who is on the Darknet after access to it is banned subverts the ban on access, and, as such, anyone using the darknet would be a criminal. That's effectively the same as just banning the Darknet itself - I don't see the distinction.

Also, lol @ RXR calling that vote a votebomb.

@Whiteflame

The only reason why I went so heavy into framework was because I doubted that Con could have responded to it. That definitely wouldn't have flied against a debater like you.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:12:42
BlackflagBlackflag
Not necessarily. That is under the assumption that every software that can be used to access the darknet could be found. It is also dependent on whether the publishers of the software choose to abide to the ban.
Posted 2015-06-12 15:33:26
BossyburritoBossyburrito
The latter would be effectively the same as the former, since you could only access the Darknet via something that gives you access to the Darknet. Banning those routes of access, for all intents and purposes, bans the Darknet itself.
Posted 2015-06-08 18:28:12
RXR.RXR.
both
Posted 2015-06-08 10:17:55
BlackflagBlackflag
Count me confused. Are you arguing that the darknet should be banned or that software allowing access to the darknet should be banned?
Posted 2015-06-08 06:46:02
BossyburritoBossyburrito
Burden of proof - basically what you have to fulfill to win your side of the debate.
Posted 2015-06-06 01:55:25
RXR.RXR.
wuts bop ?
Posted 2015-06-05 16:54:27
RXR.RXR.
I'm always getting the hard debates.
Posted 2015-06-05 14:29:37
BossyburritoBossyburrito
Yes
Posted 2015-06-03 02:04:59
RXR.RXR.
is this shabshoral ?
Posted 2015-06-02 19:55:08
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-06-12 18:55:12
TejreticsJudge: Tejretics
Win awarded to: Bossyburrito
Reasoning:
Neg only offers contentions based on *common* critiques of the DarkNet, and dropped the majority of the Aff's constructive case. Aff was able to demonstrate that the core basis of rebellion defies basic concepts of morality and justice, and shows that the state is merely an enforcement of morality. To value morality, the DarkNet would have to be abolished or it would challenge the core essence of morality. The Neg pretty much drops the entirety of this.

The majority of the Neg's responses to Aff case were defenses, which are not used in an impact calculus form of an RFD. Let me first illustrate what a "defense" actually is, as opposed to an offensive contention or rebuttal. A defensive argument is one that evades the essential principle of the argument by, in essence, evading the core argument itself. RXR says, for example, against the Aff's hit-man argument as an objection that people would hire hitmen via. other means if this was banned. While true, it would *reduce* the hiring, thus the link and impact still stand, and the defense doesn't challenge the impact. Only an offensive argument challenges impacts, and one must vote based on offenses.

Thus, I vote Aff.

Feedback:
I recommend the negative side to use more offensive arguments, e.g. by showing that the DarkNet would not cause an overall rise in hire of assassins, etc. rather than straight on defensive arguments, that evade the original push of the argument and fail to impediment the core impacts of the argument. I also recommend that the Neg attack the Aff's core constructive--the Neg's rebuttal was defenses on *analogies* of the Aff, not the Aff's case concerning morality itself, which would have to be refuted offensively.

I would also recommend that the Neg check their grammar, as there were some errors, e.g. "rebuttaled" instead of "rebutted", etc.

Good debate.
3 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
2 comments on this judgement
RXR.RXR.
Vote bomb.
Posted 2015-06-12 19:12:27
BlackflagBlackflag
Good judgement. The morality argument was the crux of Pro's case, and I thought it was incredibly weak. You think it was strong enough to afford him the win, and if I also thought it was strong enough I would also give him the win because it had the potential to be a pretty powerful impact.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
2015-06-13 01:02:34
whiteflameJudge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Bossyburrito
Reasoning:
I'm going to cover each of the arguments lightly here, but I'll only be analyzing them as single units for now. I'll get to an overarching analysis in the conclusion.

Pro's case:

Pro starts out by offering an extensive framework, where he basically builds from the ground up analysis of why those impacts that are most important to the debate. At times during my reading of this, I felt that it actually seemed a little much, as Pro was arguing the basis for why impacts that he had yet to present were the most essential to this debate, but it still made sense why Pro was presenting this. He wanted to make sure that his impacts could automatically outweigh anything presented by Con, and as such, this is where he spent the most time in his opening round. He didn't have to do much of anything to defend it, as Con essentially drops the whole thing. The only response I see is one that comes too late, appearing in the final round, and which doesn't do anything to challenge the basis by which Pro argues that limiting governmental power is immoral. Pro gave extensive analysis to that effect, and it can't be dismissed by simple disagreement. Pointing out that the Darknet isn't purely a means for evil acts doesn't damage the framework either, as it's not contingent on that being a reality.

