The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism

A big thanks being for such a great topic JayShay has asked us to consider the catalysts of major change when we stand at the high watermark of that change, and while we may disagree about the cause, we resoundingly agree about the benefits. I tip my hat to JayShay. Nevertheless I respectfully submit the following counter analysis: The fourth round was specifically for counter-analysis of the material offered by each side in round three. It bears some mentioning that my opponent did not specifically respond to anything in my last round in his final post. Out of respect for the rules I don't want to hammer this, but debate theory holds that the negative arguments flow across and the negative wins all those arguments. That being considered let's move on to the material from my opponents round three.The resolution is a "truth claim" and for either side to win they must, A; show the resolution is accurate or not and, B; provide the most significant examples. Those burdens were overwhelmingly better upheld by the negative and deserve your vote. Round Three Aff:My opponent started by trying to respond to the historical analysis of the overall trend of increasing secularization in the west by dismissing the impact that secular advocates have had on the trend of secularization over time. And it is as bad as it sounds. "..we are in a new age, one that those men didn't get to experience. I strongly believe that if they had the opportunity to observe the power of the internet they would classify it as a strong contributor to secularization."Again, just as in the first affirmative constructive (Pro Round 1), we get no reason that these folks may share his view. More importantly, the Aff case and follow-up forgets that it is the content of a claim that drives acceptance or rejection of said claim. This principle is unfortunately missed by the affirmative throughout the debate. In reality, the very theses of these several secular advocates offered in round two all, all of them contend; that it is the inherent advantages of secularism that drive its increased acceptance, as opposed to whatever venue in which it is published, especially today, after the hardest work has been done generations before against more powerful entrenched resistance than today. These paragons forecast the secular culture of today decades and decades before the advent of the internet.The affirmative tries to suppress the last 500 years of scientific (methodological) and humanist (ontological) sudden and specific changes (Charles Darwin, Pierre-Simon Laplace**) and ensuing progress, by suggesting that secularism's recent-era jump is credible to the internet as a utility in and of itself. Keep in mind Laplace was speaking to Napoleon in the early 19th century when he famously said, "I had no need for that hypothesis."**To remain resolutional the Pro has to remain unique, specific and consistent in support of the resolution, or "truth claim." They also have to provide the most significant examples, and have missed on both counts. The internet deserves no credit for ideas predating it, not when the ground was toiled in the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in 1925.** The message is the song, the internet is merely Auto-Tune.The printing press was less powerful than the internet, but did more inthe 1500's to raise basic questions about contemporary religion than the internet does today**. Again, the philosophical framework for the level of social change we see today has been laid down generations ago. The Aff also offers: "the internet is perhaps best at educating people and allowing them to experience new fields such as the sciences, more so than they ever could without the Internet."Good material and teachers are the best at educating people, the UofPhoenix example turns for the negative case. Often "online universities" offer a poorer education than a community college, are more expensive and predatorily seek out students eligible for state/federal aid. This has been robustly established, and has even triggered congressional inquiry into the merit of publicly funding an education via an online, for-profit university like UofPhoenix. Rather, good learning is rooted in material and expertise. Fox News and its ilk have a sweeping presence on the internet. So do Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn. The impact comes from the message, and anyone can pick up a microphone, even broadcast charlatans, even so called "islamic state". The negative provides better reasons for not assigning credit to the internet for the advancement of secularism, while the affirmative offered no reasons beyond conjecture/speculation. All of the affirmative analysis is built on a fallacy, "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc." Even worse for the affirmative, they failed to respond to this in the final round of arguments; they "dropped" or conceded, this point, and can't win the debate when they built a case on a fallacy, and failed to even respond when it was pointed out.The Aff suggested that someone, "in limbo," or undecided on religion might be impacted by a video like this, but if the person is in limbo, the tilling of the ground has already been done. This resonates even more with the "Facebook filter" example the Aff offered. He seems to forget that the supreme court had to act on years of work going back to Harvey Milk for Mayor in order to make that filter so popular. This is a reflection of sentiment previously popularized by generations of work, not attributable to the internet.The affirmative actually concedes in round three that online media he describes may not, "cause people to drop their bibles," in providing his, "person in limbo," scenario, however this in fact is the level of threshold they must to reach in order remain consistent with the affirmative case from round two, where they acknowledged that "correlation is not causation." And supposed to offer examples for cause that turned out to be merely speculative and weak.They also need to reach this threshold to provide an example anywhere nearly as significant as those offered by the negative. Daesh online recruiting and radicalization as well as utilization of the internet to facilitate terrorism means the internet is being used to significantly advance religion in a way we can measure and observe, far more than offered by the affirmative.That gets us back to the question of significance. Again, the affirmative offered only speculative, trivial examples of secularist videos online. And not only does the affirmative fail to provide a causal reason to believe the media he points at will change people's perspective, he fails to provide an example, however speculative, as significant as what Daesh is doing today, which is not a speculation, it's an alarming reality. Thanks JayShay for the topic, thanks to readers for following, and to those of you voting, strongly urging a negative ballot."Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." -Hubert Humphrey**This is a new example, not a new argument