Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of speech in social networking.

"'I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace. ' Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. " I am not sure this relates to the topic at hand, which is social networking. "Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. " That really didn't change much, so I accept your resolved premise. My opponent has failed to correctly source his information, so I will do it for him. Ought- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Well being- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I accept the definitions as provided. "The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. " Maslow's theory states that one of the last things needed is respect for others and respect from others. There are many other things in his theory needed more than these. " It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. " Why? You have not provided any information why this would be the case. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 1: "'Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday. " ~ . http://www.lockergnome.com...; Freedom of expression, according to legal precedent, does not include harassment. Therefore, this information is irrelevant. "Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. " What if someone is self-employed or doesn't represent a company? "Social networking sites are no longer private. " Social networks were never private. That is the entire point of a social network; For people to talk, mingle, share jokes, pictures etc. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 2: My opponent has stated two contentions for contention 2. They are: "Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. " and "Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. " My opponent also states the "benefits" of behaving appropriately. I will post a short rebuttal for each. "Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. " On a social networking site, many people will not find it appealing, but rather boring. "Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. " Only if you are an employee of a company. If not, the point is moot. "It may make a great first impression. " That also gives it the possibility of not making a great first impression. The "cons" of behaving inappropriately: "Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. " Once again, if you do not have an employer, then they can't be angry at you. "Giving a poor first impression. " It may not be a poor first impression. It may strike someone that I am a vibrant young individual instead of some dry, stagnant, static person. "People may NOT find you appealing. " Once again, it gives the opportunity to find you appealing as well. It is obvious that the "benefits" do not outweigh the "cons". REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 3: "Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " They can only do as they please as long as it is within the laws. "Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation" Obligate - to pledge, commit, or bind . http://dictionary.reference.com... Bind- to make compulsory or obligatory . http://dictionary.reference.com... I know, a bit of a circular definition, but my point is that when you have an obligation to do something, it is compulsory to do that obligation. Even with my opponents trickery, he has not proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that his resolution is true. He also keeps using social contract and has not yet defined it. Social Contract -the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... "You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. " Obviously, these statements are not related to each other at all. Once would cause death if not complied with. "It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? " No. You have not provided any information what forming a society has to do with social networking or freedom of expression. CONCLUSION PRO: "I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites," One random court case and an assumption about employers does not show me enough information about the contingency being divulged and exposed information. "that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately," Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. "and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " I have proven that they can not do as they please, but rather what lies within the laws. All contentions are refuted, therefore the resolution is negated. CONCLUSION CON: My opponent has provided little or no information for his contentions, and what little information he has provided has been refuted. Also, he has provided little information for the resolution. He barely mentioned social networking and did not mention freedom of expression. Therefore, we can clearly conclude that standards of professional behavior ought not to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites. It was a tad bit hard sorting through your argument, but I did the best I could. Best of luck in the final round. I look forward to your reply. PS I really wanted to say more, but I was limited to only 8000 characters, of which I have none left after this sentence.