Internet access is a privilege.

IntroductionI will begin this round by thanking my opponent for his refutations. Before I make my final refutations and conclusion, I would like to apologize if it seemed that I tried to manipulate the voters. I honestly did not intend to do so, but if it seems like it, I would like to apologize. Now, I will state my final refutations and write a conclusion. RebuttalsI believe my opponent misunderstood some of my arguments. The dangers of the internet are key to my argument, but there are other certain points. Not only does the internet pose a threat, but it can also be misused. The internet itself is not always the threat; it is the people involved in it, it is the viruses and other harmful files on it, it is the media it presents - pornography is included - and how it affects our society. I utilized the opinion of Vinton G. Cerf in order to support my argument. Expert opinions are great supporting elements of an argument. My opponent provides a brief explanation of why it should be a right. He says this: "Because we are now in the information age, the internet is a source of information, just as books were a century ago. The world is changing and so must our sources. My opponent must accept this change in the world and realize that restricting the internet today is must like restricting access to books, scrolls, and newspapers a century ago. WilliamsP says we should use other things, like newspapers and magazines. He does, however, fail to realize that those can be accessed on the internet, without the use of paper."I acknowledge fully that we are in the Information Age. He says, "my opponent [I] must accept this change in the world and realize that restricting the internet today is must like restricting access to books, scrolls, and newspapers a century ago." Here is my issue: I do accept it. I truly do. I never claimed that one should not use the internet. I just argue that it is not a right; that it is a privilege. It is a privilege that can be easily earned and maintained. It is that simple. My opponent states the following: "Ah, yes. My opponent finally got to the true argument. He seems to be saying that the internet should be a privilege because it's dangerous. So, I guess kitchen knives should be only given to a privileged few because they are dangerous. How about a blender too? It's dangerous, so it shouldn't be a right, correct? What about paper? You could stuff it down someone's throat and kill them. Does that make it a privilege as well? I don't think so." I would like for my opponent to compare the dangers of the internet do the dangers of a kitchen knife or a blender. Honestly, this claim is absolutely pathetic and does not have a place in this debate. A kitchen knife is used to cut food. The internet is used to obtain information and, perhaps, spread crime. I made the following statement:"Many children and adolescents have had many bad things happen to them because they abused or were abused through the internet. It is most certainly not a right. It is a privilege. My opponent is unaware, however, that it is a privilege that can be earned very easily. The person must prove strength, trustworthiness, maturity, seriousness, integrity, and responsibility. These six things, I believe, are key to proper internet usage."My opponent responded with this statement: "The same thing occurred here. My opponent is saying the internet is a privilege because people abuse you. In that case, children should not go to school, because there is bullying there, right?"There is a clear difference between school - an obligation - and the internet - a choice. You are obligated to go school, but you choose to use the internet. In response to my personal story, my opponent said this: "Next, my opponent talked about his history on the internet and how he wishes he did not have access to it when he was in sixth grade. I acknowledge this claim, however doing what you did in sixth grade was solely your choice. If I did not have access to the internet when I was in sixth grade, I would have failed the grade. There were many times when I needed to access the internet for projects."I am sure my opponent did some of the same things I did in the sixth grade. The truth of the matter is that I also utilized the internet at times to do certain projects. "First, televisions are actually computers and Smart TVs can connect to the internet. That particular claim is invalid. However, my opponent is making the same argument he has been making: The internet is dangerous, so it should be a privilege. He has also talked about other forms of media, which are actually available on the internet without the use of paper. "I do acknowledge that televisions are computers and can access the internet. I concede to that notion. However, my opponent must accept the fact that the Information Age is served not only through the internet, but also through other types of sources. Newspapers and magazines are usually more accurate than a website. I will now refute my opponent's conclusion:"I believe my opponent has made some invalid arguments." I have made only one, which was the one regarding televisions. I do not see any other invalid arguments of mine. My opponent, on the other hand, misunderstood my arguments and is taking the wrong side of this issue. "I also believe I have proved him wrong." Actually, he has not. He solely used his opinion - with only a few facts to support it - in order to argue his case. In the second round, I had seven sources. My opponent had two. I am not trying to manipulate the voters when I say this, but I say this: Voters, please consider this. This clearly shows that my opponent has not taken his time and that his argumend revolved around his opinion, with a few facts here and there. Here is what I did: I defined the internet. I defined 'privilege'. I provided information about the dangers of the internet. I extensively showed how internet access is a privilege instead of a right. ConclusionOverall, this debate was enjoyable. However, my opponent had his entire arguments revolve around his opinion solely, with a few facts here or there. The voters should consider this. I do see my opponent's case and he makes some valid points, but the reality of the situation is that I argued more extensively, more in depth, and more efficiently than my opponent. So far in this debate, I used a total of nine sources. My oppponent, in total, has four. I effectively utilized my sources, while my opponent did not truly do so. The outcome of this debate lies in the hands of the voters. My opponent likes to end his debates with, "Vote Con!" or "Vote Pro!", while I do not. It is not the choice of the debaters. It is the interpretation of the debate and voting on the debate that counts. I look forward to my opponent's final refutations and conclusion and I wish him good luck.