As for the main contention here, that the Darknet acts as a means of rebellion, Con actually does Pro several favors here, showing specifically how the Darknet is used as a means of rebellion. All Con really contests is the example Pro uses, i.e. the hitman problem. However, not only does he provide him a litany of other examples that Con states confidently are means of individual freedom and therefore means of acting out against a government, but I don't think he does enough to dismiss the hitman example. Pro showed that seeking justice after acquiring the services of a hitman is much more difficult to do when those services are bought and paid for through the Darknet. Both sides seem to agree that, to some extent, the Darknet facilitates access. Sure, some and perhaps even most people who would pursue a hitman would get one by other means in any case, but that doesn't negate the reality that the Darknet is an effective and often used means for acquisition. Maybe the bait and switch idea Con presents would end its usage, but that just means that Pro's case works a little faster.

But what Con is really missing in these responses is the key point: the Darknet is used as a means of rebellion. It's right in the title. Pro wasn't seeking to prove, first and foremost, that the reduced usage of hitmen is net beneficial, though that was a point under this contention. He's proving that the Darknet itself is a means of acting out against a government and, thus, a means of limiting government action. This links directly to his framework, and Con really does nothing about it but supercharge the point.

Con's case:

In contrast, Con focuses on a slew of individual cases to showcase why the Darknet can be seen as net beneficial. The unstated framework is that we should evaluate the debate based on individual freedoms and who upholds them better, but being unstated and therefore unsupported, I'm left with little in the way of means to weigh Con's argument within the debate. But that will come later.

Censorship

I don't think this goes anywhere that's immediately clear. It feeds into Pro's contention to an extent, but mainly what it does is beg questions. Why is a loss of capacity to use the Darknet a slam at personal freedom and ideology? Wouldn't the only instances in which that occurs be those where a person who would not be able to post something on the general Internet (i.e. something a government doesn't appreciate)? You're right that this is an attempt to “oppress peoples rights for the government own interests”, but I don't see a comparison of these interests here. Why should I prefer those individual freedoms? Pro gave me an extensive explanation of why a government represents far more people and therefore the interests of far more to outweigh. I don't see that analysis from Con.

What's more, I don't get these moves to cite the Constitution. Since when was this debate about the U.S.? It seems to me that Pro never mentioned the U.S. anywhere in this debate. Why should my priority be to regard what the Constitution says? Con begs the question by stating that we should care mainly about the Constitution, but never explaining why. Even if I buy that this is within the U.S. and is therefore unconstitutional, I'd then have to wonder what the harm of engaging in an unconstitutional act is. It would have been interesting if Con had turned this into a debate over what's best for a government and its freedom of action, and in particular sought to discuss the results of limiting personal freedom vis-a-vis government freedom of action, but I see none of that in Con's argumentation. Merely stating that most people really like the Internet simply doesn't go anywhere.

Hitmen/Track and Trap

As I stated above, I don't think Con approached this point very well. All of his responses are either mitigation or attempts to garner the impact, which doesn't work out well for him. Even if I buy complete mitigation here, it just means I'm turning to the larger arguments Pro is making and using Con's points as examples. It would have been nice if Con explained that these track and trap programs may be used to subvert the criminal system instead of just trying to stop its access to the Darknet (he almost gets there in the final round, though not completely even there), but even then, I don't see a reason why subversion is necessarily more beneficial than the harms of limited government action that Pro talks about in his framework.

Vigilantes

This point ends up getting used and abused by Pro. I don't doubt by the end of the debate that Anonymous is a good group in that it benefits the general public (albeit with vague impacts about reducing the number of child pornography websites), but that doesn't change the fact that they're subversive and they are a major group basically focused on rebellion. Con digs himself a deep hole with this argument and gives himself no way out. If the hidden heroes, as Con refers to them, are vigilantes acting against basic legal structures for some nebulous societal good, they're still villains under Pro's framework, and Con doesn't dissuade me of that view.

Protesters

This point holds the same problems as both the censorship and vigilates points. It would have been nice for Con to spend some time talking about these corrupt countries, and how their power to censor their people and remove their voice is increasing the amount of harm they can cause. It would have been a good start to a response to the framework, but Con never gets there. Con doesn't seem to get that this “valuable information”, by being released in defiance of the government, is fundamentally more harmful than good. He needed to outweigh that harm, and I don't see him doing that.

