Challenge Match: MemoryShock vs semperfortis - "Internet Kill Switch"

The topic for this debate is "An internet kill switch is a measure that our global leaders should possess."

"MemoryShock" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"semperfortis" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

I would like to thank chissler for authoring this debate and as well for the topic selection.

The reality of the internet and its' impact on communication and commerce cannot be denied. In fact, while the internet is still in its' infancy, we are currently observing its' evolution and its' actual impact on the day to day realities of individuals who received their societal information from a "static" means, such as newspapers or television, cannot be denied.

The terms of this debate shall not be centered upon whether or not the people should be denied the means of interactive news propagation, rather, it shall be centered upon whether or not the populace is too reactive and within their lack of education there is implicit cause for over reaction and potential dangerous behaviours motivated by a social medium that fails to implore research and sociological comprehension of their fellow interactors.

Society today has many different recognized interplays. There are people manipulating our economy. Their are people whom are the middle man to economic impaction of our political system, over all nations. There are people whom are centered upon the intelligence aspects, information gathering. And then there are the nine to fivers...tasked with upholding the economic interplay that occurs on a day to day basis.

Some are "in the know". Some are not. What happens when those whom are not in the know start talking is the question...it is the concern of reaction over newly realized information that "the powers that be" are concerned about.

Do they deserve a "Kill Switch," to cease the flow of communication during times of upheaval?

I will argue that yes...there is a need for such an impact. The level of comprehension of our populace is mostly centered on reaction and as a result, there is a danger in the subsequent behaviour of the populace if their communication is not balanced with valid research and context.

Will I be arguing that internet censorship is valid?

No. An Emphatic No.

But until we can "synchronize" societal interpretation, which is one hell of an obstacle when one considers regional culture, we can't necessarily adhere to the notion that free communication will result in favorable reactions.

This topic, in my opinion, is of the utmost importance and I intend on showing why and how we as a society need to learn how to communicate with people whom may disagree...especially since the pre-internet reality showcases those whom cared not about the individuals manipulated but in the personal results of their manipulations.

I will argue with specific instances of this "lack of communication" and showcase some terrible examples of social dichotomy.

But for now...I leave the floor to my opponent for his opening.

He has a lot of ground to cover...

Challenge Match: MemoryShock vs semperfortis - "Internet Kill Switch"

Let me also thank Chissler for setting up this debate and my esteemed opponent for agreeing to do combat with me in this most civilized arena..

Now on with the debate.

Allow me to start with a most auspicious document… The United States Constitution; well actually an Amendment to that Constitution..

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.

Constitution

Make note of this … “Shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” This shall be a focal point of this entire debate.

Yes, this debate is one of global significance, but the US Constitution is one of the great expressions of personal freedom in history.

Let us also examine some of history’s great quotes.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Brainy Quotes

An Internet Kill Switch?

Preposterous…

What this would mean is that any ruler, in any country, that saw opinions of him or her, moving in a direction they did not care for, could shut it down. Any ideology could control our currently most powerful voice.

This would be the single most powerful weapon a dictator possesses; far exceeding any nuclear arsenal or mass of soldiers. It is our ability to complain, to express discontent and formulate conspiracy theories that is our single greatest freedom. Whether used or not, any ruler with the power to silence us, has already won.

My Opponent says:

rather, it shall be centered upon whether or not the populace is too reactive and within their lack of education there is implicit cause for over reaction and potential dangerous behaviours motivated by a social medium that fails to implore research and sociological comprehension of their fellow interactors.

I don’t believe the Communist Manifesto could have put it any better…

He says this:

Will I be arguing that internet censorship is valid?

No. An Emphatic No.

And yet this:

we can't necessarily adhere to the notion that free communication will result in favorable reactions.

Favorable to whom? Who gets to decide what is favorable and what is not? The Ruler?
This is how dictators get started.

There is no better way to control a people than to control their access to information. This is a simple and succinct fact. An Internet kill switch would give a government, any government the complete power to control what their citizens have access to.

“Don’t like what is on the Internet today Mr. President?” Kill it and remove any offending information.

This cannot be allowed and any free thinking individual can easily see this for what it is; more and possibly the ultimate, in control.

As this debate progresses I will show you how such control has not only aided but allowed a dictator complete control over a population. I will show you that this is no different than Book Burning, Political Indoctrination in schools and the weekly radio broadcasts in WWII Germany.

