The Internet does more harm than good.

Thank you Hossain for for debating with me in this debate. I truly appreciate the effort you put in debating with me. I also look forward to have another interesting debate with you another time. Alright, let me begin with a important note first before starting with the rebuttal and contentions. Note 1: The most important factor that would determine whether the Internet do more harm or not is the usage of the computer. The computer's 'facilities, is responsible for the harm dealt to a person. Harm is still harm no matter how small or great it is. And there is always a cause and effect. For example, pornography is present due to the Internet. So it can be seen here that the Internet is the cause and pornography is the effect. Even if the Internet has more pros than cons, the issue regarding the harm or help of the Internet is still determined by the usage of the computer. If everyone uses the bad side of the computer, then the computer will do more harm, however, if it is the opposite, the Internet will do more help. However, the case here is that more people in the world use the negative programs of the Internet. Therefore, it is concluded that the Internet do more harm than good. RR 01: My point here is that, most of the people in the world would not go that far for the correct information. They would take the risk for convenience. In fact, some people might not accept the dark truth of some issues and would lose out on information. Besides, it is not unfair to attribute this negative issue to the Internet. It is a fact that a item's usefulness is determined by its use. If a item is not used, the item would do no harm or good. Thus, what I stated was not to 'blame' the Internet but to explain the case here. I would also like to state my opponent's rudeness in stating that I have a lack of sense. Please be reminded to watch over your conduct opponent. RR 02: It must be noted that what you said was a big "If" . Like you said, it is a "If". This proves that actions had not been taken and thus, the Internet does indeed do some harm. RR 03: Correct, addictions are dangerous. However, Internet addictions are the most common in the average human. As drug addiction is prohibited, it is less common. However, Internet addictions are not prohibited and is thus, more common. It is disagreeable to say that the Internet is not a thing to be addicted to as if you have read my earlier debate, you would have known that Internet addiction is as addictive to drug addiction. Thus, it is not reasonable to say that the Internet is not a thing to be addicted to. Internet is making you addicted subconsciously. You also said that if you do not keep addiction in mind, you would be hampered. However, a lot of people are aware of addiction. However, they made the choice to ignore it. Like stated before, drug addiction is as addictive as Internet addiction, therefore, it is very hard for someone to quit the addiction of the Internet. RR 04: Now, let us get this straight. The statement " Sticking with some particular books won't help them at all." clearly shows that books are not useful. It is not a misinterpretion of mine. This statement can also express the user's hate for books. You could have said might not help them instead of won't help them at all. I shall emphasize that you said at all. Which means it is very straightforward and definitive to you. Since you make the choice to say won't and at all, you are indirectly and directly saying that books won't help at all. RR 05: Even though your argument might seem to be correct, there is actually a flaw. If a country, a third world country, has money to set up IT services, why can't the country recruit doctors from other countries? Like you said, the Internet have employment services. If that is so, if a third world country have a Internet connection, why would it be unable to recruit doctors? Poor economics? Unlikely. Internet doctors aren't as good as a real life visit to a doctor too. Besides, wouldn't a country focus on the health of their people first? RR 06: It must be noted that everything has a dark side. Some online marketing are not trustable and would need people to pay first. This would cause unsuspecting people to 'lose out'. RR 07: You are correct that it does not tell us to stay online for a long period. On the other hand, we, ourselves, subconsciously tell ourself to stay online, like I said, addiction is almost subconscious and is very hard to be controlled. Thus, you argument on this matter is invalid. RR 08: Please refer to note 1 for my reply on pornography. RR 09: When you said " So, the Internet is not the only place where hacking is done." You agreed with me that hacking is still done in the Internet, as stated before, why not reduce harm as frequently as possible and harm is still harm not matter what. Like I said in note 1, human error in choices is attributed to the Internet. Which in this case is the aspect of Internet safety. Yes I agree with your last statement, however, that is once again a "If", which means it has not been inmplemented, thus you have just proven that the Internet do not have a strong and secure system. RR 10: Subliminal messages are commonly used for bad deeds such as manupulating. Thus, it is impractical to say that good subliminal messages should be considered as they are only a minority of subliminal messages. Incorrect, subliminal messages make an advertisement bad as they often contain bad messages that will be processed in our subconscious mind, indirectly manupulating us, therefore you were wrong to say that advertisement do no harm or good. Besides, subliminal messages can only be transmitted by sounds or words or pictures, which the Internet has most. For the umpteenth time again, why shouldn't we reduce the negative aspect of a object whenever possible? Thus, the Internet is at fault for most subliminal messages. Your argument of official activities is plausible, good job! ;) In conclusion, the Internet may have more benefits than negativeness, however, it is a person's mindset, information and choices that determines the degree of usefulness or harmfulness of the Internet. If a person, uses the Internet correctly, the Internet will do good, likewise, if a person uses the Internet incorrectly, the Internet will do more harm. Thus, with careful analysis, one would agree with me that the Internet do more harm than good due to the huge contrast of the amount of people correctly using the Internet and the amount of people who misuse the Internet.