Conclusion:

Put very simply, Pro won this debate on the framework. Pro provides an extensive and well-elucidated framework for what should be viewed as most important within the debate as a whole. Con's failure to respond to any piece of that framework until the final round (and to do so in such a minimal way there as to have barely left a dent in it in any case) ends up ruining his case. I'm left asking a very important question by the end of the debate as a result of Pro's framework: why should I prefer any or even all of Con's impacts to Pro's? Pro gives me substantial reasoning as to why impacts that restrict the freedom of action of the government are necessarily the most damaging, and backs up his weighing analysis very strongly from the outset, providing a number of links that I felt were unnecessary. Even without a substantial number of those links, Pro's the only one giving me any weighing analysis, and so I can't help but prefer his impacts. Even if the government produces absolutely no net beneficial outcome as a result of banning the Darknet, the fact that they're making a clear attempt to ensure that they better control events within their society is sufficient reason for me to vote Pro all by itself.

Feedback:
For a debate about a subject that requires a substantial amount of research to understand well, I didn't feel like either debater made an effort to explain what the Darknet actually is. The focus of this debate was mainly on how the Darknet is used, but I feel that that required some explanation of how the Darknet functions in order to understand why these parties would employ it.

Pro: Not much to say to you directly. I'd say that some of the framework analysis can be stripped out and used later to support your impacts, but if this is how you like to do it (probably more LD-ish) that's up to you.

Con: Make sure you understand the debate your opponent is trying to have just as well as you understand the debate you want to have. Just because you want a straight up net benefits debate doesn't mean that you can get away with using that perspective for your rebuttals to a case that clearly has a more specific and well-articulated focus. You could have presented many of your contentions in a similar fashion to how you did here if you had used them with a little more care and presented an alternative framework. Without those inclusions, you let Pro control the discussion, and that's never good.

And speaking further on the framework, know and state why your arguments are the most important. When Pro's giving all of his weighing analysis up front, you have to be ready to respond in kind at some point. You can't just lob a large number of contentions at him and hope to outweigh by sheer volume, nor can you hope to outweigh on the basis of what you deem most important without explaining why it matters most. Don't just claim that your impacts matter most.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
13 comments on this judgement
whiteflamewhiteflame
...Seriously? Biased? Mind explaining that one?
Posted 2015-06-13 02:18:18
BlackflagBlackflag
There is no way of knowing if this judgement is biased, but I do think it is poor. Unfortunately that isn't an option so I'll stay reserved for the moment.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
Jif, just because you don't fully understand Pro's argument doesn't mean you can treat everyone who does as though we are making poor votes.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:47:08
BlackflagBlackflag
I think I understood it for the most part. I find it weak. I'm not judging you for making a poor judgement. I just think its poor, cool?

Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
...You're just judging me when you're giving me a biased rating on my vote? That seems like a judgement to me, and one that's unwarranted.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:55:12
BlackflagBlackflag
Judgement ratings are anonymous. Stop pretending like you know who rated you as biased.

I penetrated your ego and made it my beotch. You're not a virgin. Life goes on. Deal with it. Nothing to see here.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
Thanks for reminding me why you're the one reason I don't regularly spend time on this website. There was a time when I really and truly valued your opinion and engaging in debate and discussion with you. I'll happily assist Larz in his efforts to ensure that this tournament is well-run and that debates receive worthy votes. That's the reason I'm here, and that's the reason I'm voting on this site again. And if, once again (we've been here a few times before, if you'll recall), you're going to call out my votes without any explanation, I will do my best to ignore your comments.
Posted 2015-06-13 03:10:43
BlackflagBlackflag
No one is entitled to explain their ratings, and it is especially unfair to harass people you suspect of rating your judgements badly. Maybe you could stop being a self alligned egomaniac and learn something from the judgement ratings you do recieve.

Seriously m8, no one gives a damn about your judging score except you. And if you really must know, I do think your judgement is bias. I think all your judgements are bias, but I didn't rate your judgement as bias, so fix up your fragile elo and go on with your life..
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
So much for not being a personal judgment. I'm done saying anything more to you after this, but just so we're clear on one thing: I can't learn from something when you just tell me that my votes are bad. When you don't explain why they're bad and how I could improve, I can't garner any useful information. Considering that overtly hostile behavior you're displaying here, though, you don't seem like you're rating my vote to engage in anything constructive.
Posted 2015-06-13 03:51:12
BlackflagBlackflag
No one is entitled to explain their ratings, and it is especially unfair to harass people you suspect of rating your judgements badly. Maybe you could stop being a self alligned egomaniac and learn something from the judgement ratings you do recieve.

