i need to speak a debate but i am not getting any plese help. I am debating "internet needs more censorship" and I am debating against the motion: I'm against censorship for the Internet.
To answer the other question, a motion in a debate is what is being argued. In this case, the argument is to control the internet and the question asker is arguing against it. The main argument against this motion is that it is not technologically feasible. The internet is very difficult to control.
The problem with any form of censorship is who gets to decide what to censor. In many countries the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue would be pornographic. Some societies might find any pictures of women in shorts or even pants offensive.
I am concerned with violent content, but what if all pictures from war zones were banned since they often depict horrifying brutality. A society confronted by the gruesome aspects of war might not be so inclined to support warlike activities, while not having access to these pictures might make war in some ways "clean". Those who oppose abortion would likewise not be happy if they were unable to avail themselves of the graphic photos used to great affect to raise awareness.
I have no problem with reasonable restrictions -- age restrictions on certain types of material for example. But so many countries use censorship to perpetuate their regimes, instead of working to make their societies free. I dislike the idea of anyone having the ability to censor content for any reason.
The most common argument against the notion of Internet censorship is that censorship would stifle the freedom of speech and the freedom to disseminate controversial information freely. This argument has a weakness in that it doesn't touch upon the danger an unregulated Internet can pose (has posed) to children and young people.
What is this disscusion all about??
Governments, monarchies and religions throughout history have seeked (and most have attained) the control of the exposure of information. While they may pose to do this as a means to "protect you from evil", it has been an arm of propaganda. An educated class of people is very dangerous to the status quo. Benjamin said it best,"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Fear is a very effective tool to get people to fall in line. For example, The "Patriot" Act stripped Americans of many rights after 9/11 to help our government combat terrorism. What most people don't understand is that the bill was written prior to the attacks on 9/11 and was rushed through Congress shortly after the attacks with little debate. Fear can take many forms in propaganda (i.e., drugs, guns, sex, terrorism, religion, taxes), but it is a weapon for control.
I agree with KPLHardison and would add that though censorship imposes limits on freedom of speech but are we supposed to state what ever we feel like without evaluating its dangers to the society because of its immoral content in terms of established values that include truthfulness? Some people who do not believe in basic moral values and like plead free sex and disrespect for others' ethenic believes may differ with this opinion and may argue in favour of censorship-free Internet. However one must count how much damage it has already done in bringing unrest in the society and the world.
What do you mean by 'the motion'?