This debate is about not only the Internet, but the very foundations of personal freedom. Never doubt the incredible importance of this issue. At what point to we, as free people agree to get our information on a "Need to Know" basis? Who is it we value and trust enough to decide what we need to know and what we do not?

Who do we give the power to shut us up to?

Socratic Question #1:
"As you mention education in your opening, what level of education do you think a person needs to have a valuable opinion?"

Socratic Question #2
"If a ruler had an Internet Kill Switch, what would prevent them from censoring out information after the switch was thrown?"

Please follow along with us, as I am sure my Opponent will give me a good battle, but in the end I am sure you will decide that:

"An internet kill switch is NOT a measure that our global leaders should possess."

Thank you

Semper

24 hour extension please...

What this would mean is that any ruler, in any country, that saw opinions of him or her, moving in a direction they did not care for, could shut it down. Any ideology could control our currently most powerful voice.

This has already happened, perhaps not from a dictator but from a British billionaire, which not only highlights the significance of corporate use of legal means to have unfavorable content removed but underscores the motivation for an internet off button...

The Nadhmi Auchi webscrubbing continues. Martin Bright of The New Statesman reported April 22, 2008, that the UK's Guardian/Observer "has been forced to pull down five articles about Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi businessman convicted of fraud in France in 2003.

[1]

As presented, there is precedence all ready for the removal of unflattering content from the web - without an internet kill switch

This would be the single most powerful weapon a dictator possesses; far exceeding any nuclear arsenal or mass of soldiers.

I find this to be lacking in any kind of awareness regarding how communication is propagated within our society. The media is already influenced by corporate interest and is still being manipulated to the extent where it is a possibility that world events and the media's reporting upon them are not only orchestrated but perpetuated in order to control the perception of people whom are more or less tasked with fulfilling the day to day necessities of an operating society.

Indeed, a lack of communication globally would be preferable to the often confused communications resulting from the propagation of basic ideology and misdirection that results in a misinformed and reactive population. Hell...I support the implementation of an internet kill switch as a means to hone in on manipulations of this sort by it's actual use!!

I don’t believe the Communist Manifesto could have put it any better…

Prior to getting caught up in political labels, I would ask the readers to look at the situation instead of being directed by such connotation that is implied by the use of "Communist". The term as it was propagated prior and during The Cold War is a great example of manipulated information propagation.

He says this:

Will I be arguing that internet censorship is valid?

No. An Emphatic No.

And yet this:

we can't necessarily adhere to the notion that free communication will result in favorable reactions.

Censoring the internet is a whole lot different than recognizing that a rumour spread like wild fire may result in actions from people whom do not understand what is going on.

And this is true. How can one predict that an individual will not get carried away when encountering false information that is believed to be the truth?
Such is the heart of this debate and warrants consideration as there may be events in our future that require less rumour mongering and more focused interaction with our global leaders.

Does such a scenario detract from our ability to discern the idea that we may be fed state sponsored misdirection? No...and that is a ludicrous notion.

What this amounts to is nothing more than a rationing of our attention and resources in times that call for it. Does no one remember how we required the rationing of resources during the second world war?

Rationed Items
Tires
Cars
Bicycles
Gasoline
Fuel Oil & Kerosene
Solid Fuels
Stoves
Rubber Footwear
Shoes
Sugar
Coffee
Processed Foods
Meats, canned fish
Cheese, canned milk, fats
Typewriters

[2]

Nowhere in the proposed bill is there any stipulation that an "internet kill switch" is permanent. It is for the possibility of a cyber attack, which, when one considers that our virtual reality has very real associations with our personal realities (economic as well as national intelligence) then possessing a means to limit communications in the event of a major attack is not something that would negatively impact our lives beyond the capacity of a real threat to our digital convenience.

The threat and paranoia is overstated. By a lot.

At what point to we, as free people agree to get our information on a "Need to Know" basis? Who is it we value and trust enough to decide what we need to know and what we do not?

Socratic Question #1 - Are there not protocols in place already to provide information to the populace on a "need to know basis"?

Who do we give the power to shut us up to?

Socratic Question #2 - What possible safeguards can be implemented to prevent any one person from having the power to "shut us up"?

Socratic Question #1:
"As you mention education in your opening, what level of education do you think a person needs to have a valuable opinion?"

Direct Answer? Anyone who would have a valuable opinion would be as smart as I am and would preferably have more of an educational background than I. The question is subjective and while I feel that the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness is a right that should be defended for all, I also hold that the capacity for people to objectively look at a topic/issue to be sorely lacking. Their is much personal bias inflecting opinion on any given topic, from religious and moral upbringing to economic concerns.

