Round 2: LordBucket vs Getreadyalready: (Search) Engine of Change?

The topic for this debate is "The internet is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world”

LordBucket will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Getreadyalready will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

24 hour time limit for LordBucket's opening statement begins as of the timestamp on this post.

reply to post by The Vagabond

"The internet is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world”

In the history of our species, every tangible change effected by humans upon our environment has had its origins in a non-tangible space: our mind. Look around at all the technological marvels around you. Look at the cars you drive, the refrigerator that keeps your food cold, the television, the internet...look at all of these things that affect your life and realize that none of them magically popped into existed. All of them began as purely non-physical ideas in someone's head.

Ideas, however, must be communicated before they can affect anyone. This can occur directly, for example...consider a a sculptor who carves a statue of a dolphin from a block of wood using a medium like a carving knife, and then hands the dolphin to someone. But how many people does such a direct transfer of idea-into-reality affect? Only people who see the scupture. What if instead of communicating ideas into reality directly, we communicate ideas to people?

Consider a few of the most transforming discoveries and inventions in human history. Fire. The wheel. Surely the first human who had a burning branch handed to him thought of it as a "dramatic" event. How much more dramatic would it have been, if instead of handing over one single branch, the secret of making fire had been simultaneously handed to every human being on the planet at the press of a button? Is the internet a viable medium for effecting change? Of course. Not only is it viable, it's quite probably the most effective medium available to our species.

The most dramatic phenemenon in human history have always been those that transmit ideas. Consider one of the most influential mediums that has ever existed over the course of human history: the Bible. Whether or not everyone agrees with its message, doesn't change the fact that its message has had a huge effect on the human experience. Simply through the act of placing ideas and messages into written form where they can be made easily accessible to people, the Bible has hugely influenced the lives of billions of people on this planet. Or, what about radio? How "dramatic" was the change brought about by the millions of people led to believe in a martian invasion by Orson Welles' War of the World broadcast? What about television? How much has the world changed because of the billions watching television? Yet nobody is much affected by the physical television in their living room or the physical Bible on their nightstand. It's the information communicated through these mediums that make for a dramatic effect on our lives.

Just like a book, just like radio, just like television, the internet is a medium through which ideas may be conveyed. And, not having the limits of its precursors; being able to convey through text, sound, picture and video...the internet is potentially the most effective and powerful medium for change the world has ever known.

What an honor for a first-timer to have advanced to the second round! Thank you guys so much, especially Ozweatherman for dropping out! I am sorry to have had to win that way, but I look forward to proving my worth in this round.

I feel the “Con” position of this argument is a most difficult one. The dramatic effects of the internet on our world are apparent in every facet of the developed society. I would venture to say there is not a single academic discipline or common vocation that has not been affected by the internet in some way. ATS is but one of innumerable information sources on the net, and just using this one small example we have information ranging from how to properly “brain-tan” a deerskin to who killed JFK to how to construct your own personal “free-energy” device from scrap parts! The internet is invasive to the point of being a necessity in modern society! So……how does one argue against the dramatic change the internet has obviously caused?

Let me first define “internet” for our purposes here. I contend that for the purposes of this debate the internet is synonymous with the “World Wide Web.” I do not believe the internet we are discussing can apply to all network computing. I believe it is impossible to deny that instantaneous communication and data sharing is a dramatic change to our physical world. However, I do believe an argument that the “World Wide Web” has outlived its usefulness as a viable and dramatic tool can be made. Therefore, when I use the term “internet,” I am referring to the World Wide Web, not network computing in general. It is a small difference, but it is very important.

I hate to be a stickler for details but the topic says “The internet is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world.” Those bolded words are important, and they will be the foundation of my argument. I believe the topic as written was potentially true a decade ago, but today the internet, like so many other things, has been bastardized and twisted into a marketing device, a means of commerce, and a vice for so many. Therefore the web has lost its ability to be a “viable medium” and it has ceased to be “dramatic” in any way. On top of those shortcomings, it has also become more of a “virtual” reality and less of a means for “physical” change. Over the internet’s short life it has succeeded in causing less and less physical change in the world. The virtual reality world has sufficed as a substitute for the physical one in so many ways that it has become almost autonomous and inconsequential to the physical world. At this point a significant portion of people have chosen to participate exclusively in one world or the other, but not both..

