Resolved: cyberbullying should be a criminal offence

First I will answer my opponent's questions. Then, I will go on to speech 2. 1. This harm must be remedied, but not by criminalizing it. 2. Yes, when we talk about criminal offences we are talking about people's futures. My opponent is proposing that we send cyberbullies to jail for hurtful speech that is commonplace in the workplace and at school. He is suggesting that dramatically increasing the difficulty of getting good jobs is just punishment for cyberbullies. 3. Did you read my quotes from speech 1. 45 states have had no results with anti-cyberbullying laws, but Long Island had great results with a few educational programs. 4. Difficulty of conviction makes it more likely that there would be no conviction. It makes no sense to waste the court's time with cases that are highly probable to have no conviction. 5. Yes, and because of this belief I seek the best solution to the cyberbullying issue, which is not, as my opponent believes, making cyberbullying a criminal offence. 6. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' This is the case with the measure of criminalizing cyberbullying. The intentions may be good, but criminalization brings with it a host of problems. The risks outweigh the advantages. 7. 2 reasons: One, attacking cyberbullies have no face to face contact with their victims. They cannot perceive the harm that they cause to the victims. Two, some just take joy in making others suffer. You are not going to make this go away by criminalizing cyberbullying, nor will you prevent them from ruining lives. They will seek other routes to terrorize. To my opponent: I'm sorry that I didn't make clear in Round 1 that cyberbullying is to be defined as teens hurting teens, but that is speech and debate's definition, and I'm debating here to prepare for speech and debate. I will answer your current arguments, but I will ignore any more reference to adult cyberbullying. Speech 2: My opponent has stated that 5% of American children are scared after cyberbullying, but in the real world, at least 5% of American children are scared after bullying. Any fear online happens as a result of what happens in the real world. Therefore my opponent can post anything he wants on my wall and I would not care. I would want to see his evidence for his derogatory statements. I would taunt the fact that he cannot follow up on his threats. But if he went to my school, and had a reputation for mischief and a rash choler (bad temper), and happened to be my personal tormentor in school, I would have reason to fear for my safety should he threaten my life or my well-being. Cyberbullying is wrong, but the wrong in cyberbullying comes from bullying. Is the correct way of dealing with bullying criminalization? If not, what reason does my opponent use to justify criminalizing cyberbullying? My opponent has mislead you into thinking that cyberbullying is similar to rape and therefore should be criminalized. I ask you, how does cyberbullying share anything with rape? Is a rapist's intentions crystal clear? Would a rapist not know the harm that he causes? The answer to both these questions is yes, and that is why rape is illegal in this country. With cyberbullying, things are less clear. Most bullies mean to cause emotional pain, but not enough to motivate a victim to commit suicide. Most bullies don't know that they've caused more harm than appears on the surface, and that's why there have been school shootings and suicides. Criminalizing cyberbullying does not prevent these tragedies. I ask my opponent to define hate speech, since apparently he is willing to sacrifice his liberty to prevent it. Bosses verbally abuse employees every day. Does this count as hate speech? Apparently not, since there have been no law suits. What makes it ok for bosses to be mean, but illegal for kids to be mean? My opponent has a different interpretation of the phrase 'reduce harm'. I use this phrase to mean 'to prevent further harm', while my opponent takes the literal direction and uses it to say 'reduce the harm that the victim has suffered'. My opponent completely misunderstands me and rants for a half-paragraph that harm from actions cannot be undone. I agree, but the question is whether education can prevent further harm, not if it can resocialize criminals. He and I also have different interpretations of my 3rd contention. Current laws ban some aspects of cyberbullying, but not all. My opponent thinks that some is a synonym for all and uses the term cyberbullying, which is interpreted as all cyberbullying. The fact is that some aspects of verbal abuse need to be banned, but others are our liberties and should be defended. My opponent's international ban idea is not bad, but it fails to solve the problem (how many people actually hire foreign cronies?). 'For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, one strikes at the root.' In other words, for every thousand battling the effects of evil, one seeks to remedy the cause. We need to strike at the root, not pass new legislation to hack at the leaves. To strike at the root, we need social education. We need to teach people how to avoid being a target. We need to teach people what to do if they fear for their safety. We need to teach potential bullies that acts of unkindness are not tolerated.