Internet users should have to disclose their identity, assuming it were possible.

First, thank you for this opportunity to debate such a relevant topic to modern society. Good luck to my opponent. I believe the following three points sufficiently outline the Con arguments against online identity disclosure: Transparency: 1. Causes moral/practical harms, such as offline stalking. 2. Contradicts principles, such as: Non-harmful actions ought to be allowed. 3. Is harmful to legitimate internet use, including whistleblowing, porn, and suicide prevention. Please add points if one is missing. My starting arguments follow; I will expand on them shortly. Counters to the Con arguments will be provided later. Transparency prevents: 1. Deliberate falsification of information, including identity theft. 2. [Some] online abuse. Transparency enables: 1. Authentication of online transactions/legal claims (https://www.rcfp.org...) Counter arguments to Con points: 1.Causes moral/practical harms, such as offline stalking. Counter: My research has shown the risk of physical stalking does increase with disclosure.. My idea to solve this issue is that an online account would have to be run through a private, system to be determined safe. I can explain further on this idea in a later round. 2. Contradicts principles, such as: Non-harmful actions ought to be allowed. Counter: This principle depends on three definitions. Here is the original wording of the principle, as Con listed it: "Privacy stems from the key principle that people should be allowed to do anything, provided it doesn't affect others." First, what is meant by "should be allowed"?" What are the determining factors to say whether something should...be anything? I first think of universal morals. My definition of "universal morals" is: A set of beliefs by which people govern actions to be innately positive or contributing to society, as compared to negative or detracting from society. Another version of morals is spiritually-related, but I"m not certain Con was referring to those. Secondly, society tends to agree that "harmful" actions include murder, theft, rape, etc. However, it is important to note societal designations of "harmful" actions are subjective to society"s support of certain concepts, which include political ideologies and religious beliefs. Thirdly, by "...ought to be allowed," I assume Con refers to an obligation, possibly, again, a moral obligation of members of a decent society to treat other members with respect. Feel free to correct me on any of those definitions, and my apologies for the length of explanation. 3. Is harmful to legitimate internet use, including whistleblowing, porn, and suicide prevention. Counter: I personally added whistleblowing in this list of legitimate internet use. This article describes audit committee members' treatment of anonymous whistleblowing claims. http://i-sight.com... If requested, I can research effectiveness of protection for whistleblowers. My personal bias is that porn causes more harm than good, though some may disagree. I will focus on suicide prevention. It appears that depression is a major cause of suicide, and a lack of acknowledgement, combined with a victim's silence, often results in suicide. The revealing of victims" identities can provide a better opportunity for professionals, and friends of victims, to deal with underlying issues. Otherwise, if victims remain anonymous, they may continue to feel hopeless. It seems that the means are worth the result in this such circumstances. To Con: Please engage with the last point, particularly, if possible, as I find it to be a very intriguing topic. I have no personal bias in regards to suicide prevention and internet anonymity, so I am up for a healthy and informative debate on this. This makes for an engaging debate. Thank you.