Seriously m8, no one gives a damn about your judging score except you. And if you really must know, I do think your judgement is bias. I think all your judgements are bias, but I didn't rate your judgement as bias, so fix up your fragile elo and go on with your life..
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
Thank god man, it took you long enough. You have got all pissy the last three times someone has rated your judgements badly. I hope you've learned some sort of lesson next time because I'm getting sick of this nonsense.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
Now I rated your judgement biased ;)
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
adminadmin
@Stag - profanity warning for "beotch". Yeah, I do get around to reading every comment on the site eventually, spelling profanity in a creative way only annoys me slightly more. Don't let me see you do it again. I'm serious.
Posted 2015-06-14 09:58:35
2015-06-13 02:24:52
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
This debate was interesting, but ultimately disappointing to read. I was a little lost on where both debaters were going with their arguments too. Obviously this judgement wont count towards the WODC 2015 decision for this debate, but I am going to write it anyways because I feel this debate could use another judge's perspective..

The first two arguments by @BossyBurrito were to be upfront, really poor. The first two sections, "The Basis of Good" and "The Proper Role of Statecraft," had the obvious intention of providing context for later arguments. In these two sections there was no context of the resolution, background on what the Darknet is or does, or convincing narrative/rhetoric that should of been there to provide an early hook.

The first two sections would be better suited for an essay, not a debate speech. Sometimes background is needed though, but it needs to be correlated with the resolution. Someone listening to your speech needs to be able to form a clear connection between your background and what you are arguing for. Since no actual connection was drawn between the Proper Role of Statecraft and The Basis of Good, I had pretty much no later cognition created from most of your opening speech. Establishing convincing arguments is a lot more important in your opening speech then providing an unnecessary amount of filler content on what defines morality and how states should work. To be brutally honest, I wasn't convinced by anything said in these two sections anyways, and some parts were even cryptic and reminiscent of texts by Nietzche and Kant.

There was a lot of expectation that I was to be convinced by the first two sections to accept almost all of your later arguments, which was not only a risky strategy, but a poorly executed strategy. It was almost like I was listening to a lecture and not a speech, and that is something you should try to avoid in a debate.

The final section of Pro's opening speech is where he finally begins to talk about the Darknet. It was frustrating to see that after hearing all that unnesecary, poorly executed, and non-rhetorical content in the first two sections, that there was only half a sentence of explanation on what the darknet actually was. Even more frustrating was the fact that I only recieved one line of narrative, and a cryptic argument on how the Darknet is a rebellion which was poorly spoken and explained. There was absolutely zero impact from Pro's first round, and if I hadn't known what the darknet was prior to this debate, I would of been ultimately confused and bored to the point where I would just stop reading.

While Con's opening speech was not so great, it was certainly better than Pro's opening speech. There was a lot of bad speaking and bad grammar, but that was outweighed by the fact that there were a lot more established impacts, a lot more flow, and a lot more clarity not including the bad spelling. The arguments could of been better written, but at least their were arguments, and not all of them were bad.

Con was smart to embrace the idea that the the darknet WAS a rebellion. For someone who was left absolutely confused by Pro's opening speech, I wasn't left blind by this tactic which was obviously thought out beforehand. Claiming that there are activist and protest groups speaking out against the policies of the government and that it was a "good" rebellion was a really strong impact, and I felt it was delivered in a non-exagerrated manner.

It was also good that Con gave specific examples of a group using the darknet to fight crime and take down horrendous sites. The next two sections were rebuttals. One provided a tactic for enforcing law on the darknet. I will go more into this later, but it was an instant negation of the implied statement that Pro made that there was no way for law to interact with the darknet. The second section was in regards to hiring hitman. Con was on the right track with his first statement that banning darknet software wouldn't reduce the number of hitman hired, but then he made another statement in direct contradiction to his first. I overlooked this because I understood what he meant, but this section was poorly written and should of been expanded upon.

Con made a brief argument at the end about how banning the darknet is an attack on liberty, but he didn't expand upon it much. I was still kind of convinced, because just making that statement had me going "Yeah, I guess it is actually counterproductive to what I want to see from my states." None the less, this point needed to be pushed a lot harder.

Pro's second round clarified a little on the first. It became obvious that the reason Pro was opposed to the darknet was because he believed the government should have an iron fist. This is a controversial statement, and in a debate speech you are trying to make convincing statements. Constant advocations of authority are an immediate turn off, so as a judge I need convincing arguments to come prior to the controversial statement to make me say, "I guess that is a good point, and it stood against his opponents refutations." Jumping ahead a little bit, I don't feel Pro's avocation of authority was stronger than Con's avocation of Liberty, and that has a lot to do with the fact that Liberty isn't as controversial and requires less to back up and sound convincing.

