Internet access is a privilege.

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. It is time for rebuttals, but I will cover some things I noticed before I begin.First, WilliamsP has made some very punitive statements meant to manipulate the voters. These include "my opponent utilized only two in order to support his opinion, not at all forged upon fact" and "his argument is overall flawed, unfounded, and pathetic." I hope the voters take this into consideration.Round 2 Rebuttals"Most of us are aware of the sheer nature of the web, how dangerous it can be, the threat it poses, and how it impacts our society. I would like to seize the opportunity to remind my opponent of these dangers. The dangers of the net should be evident, but I will list a few of them anyway. My source provides the following information: ... These must not be ignored. They are a part of the internet culture and we must accept that. We must acknowledge the dangers of the web and the threat is poses to our youth and even mature individuals. Of course, the internet is vast and there is reliable information on it somewhere, but the internet is a very dangerous tool when not utilized carefully. You cannot simply provide one internet access because it is a "right". They must be worthy of using it; they must earn that privilege. They must be responsible and careful with it. You cannot simply give it to them because you claim it to be a right. You must ensure they deserve the opportunity to utilize such a useful, yet dangerous tool."My opponent is using the dangers of the internet as a basis for his claim."Many experts will agree with me here. The New York Times states, "technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself." This presents a great point, as a matter of fact. Humans have a right to information, but not necessarily a right to a specific means of obtaining that information, which, in this discussion, is the internet. Information can be accessed in other ways, by means of newspapers or other medias, not necessarily the internet. The internet can be used to cyberbully, hack, and manipulate. Other sources of information, like a newspaper or magazine, cannot be used the same way. I would like to ask my opponent how is the internet, in any way, a right?"First of all, that article is talking about Vinton G. Cerf's opinion of human rights. There were very few facts presented in that article, besides facts about the internet itself. Secondly, my opponent asked me how it is a right. Here is a brief explanation: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."The Post essentially says the same as the Times, but I would like to share it anyway as support: "Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself.""This does not prove anything. It is simply the opinion of, again, Vinton G. Cerf, whose article is linked to the Huffington Post website."Let's look at an example of an ex-convict. He was a cyberbully and child pornography distributor. He was caught, convicted, and released many years later. Does he deserve to use the internet again? Is is a right for him to visit it again? I say no. It is a privilege he must earn again. He must restore the people's trust in him and make them know that he is worthy."What if this man needs to use the internet to research for an essay? What if he wants to turn his life around and create a life for himself? I'm a psychopath, but even I find that kind of a restriction to be immoral.Round 3 Rebuttals"My opponent has fully ignored certain aspects of internet usage. He simply states, "As I recently stated, we have entered the Information Age, which means our world is ... not be as successful as the people who do." I do acknowledge that the internet can be useful, but my opponent needs to acknowledge the very facts I placed before him. I showed how the internet is full of cyberbullying, pornography, and viruses, and can be used to hack and access classified information and data."I thought we were debating whether the internet is a right or a privilege, not whether it is dangerous or not. I have searched the deep web and am fully aware of the dangers of the internet. I hope my opponent gets his arguments together in the next paragraph."I would like to share some additional facts about the internet, some of which I neglected to mention in the previous round. I apologize for that. Internetsafety101.org states, "Almost 93% of kids, ages 12-17, are ... efforts are often underfunded." Given the dangers of the internet, how and why should it be a right? I want this question to be answered clearly, efficiently, and accurately. My opponent attempted to answer this, but I am not satisfied. I want more."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.My opponent has not made a very good claim here. Perhaps his arguments will be better in the next paragraphs."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."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?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."As a matter of fact, the internet is not the only source of information. I acknowledge that we live in the Information Age, but there are dozens of other types of medias in existence, most notably television, newspapers, magazines, and the radio. Tell me, can a person use a television in order to cyberbully or distribute child pornography? No, most certainly not. This is accomplished using the internet. Please consider this."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. ConclusionI believe my opponent has made some invalid arguments. I also believe I have proved him wrong. I look forward to his final refutations and his conclusion.Works Cited1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...