Throughout this debate I will refer to many examples where the internet failed to meet its potential, and instead was steered in a way to become a triviality and solely an entertainment and commerce source. I will often refer to those three key words: viable, dramatic, and physical. I will prove that the World Wide Web has already outlived its potential to be viable for anything dramatic, and that its chance for effecting any real physical change has long passed. I may concede a great many points on the effectiveness of our modern communications, but I will always bring the discussion back to those three key words as they apply to the World Wide Web.

My esteemed opponent mentioned the Holy Bible as an example of how a communication medium in an abstract sense was effective at changing the world for the last 20 centuries. He is correct, but not all of that change has been good change! Millions of lives have been lost over the smallest of translation errors or interpretations. If anything the history of religion and the Bible in general serve as a prime example of why this is NOT a “viable medium.” A viable medium for change going forward would surely have an expectation of peaceful change and clear messages to avoid violence over small miscommunications. One can spend but a few minutes on the internet to realize that miscommunications, misrepresentations, and outright lies are still leading to violence and strife. I appreciate my opponent’s addition of this example and I will refer back to it often. Mass communication is not always a “viable medium,” and quite often it has the opposite of the intended effect!

I will focus my attentions in this debate on control of the internet through censorship and corporate and governmental oversight. I will point out the vast redundancy (information lost in a sea of information) that makes the internet inefficient. I will refer to control and manipulation of search engines and the resulting manipulation of viewers. I will also refer often to the many vices and potential crimes the internet has created. I will show that for every decent addition the internet has provided, there is at least one potentially dangerous addition to offset any real change. I will show that although modern network computing is a wonderful “tool,” the World Wide Web is already corrupted and can serve only as a manipulation device and a means of mass misinformation. It is no longer a viable medium for change.

In closing, I readily concede that the internet has already resulted in a dramatic change to our society, and it is probably the number one driving force behind the “information age” we have the privilege of living in. On the other hand, I am fully confident that I can argue the day of the World Wide Web as a “viable” instrument for “dramatic” change in our “physical” world is dead and gone. The internet has risen and fallen, and it is now a huge marketing and commerce tool.

The next big leap in computing, networking, and communicating is probably just around the corner and we will surely move into another brave new world, but that leap will be despite the distraction of the internet, not as a result of it!

reply to post by getreadyalready

The dramatic effects of the internet on our world are
apparent in every facet of the developed society.

I readily concede that the internet has already
resulted in a dramatic change to our society

Sounds to me like my opponent has conceded the debate, specifically acknowledged the "dramatic" component (twice), and since he acknowledges that the internet does have these effects on society, obviously he agrees that it's a viable medium.

In any scored debate, I would simply accept my opponents concessions and conclude. However. the event moderator has advised me to proceed with arguments anyway. I don't really understand how my opponent can state the above, and then immediately turn around and claim that he's going to focus his arguments on proving otherwise. Unfortunately this probably means that the next three rounds are mostly going to consist of backpedaling and repetition of already resolved points.

I'll do what I can to at least keep it lively and entertaining.

------------------

That the internet is a viable medium for effecting change is extremely obvious. For example: this debate exists. You are reading this post right now, and you are reading it online. If it were not for the internet, that would not be happening. Very obviously, even right now as you read these words, your physical reality is being changed by participation in this discussion taking place through the medium of the internet: you're sitting in a chair looking at a computer screen instead of doing something else.

But is that "dramatic?" What you're doing is changed, but not hugely so. You could easily be watching a debate in person at your local college instead of reading it online. So, let's examine dramatic:

Dramatic:

1. Of or relating to drama or the theater.
2. Characterized by or expressive of the action or emotion associated with drama
3. Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect

The meanings relevant to our discussion are 2 and 3, but all three can be demonstrated. If you really want to see theatrical drama transmitted over the internet, you need go no further than youtube. Or if you prefer to see "change in the physical world relevant to theater," you can check out any of the various MPAA piracy lawsuits contending that dissemination of movies online is having an impact on their industry. If it is, that would be effected change. If it isn't, people in real life are being sued over what they do online. Either way, it's real world change, it's dramatic, it relates to theater in the form of movies, and it's all a result of things transmitted over the medium of the internet. This alone demonstrates viabiity on all three counts.

However, I think the spirit of the debate is more about definitions 2 and 3, so let's focus our examples on those.

If you want your dramatic in the form of action and emotion, we can start our tour with Project Chanology. Basically, a couple people on 4chan decided to "troll" the Church of Scientology, and this led to years of very much physical, "in real life" protests and marches against them, as well as millions of people being made aware of Scientology via youtube videos. How did they make this happen? Simple: they announced and organized it all on an online image board. An online medium was used to organize the biggest thorn in the side that has ever existed in the history of the church.

