The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism

Thanks once again for providing such a great topic. What attracted me to the resolution is that there is so much ground for either position when the trend in questions is analyzed in the context of significance. Nevertheless, I have to confess my disappointment that the affirmative largely missed the opportunity. To start out, the affirmative has asked that this constructive only deal with argument(s) put forward in the first constructive (round 2). It bears mentioning that the counter-analysis they provide in round three deliberately suppresses portions of the arguments offered by the negative side during round two, in order to review them in partition and out of context. Simultaneously, they have offered rules for the debate that would prevent me from calling attention to this until the next round. I simply ask that when considering a claim made by the affirmative about the negative case, please consult the actual constructive offered by the negative during round two, rather than evaluating a single selection being presented out of context. The negative absolutely expects the same level of scrutiny on its own arguments. This is only brought up so we can avoid a shouting match over abuse, rather than debating the claims offered by either side. Now for some heavy handed deconstruction of the affirmative case. The affirmative first constructive offers two contentions/observations. First, they offer evidence that secularism is on the rise in the western world. We resoundingly agree on this point. The question immediately becomes about catalyst(s) for cause; what are the reasons for the trend? This is the second portion of the case and the only analysis they offer. Its also completely lacking in support and entirely fallacious. The Affirmative makes a claim about how folks will react after being exposed to online secularist material without providing a single example of it happening. This is where the affirmative case totally crumbles. They offer several trivial examples of secular media available online, and speculate about how those that view it might have a change in perspective, when in reality they just as likely either already held the view of the publisher or won't have a change in perspective regardless of whatever they held prior. Moreover, there is no causal link for this claim provided by the affirmative, none! It is all, all of it, entirely speculative. They provide no evidence, no narrative examples or even implicit reasons that any given viewer of this media might have a change of heart about something after being exposed to the said content. They just assume it. In debate we follow a fairly simple order of operations for constructing an argument: "Claim (link), warrant (link): Impact on the debate." All of the affirmative analysis follows a different process that doesn't hold water. "Claim: impact on the debate." They skip providing sound reasons for believing a given thing would happen. This is a fallacy right out of your college logic text book called "Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" or "with this, therefore because of this." Simply put, it is fallacious thinking that claims correlation implies causation. It does not. In the interest of fairness here's a few, "Who’s in Grant's tomb" sort of links providing robust explanation of the fallacy that the affirmative built their case on. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... To be more specific to the case, they speculate that YouTube content like the Amazing Atheist are catalysts for changing attitudes without providing a single reason for believing it, or even robust examples of this particular phenomenon taking place. They just assume the causal relationship. Assumed causation is completely and wholly fallacious. The affirmative loses the ball game right here! Below are some examples of this from the first Affirmative constructive, but for more please feel free to read the whole case. "Upon doing this, people may find that the beliefs they have grown up with don’t make an awful lot of sense when compared to what they actually feel is right or true." This one is just the mother lode though; “Videos like these [might] encourage people to question the beliefs they have grown up with and [could] open their minds to new perspectives and ideas, something many people may have never done without the help of the internet. People may start wondering and caring about whether their beliefs are actually true or just a story. This will likely lead people to further wonder whether they should continue affiliating themselves with organized religion if they know that parts of it cannot be true and simply do not make sense.” It is speculative at its best and even then still completely fallacious, as is the entire case. Let's move on to why the negative has provided much more believable and better supported explanations for the rise of secularism today. Simply put, this is the negative's first and second observations, which you can read again above. The negative begins by providing a historical context on the trend of increasing secularization. Namely, the works of Max Weber, who showed us in the 1920's that religion is a function of societies and change in religious adherence is a function derived from the changes in that society. Max Weber called this, "the disenchantment of the world." The specifics of which today are the actual merits of secularism: the most reliable (methodological) and most egalitarian (ontological) framework for developing science and societies. Max Weber projected a society as secular as the one we live in today nearly a century ago. One of the primary reasons for that change today is provided in the second observation of the negative case, modern liberal values are incompatible with many traditional conservative religious values. On balance, more people in the western world favor positions like marriage equality and embrace robust science as well as tolerance. Westerners increasingly view the religious position as intolerant and recalcitrant. This is a much more believable and observable reasoning for the trend of secularization than trivial videos on YouTube. The affirmative has the shoe on the wrong foot. They give far too much credit to the publishing media (the internet) and too little credit to the message being conveyed. It is the idea itself that compels acceptance or rejection of an idea, not the glossy print. If he could show how the internet is integral to the spread of secularism (like it is for daesh) they may have a case, but they don't. Now let’s move on to the question the resolution actually raises, significance. To win the debate either side must show that the resolution is A; accurate or not, and B; provide the most significant examples. If the affirmative had not already lost by building a case on a fallacy, they lose on the threshold of significance as well. Here’s why: The affirmative offers only, again; ONLY offers trivial videos and supposed reactions as example(s) for their analysis. That’s it. This is a pitiful threshold of significance. It’s even worse when compared with the examples provided by the negative. The negative offered the example of the so called, "islamic state" using the internet to radicalize folks halfway across the globe, as well as utilizing the internet to plan, prepare for and coordinate acts of terrorism all in the name of their theology. Not only do they use the internet to spread this violent message, they use the internet to buy plane tickets, offer bribes and bounties, transmit emails pursuant to terrorist activities and transfer funds. In any way that the internet allows anyone to transact business, it allows daesh to transact in the same way and they are using these faculties of the internet in those ways. The negative has shown right here that the internet is an integral and invaluable tool for daesh and has empowered them to get closer to their aim of terrorizing the world in the name of their religion. Consider for a moment, that even if we buy the idea that some, however small, number of viewers will have a change of perspective, (we have not been given reasons to believe this) that is massively outweighed by even one person being radicalized to the point of participating in terrorism. Moreover, there actually are examples of this available, unlike in the affirmative case. We need look no further than recent events is Paris or California to see online channels have contributed significantly to radicalizing people in the name of violent religion, and that the internet has made it infinitely easier to win these converts as well as coordinate these acts of terrorism. Any one example of this alone reaches a threshold of significance far beyond anything the affirmative has offered. Compare for yourselves: "Maybe someone watched the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate and had a change in perspective, maybe..." versus, "Daesh has succeeded in using the internet to radicalize people abroad and several of them engaged in terrorist attacks in Paris last year." Hmm, which is more significant. Please take your time in comparing these. Significance is what this debate is about, so we want voters to be sure about what examples they think are the most significant. In summary, the affirmative has offered no reasons or supports for believing the vague assumptions they offered; they want to be taken simply at their word. This is to significant a topic to buy on impulse, especially with gravitas (significance) of some of the example provided by the negative.The negative provided a more believable and far more robust explanation of the trend of secularization, and highly significant examples of how the internet contributes to advancement of religion that is far more significant than anything offered by the affirmative.The obvious choice is a negative ballot.