There is no good answer to the question and one of the major reasons for my position - personal subjectivity could and likely will exasperate a situation that is of national emergency proportions.

Socratic Question #2
"If a ruler had an Internet Kill Switch, what would prevent them from censoring out information after the switch was thrown?"

A duly appointed oversight committee that was forcibly immune to corporate and government influence.

But as I stated earlier, information censorship has already taken place and without this "internet kill switch".

Socratic Question #3 - What is preventing anyone now to censor information on the internet?

Socratic Question #4 - Is it easier to hide relevant information by omitting it all together from the internet or to mix it in with irrelevant social issues?

Socratic Question #5 - Has the internet proved anything more than a means for people to speculate, with bias and lack of information more than it has proven to be a vehicle for populace oversight on corporate/government implementations?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Please follow along with us, as I am sure my Opponent will give me a good battle, but in the end I am sure you will decide that:

My opponent is right to question the motives of our leadership; they have much to hide. But allotting them an opportunity to remove internet communications does not give them the ability to impinge on our freedom of speech nor does it allot them the ability to keep their skeletons hidden.

Rather, it does provide a capacity for us as a nation and populace to limit the spread of rumours and/or free access to digital routes for the compromising of our economic conveniences. In times of an actual attack of national emergency proportions, an internet off switch could be a valuable temporary resource as a means to combat and remedy said emergency.

As with nuclear weapons, not having such a capacity could prove to be far more to our detriment than the alternative.

[edit on 6-22-2010 by chissler]

I'm going to need my extension...

"An internet kill switch is a measure that our global leaders should possess."

Let me first apologize for my absence and heartedly thank my very esteemed opponent for his patience with me and my real life issues...

Semper Post #1.

Let us start with a rebuttal, shall we?

This has already happened, perhaps not from a dictator but from a British billionaire, which not only highlights the significance of corporate use of legal means to have unfavorable content removed but underscores the motivation for an internet off button...

Your post above is, in and of itself, contradictory. How can you say that any one individual having the power to limit “our” information underscores the motivation for an Internet Kill Switch?
While this is certainly not a Socratic question, could you take a moment and answer it please? I am sure the readers would be fascinated as would I.

As presented, there is precedence all ready for the removal of unflattering content from the web

Sorry, but I really have to do this.

Socratic Question #1
“Who gets to decide what is suitable for us to read and what is not?”

The media is already influenced by corporate interest and is still being manipulated to the extent where it is a possibility that world events and the media's reporting upon them are not only orchestrated but perpetuated in order to control the perception of people

Manipulation and control are two very separate quantities my friend; a fact I am sure you are aware of. People can and actually do every single day, work around the Main Stream Media manipulation of information. In point of fact, some of us have gotten quite adept at recognizing the truth hidden within an agenda.

We would no longer have that luxury should a kill switch ever be implemented.

Indeed, a lack of communication globally would be preferable to the often confused communications resulting from the propagation of basic ideology and misdirection that results in a misinformed and reactive population.

You can NOT be serious!!!!

First and foremost what comes to mind, is you are assuming that in the event an Internet Kill Switch was instituted, we would then, in some magical way, be afforded the truth without the propaganda.

Tell me you understand that this would only put the power of the propaganda in a single person, or group’s hands… As things stand, everyone is afforded the ability to present their own propaganda and therefore balancing out the equation.

Prior to getting caught up in political labels, I would ask the readers to look at the situation instead of being directed by such connotation that is implied by the use of "Communist". The term as it was propagated prior and during The Cold War is a great example of manipulated information propagation.

Yes or no please…

Socratic Question #2
“Do you believe the Communist Manifesto to be one of the great literary works of our time?”

(Not off topic by the way, I will make the point in my next posting)

And this is true. How can one predict that an individual will not get carried away when encountering false information that is believed to be the truth?

Please define “Carried Away” in the context of your verbiage please? As it stands with your comment, it would appear you are advocating the control of people in general, on a vast scale.

What this amounts to is nothing more than a rationing of our attention and resources in times that call for it. Does no one remember how we required the rationing of resources during the second world war?

Socratic Question #3
“Do you consider the rationing of tires during WWII, to be similar is scope to the control of information by or for any one group?”

