Trolling is Wrong

In this round, I will begin with an Overview that will attempt to crystallize the round thus far, then I will respond to Con's attacks, and conclude with some Key Reasons to prefer the Pro in this round. OVERVIEW: This debate revolves around the question "Trolling ought not to be permissible," with "ought" connoting a discussion of ethics. So, we can reframe the question to be "is trolling ethically permissible? " There are two calculi that have arisen within the course of this debate to answer this query--deontology and utility. The former examines the nature of the act itself, not the ends. The latter operates on a cost-benefit analysis. It is up to you, as the reader, to chose through which lens you wish to view this debate--and, I will endeavor to show that under both, not just one, trolling is unethical. I will do this by asking: does trolling harm people, and is trolling justifiable? REBUTTAL: Con accuses me of making tautological arguments in my conclusion. Let me answer these concerns by way of analogy. Let's assume someone is trolling in a vulnerable forum, and is doing so in a way that truly is unethical. Con states that it would "behoove these communities to address their vulnerabilities. " So, what Con is saying is that this troll, who is acting unethically, is less responsible for the harm he causes these communities than the community is. In other words, the vulnerable are at fault for being vulnerable. This is intuitively absurd. Just as in the rape example I offered. Simply because the woman is drunk and vulnerable, does not mean that it is somehow okay to rape her. Therefore, if you believe that (1) trolling is unethical, and that (2) vulnerability does not exonerate the troller, then you must also believe that trolling ought not be permissible, even if the victims could do more to protect themselves. Finally, the reason I put this analysis in my conclusion was because I agree with Con that I must first show that trolling is unethical. My conclusion therefore rested on my earlier arguments about the wrongness of trolling. This is a good segue then into the meat of the debate--is trolling unethical? I will explore this question by defending my own case. Con begins by challenging the definition of trolling itself--claiming that trolling can be used for good. He the proceeds to offer the example of a person (Person A) dissuading a would-be criminal (Person B) from offending. Let's look at the definition of trolling more closely--"a person who deliberately. .. uses inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision. " The definition of derision is "mocking scorn: contempt. " In the example forwarded by Con, Person A's intent was not solely (or even primarily) to mock, upset, or to encourage others to mock Person B. Rather, Person A's intent was to persuade Person B from committing a crime. Thus, Con's example is not applicable in this situation. But, even if Con's example did fit, under a utilitarian view of ethics, one must look at net benefits and harms. Con makes an important concession when he agrees that "such cases are rare. " So, if trolling is rarely used for good, then under a utilitarian calculus, it could still be viewed as unethical. Con tries to assert this debate is not about generalities, but yet he never challenges as invalid the utilitarian calculus I offered, and so his claim seems hollow at best. C1: Con claims that trolling is just scapegoating, yet I would argue that scapegoating is wrong, as it is a form of defamation. Con also misses the substance of my Fineman point. I stated that she contended "that the vulnerable occupy a special moral position in society. That because they are more susceptible to harm, we must be ever more cautious about how we treat them. To do otherwise would be to immorally expose them to harms that the non-vulnerable person would be able to cope with. In this sense, targeting the vulnerable is wrong because it is making the weak weaker--its sadistic. " In other words, insulting, harassing, and defaming the vulnerable is completely unethical. The fact that my initial evidence showed that trolls targeted the vulnerable--a point never contested by Con--underscores the impermissibility of their actions. They're directing their cruelty at people ill-positioned to cope with it. Con also wholly drops my third argument--that his plan of face-to-face contact is (1) not always viable, and (b) the groups should not have to be forced to change their mode of communication by trolls. Ultimately, connecting back to my conclusion, the troll is in the wrong, and his victims should not have to adapt to him. He should just respect their space. This also leads me into another vital argument. Con continually asserts that I first have to show that trolling is wrong before I can say that Con is misattributing blame. This argument doesn't apply here specifically. Con argues that communities should change how they operate in order to adapt to the troll. In other words, the troll has disrupted their community to the point where they are forced to make changes. Yet, even online forums have rules and terms-of-service, and the troll has undermined those rules and TOS to the point that he has forced the community to either disband or reconfigure itself. Rules are rules. If you do not like a rule on a site, don't join it. But if you do join the site, then you are bound by the rules. It is unethical to simply obviate, or overtly discount, the rules, because rules are necessary to maintain a sense of fairness and order. Therefore, in this case, the fact that the troll is in breach of rules, makes his or her actions unethical. Furthermore, just as people should not be forced to change communication mediums, they should not have to ignore hateful comments; and, just trying to ignore comments like this is hard. Plus, even if you ignore the comments, others may see them, meaning such comments have the potential to be ruinous for one's reputation. C2: Never did I claim that anonymity will cause everyone to suddenly become "malevolent. " Rather, anonymity empowers those with a predisposition towards malevolence to engage in cruel acts. But, I'll reiterate, this was more so an ancillary point in my argument. I don't see how the point that "[trolls] are unlikely to experience feelings of regret, sympathy, or compassion toward the victim," shows how I am assuming the resolution is true. The definition of trolling denotes that trolls use insulting and harassing language. The people who are at the butt of these vicious jibes are often upset, and are thus victims. Finally, empirical analysis (see my source) has shown that trolls don't experience regret for those they may have hurt. This statement was built upon a logical train of thought, based on logical conclusions. If you buy that insults can hurt people, and that trolls insult people, then you accept that people are hurt by trolling. A lack of regret is significant because it shows that trolls will not be burdened by guilt, and thus feel even more free to continue on trolling. Con also entirely drops my point that "by 'text' the author is. .. referring. .. statements made by the troll which are intended to defame the victim. For example, in the case of Anonymouse, he would call users fascists. .. Had he done this in person, his remarks would only be heard by a few people, but on the internet, his slurs can be broadcast to literally dozens of users. " This is important deontologically, because the nature of trolling involves defamation, insults, and harassment. All of these acts are not morally praiseworthy, and, in fact, are quite the opposite. Thus, the nature of the act of trolling is inherently negative, and so, under a deontological calculus, wrong. C3: Con never challenges my source. C4: Con tries to make a big deal about "disruption," but, as I noted, this was merely a rhetorical flourish. Also, cross-apply the third paragraph of this speech's rebuttal here. Trolling's bad uses outweigh its "rare" right uses. C5: Firstly, defamation implies false accusation, i. e. , lies. Moreover, this seems a hollow objection as we've been talking about trolls dispensing misinformation/bad advice from the start, but this is your first objection to this interpretation of a troll. Con also drops the point that na"ve individual can be mislabeled as trolls, unjustly ruining their reputations. Con's cherry-picking what points he wants to rebut. KEY ISSUES: 1 - Deontology: the definition of "troll" specified e-defamation. Defamation is inherently wrong, and so unethical under deontology. Con never disagrees that defamation is wrong. 2 - Utility: the harms of trolling include ruining reputations, psychological damage, and violating rules. These harms outweigh what Con calls "rare" benefits. Thus, trolling is unethical. Please, no voting. Comments would be great though! Many thanks!