I hated everything else about the round, but mostly because it is something I see a lot of debaters doing that they shouldn't. Claiming that you've proven something is a good way to bypass having to argue a point again, but make sure you have proven yourself beyond a doubt. I felt that Pro hadn't proven anything, so by having Pro skip arguing a point it made me continue believing Pro hadn't proven anything. It sounds more like laziness to be honest.

Pro conceded partially that you can actually enforce law on the darknet, although he maintained his cryptic arguments from the beginning and that turned me off.

Round 3 is where I became certain of the winner. Pro was really lazy this round, opting to not argue by issuing statements that he had already proven everything he could of. Not really. Con put a lot more effort into his third round, and I liked that. Con screwed up on his first round argument with his contradiction on hitmen, but he resolved the error this round. I was convinced personally that hiring a hitman is easy, and Pro did nothing to dispute this belief for me. The other arguments stood as winners from the earlier rounds, and this might of been different if Pro had chosen to actually argue them. Con actually reinforced his arguments, which shows a lot better conduct and drive than Pro was showing.

I ended up agreeing with Con. He provided more reasons, although not a lot more, for why the darknet shouldn't be banned. He also did refute Pro for the most part. The argument on authority was left standing for the most part, but it was so considerably weak and unconvincing that I didn't assign it any real impact. Perhaps if Pro had pushed the point on authority in every round instead of just claiming his view was correct, I would of been convinced enough to assign it a major impact in this debate.

Good job to both of you on your first round of the WODC 2015. This is a clear winner for RXR, although I have a strong sense that he will lose this debate due to his social standing. I am hoping anyone who agrees with me and reads this will judge in favor of RXR, but if you do legitimately believe BossyBurrito won, then you should obviously judge in his favor.



Feedback:
You're not writing an essay or giving a lecture. Make sure every paragraph you write relates back to what you are arguing for. If I read a whole paragraph and can't connect it to the resolution, then for the most part that paragraph was filler and turns me off from everything else you say.

Talk as if you are trying to desperately persuade the judges. Don't respond in a way you wouldn't respond to a real person you are really trying to convince in real life. For real! A good example was when Pro said "I already proved this." When you are trying to convince someone of something ,you don't respond to a counterargument with a refusal to respond, that is silly.

Check your spelling and grammar. More importantly your word flow. Con made a major mistake in his first round when he contradicted himself, and it took two rounds just to win me over again on the point he was trying to make. Cryptic language is incomprehensible (Pro), but so is grammatically incorrect language (Con). Both will have me confused and bored.

Using just one argument and hoping that it is enough to win you the debate is a risky and bad strategy. Even having a second argument established in the first round gives you a little more flexibility if your first argument falls short.

Get me passionate about what you are arguing for and keep me passionate until the end of the debate. Only Con appealed to my emotions and beliefs, and he did so very weakly at that. Use more rhetoric, political or emotional, and make sure you narrate whenever possible.

Avoid controversy unless you have the proper tools and arguments to back it up. When your trying to convince someone of something, you usually only give them the arguments you know they'll want to hear. If you feel that the majority of people wont want to hear an argument you might have, you need to either drop it or provide a huge amount of convincing material to back it up. Arguing authoritarianism was a risky strategy, especially when there are so many other routes one could take throughout this debate.

1 user rated this judgement as biased
10 comments on this judgement
whiteflamewhiteflame
...Are you really claiming that I voted against RXR solely because of his social standing? I really thought we were beyond this, Jif.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:35:12
BlackflagBlackflag
Where did I claim that?
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
...Are you really claiming that I voted against RXR solely because of his social standing? I really thought we were beyond this, Jif.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:43:58
BlackflagBlackflag
Again? Well here we go again...

Where did I claim that?
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
It appears to be the only reason why you think someone might vote against RXR.
Posted 2015-06-13 02:46:11
BlackflagBlackflag
Again? Well here we go again...

Where did I claim that?
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
No, I think terjetics had a legitimate reason to judge against RXR. I do feel that RXR might not be taken seriously as a contender due to his reputation though.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
whiteflamewhiteflame
It seems to me, then, like you're pre-shaming many votes and anticipating bias. I personally don't appreciate that you've used your vote to do so, especially when the rules of the WODC make it clear that you are not allowed to vote on debates on your home site.
Posted 2015-06-13 03:00:52
BlackflagBlackflag
I am allowed to judge, it just wont be counted m8. I think it is a good judgement with some good analysis and some good feedback. Stop being a drama queen and pretend like you don't actually give two shits about what I do with my own time.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
Update: I added some more feedback I think would benefit the debaters and the community
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
Only shabshoral can accept the debate.