Nowhere in the proposed bill is there any stipulation that an "internet kill switch" is permanent. It is for the possibility of a cyber attack,

To quote my many English friends… That is BOLLOCKS…

First, no government has ever gotten control of anything and then freely given that control back..

Also..

Being a Computer Forensics Specialist, I can assure you that in the event of a well coordinated Cyber Attack on any one of our Critical Infrastructures, a Kill Switch will be completely and utterly useless. By the time it is recognized for what it is, a well formulated and structured Cyber Attack has done the majority of damage it was intended for. Cyber Attacks are set up before hand and occur in PC Time; Milliseconds and Nanoseconds…

Socratic Question #1 - Are there not protocols in place already to provide information to the populace on a "need to know basis"?

To the best of my knowledge, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is still going strong and the media is still free….So the answer is no.

Socratic Question #2 - What possible safeguards can be implemented to prevent any one person from having the power to "shut us up"?

They are already in place my friend. The Internet is multi-layered and both vertically and horizontally structured. While an attack on Wall Street may succeed to some extent, the same attack will have no effect on the Japanese Exchange. Due mainly to the very stratified nature of the Internet as it now stands.

I also hold that the capacity for people to objectively look at a topic/issue to be sorely lacking. There is much personal bias inflecting opinion on any given topic, from religious and moral upbringing to economic concerns.

But you are one man, and one opinion. I may not hold to your opinion and that certainly does not mean my opinion is less valid. The problem is whomever is given the ultimate control of the Internet, will hold sway over us all with his opinion being realistically the only one that matters.

A duly appointed oversight committee that was forcibly immune to corporate and government influence.

That was tried before.. It was called the “Ministry of Propaganda” in Nazi Germany. How did that work out for them?

But as I stated earlier, information censorship has already taken place and without this "internet kill switch".

Of course it has, but not over the entire Internet. To coin a TV show quote, The Truth is “still” [sic] Out There. All one needs to do is have the fortitude to seek it out.

Socratic Question #3 - What is preventing anyone now to censor information on the internet?

Simple. Size.. (Apparently size does matter) While some information is undoubtedly being censored, the sheer size of the monster that is our Internet, means that for every comment that is censored, a dozen more will present themselves to the people; the very ones that need that information.

Socratic Question #4 - Is it easier to hide relevant information by omitting it all together from the internet or to mix it in with irrelevant social issues?

Simple answer is omitting it. If it is never known, it simply can’t be known. Quantum Analysis aside. Mixing it in any issues, even irrelevant social ones, still leaves the very real possibility of discovery by some astute person.

Socratic Question #5 - Has the internet proved anything more than a means for people to speculate, with bias and lack of information more than it has proven to be a vehicle for populace oversight on corporate/government implementations?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

The Internet has become many things, not the least of which is "THE" social phenomenon of our time. It is becoming the preferred method for receiving the news, a social home away from home, the main communication vehicle and more.

But allotting them an opportunity to remove internet communications does not give them the ability to impinge on our freedom of speech nor does it allot them the ability to keep their skeletons hidden.

Contradict much?

By its very definition, removing communication is an impingement on the freedom of speech.

While my opponent has chosen a many faceted attack to address this issue, it is clear he is losing ground even with his own personal writing style. I cannot ever remember MemoryShock having contradicted himself at anytime in the past and yet, here he has done so at least twice.

Internet Kill Switch? BAH… Nothing more than a way to control an otherwise free society.

I believe my rebuttal and subsequent Socratic Questions will suffice for this post.

Stay tuned for more.

Until then, there can be no doubt that:

"An internet kill switch is a measure that our global leaders should NEVER possess."

Thank you

Semper

I concede this debate topic.

Semper...in my opinion, I could have forced your rhetoric and indeed I have issues with some of it. Mostly, the idealogical presentation which is fallacious in a world of corporate influence upon the world's governments.

But in good faith, I cannot argue against the topic...and even some of your rhetoric.

I am here, in my opinion, because of the internet..because of a communicative standard that was allotted when I had no way to demonstrate my thoughts.

An internet kill switch would denigrate the friendships I have made and the information I have come across. And as one individual to the next...I think we are all in a period of transition.

I will no longer, even rhetorically, defend such an "emergency measure". Indeed, the only people whom feel the need for such a measure are the one's who have something to hide...and I know subjectively that there is something to hide.

My appreciation and gratitude to SemporFortis and chissler. And I do indeed require that the point rankings reflect this concession.

But I won't defend this legislation.

Good Show, Semper...onward and forward...