Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used

He may rebut, but may not introduce any more points other than the two he has already provided. ----Response---- "Sure ad blockers hurt the online industry, but that is not reason enough to stop using them. Me (sic){1} using Ubuntu linux hurts Microsoft, but that does not mean I should have to use Windows. " True, but when you surf the web, you are expected to view the ads on the websites. Content providers provide content with the assumption that their web page will not be manipulated. They expect to receive compensation for the bandwidth their users/viewers take up. Being a webmaster is a job after all! Owning a particular brand of computer on the other hand, is not expected. Also, let it be clear that my opponent has admitted that ad blockers hurt to the online industry. "It comes down to the user choosing what content he or she wishes to view. They are the ones paying for their bandwidth, (sic){2} they should make the ultimate decision on what content they want to use it on. " It comes down to the webmaster having their money scammed. They are the ones providing the content, and paying for their servers. Users should not be manipulating HTML for the purpose of deleting ads. Doing so is completely unfair to the webmasters, and is, in essence, a break of an unspoken agreement. Webmasters provide content for users, and they expect the users, at the very least, to view their ads. Can my opponent honestly say that people who use ad blockers are not at fault? ?? Oh wait, never mind. I forgot my opponent has conceded that ad blockers hurt the online industry. My opponent continues on by enlisting another example--the invention of the light bulb. However, this is a straw man argument. Never did I say that technology is bad, and that it takes too much effort. Yes, ad blockers are a form of technology, but so what? Ad blockers are in no way similar to the light bulb. The intent of the light bulb is noble--to easily carry around light. The intent of ad blockers is not--to essentially steal from webmasters. Lastly, I'd like to note that my opponent has ignored most of the content in my first point. Am I to assume my opponent concedes the many sub-arguments in it? "My problem is not the source, but the content from the source. " That is irrelevant. My opponent has conceded that my source is reliable. My source says that ad blockers disable important internet functions. Ergo, my argument should still stand even in my opponent's eyes. Ad blockers disable important internet functions. "Plus the things I mentioned we're not workarounds. .. Also, because of the scripts and customization I have done, the sites mentioned do not look like my opponent describes them, they look just fine. " Okay, subscribing to scripts is achieved by most people; they ask you to subscribe directly after instillation! Customization on the other hand, is not. My point that ad blockers can make web pages look awkward still stands. "Just because some people are not computer illiterate (sic){3}, does not mean tech savvy users should suffer. " In using that statement, you must prove two points: 1) Most people are tech savvy; therefore ad blockers should be used by the general public. 2) Tech savvy users will not ever download ad blockers with viruses. Also, let it be clear that my opponent has conceded that many ad blockers contain viruses. "Their (sic){4} are many things one must download from the internet. There are risks, but we (sic){5} still do it. " To prove this statement, my opponent enlists the example of word processors. However, what my opponent fails to see is that word processors (and other programs my opponent is thinking of) can be, and will most likely be used for good things (like typing essays, reports, stories, poetry, and much, much more). The only purpose for ad blockers is to block ads. As I have proven, that is bad. Why risk receiving a virus for such a lowly pursuit? "When I pasted the URL, debate. org broke the link. I had to use TinyURL {6} because without it the link would not have worked. " That is a lie: . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent purposefully used tinyURL to cover up the fact that while he criticized my very reliable source (he conceded this), he was using a completely unreferenced section of a Wikipedia article. "It does not matter if ads take up 1KB of bandwidth or 200GBs or bandwidth, (sic){7} it's still up to the person who paid for the bandwidth to determine how to use it. " Ad blockers steal money from webmasters. You are expected to spend a few kilobytes of hundreds of gigabytes to view the ads. (A kilobyte, by the way, is a millionth of a gigabyte. ) Obviously, my opponent's argument that ads take too much space is irrelevant. If people go over their bandwidth limits, it is not because of internet ads. It is because of movies, illegally downloaded files, and hacks. "Most mobile phones and PDAs have very weak processors. When viewing an ad ridden site, a main concern is CPU usage. Your home computer may be able to load a flash ad in no time, but the 250Mhz processor in a PDA will probably kneel over and die. " Again, mobile phones account for only a few Internet users. The majority of people view the internet through PCs. This argument holds very little value. But to counter it anyway, the flash player only needs 450Mhz to optimally play flash. [1] I urge my opponent to do a Google search to see how fast most cellphones are. Most, are well over 600Mhz. "Users that are tech savvy enough to get proper ad blockers are not the kind of people that would click on the majority of ads out there. .. A tech savvy person knows sponsored Google results from the regular results and would never click on them. " Prove it. The burden is on you for the statement. I consider myself a tech savvy person. Rezz considers himself a tech savvy person. We both found debate. org through an ad. ----Conclusion---- I believe that I have successfully defended all five of my arguments. I have met the burden of proof as to why ad blockers should not be used. REMEMBER, MY OPPONENT AGREED THAT HE MUST PROVE THAT AD BLOCKERS SHOULD BE USED. HE HAS ONLY COME UP WITH TWO ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE CLEARLY BEEN DEFEATED. You, the audience, must now weigh my argument against my opponent's two. The winner is obvious. VOTE PRO! !! !! ----Corrections---- {1} "Me" should be "my" because the subject is a behavior. {2} Two independent clauses should be separated by a semicolon or period. {3} Double negatives should not be used, especially when they change your intended meaning. {4} Intended word was "their". {5} My opponent switched the point of view. {6} When combining two independent clauses with a subordinating conjunction, one must use a comma. {7} Two independent clauses should be separated by a semicolon or period. ----References---- [1] . http://www.adobe.com...