Next on our tour of "action and emotion," let's look at what happened when somebody posted a hoax on Oprah's online message board in the over 9000 penises incident. For those who don't recognize the reference, "over 9000" is an internet meme spawned by a totally innocent and unrelated comment in a piece of 1990's animation. Basically it was an in-joke, and what happened here is that somebody posted something online and that post resulted in the world's richest woman announcing on national television to millions of viewers that there was an organized nationwide pedophile network, when no such organization exists. That may be distateful, but it's awfully dramatic.

If you want "dramatic" in the form of very real and personal experience of people across the world, simply think of how many grannies out there got to see their grandchildren for the first time via a picture sent through email. Think about how many soldiers at war are able to stay in contact with their wives through the internet. Think about how many people have met and get married to people they met online. Think of the 11 million people whose daily lives are ruled by how much they play World of Warcraft.

If you want your "dramatic" in the form of billions of dollars, then check out the various Forbes lists of most powerful and influential companies in the entire world:

Google 17th highest market value in the world
Amazon: 101st highest market value in the world
Ebay: 217th highest market value in the world

These are internet companies. What goes on online has the power to make or break companies with more wealth and power than most small countries. Since the "physical" aspect of this topic has been brought into question, let me reiterate that: the internet is used as a medium for activities that have resulted in billions of real world dollars changing hands. Additionally, a company like google easily has the power to affect other companies, or even influence the political process simply by tweaking their search algorithms. Millions of people get their news online. If google, whether deliberately or unintentionally, prioritizes news results to favor one candidate or measure over another, that could easily alter the course of of an election. Would they? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. But changing what is reported online and how it is reported online is absolutely a viable and effective means of changing real world dollars, politics and events.

If you want a direct example of online activities affecting real world politics, let's next look at Operation Titstorm. This was a masive, online political protest against the Australian government in response to their proposed internet censorship regulations. In a purely online event, a couple hundred hackers attacked and defaced Austrialian government websites, and in particular made the official website of the Australian Parliament unavailable for two whole days. The results? Well, according to wikipedia:

With the announcement made on 5 August 2010 by Joe Hockey that the Coalition parties will not vote in favour of the policy should the Labor party be re-elected, it is now virtually impossible for the filtering scheme to pass through the Senate.

By all indications, a handful of people deliberately used the internet to influence Australian law, and succeeded. Think about that. These were not physical protests. They were online. A plan of action was deliberately concocted on an internet forum, carried out purely online, and that action resulted in significant, dramatic, and very real world changes to the legal system of the sixth largest country in the world.

There are many examples of real-world changes resulting from online events.

------------------

To conclude, I would like to briefly address a few statements from my opponent's opening remarks.

I contend that for the purposes of this debate the internet is synonymous with the “World Wide Web.”

That doesn't work. The web is merely one component of the internet. The "internet" is simply a connection of networks that have been linked to each other. There are a lot of devices on that "inter" network that aren't even computers, let alone involved with hosting web content. VoIP telephones, cameras, orbital satellites, internet television, email...even relating to ATS you can sign up to get twitter feeds directed to your cellphone.

I don't expect that this will become a major point of contention. There are plenty of examples of even just the web by itself massively affecting the real world, so there's not much need to address anything else, but suggesting that "the internet" is exclusively the web is horribly naive.

One can spend but a few minutes on the internet to realize that miscommunications,
misrepresentations, and outright lies are still leading to violence and strife. I appreciate
my opponent’s addition of this example and I will refer back to it often.

I will also refer often to the many vices and potential crimes the internet has created.

Sounds great. Please refer to these things. Every time you do, you're demonstrating that the internet is an effective medium for change. Nobody said that change had to be positive, and nobody said the actual change had to match what was intended. Like in my example with Oprah and her 9001 penises. Blatant hoax based on lies, and with a totally negative spin and result.

But it had an awfully dramatic effect on the real world.

it is now a huge marketing and commerce tool.

Yes, please do tell us at great length how the internet is a huge marketing and commerce tool. Tell us how it is a causitive force in commerce, how business are compelled to use and deal with it, and how it directs and effects the flow of billions of dollars and companies across the world. Please do. I'm only allowed 5 domains worth of links per post, and if you use up some of yours demonstrating these things, that will be even more examples showing how the internet effects the real world.

I meant it when I said the internet is probably the most effective and powerful medium for change the world has ever known.





Moderator notes:
"Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference" Citations are out of sequence, but the count is within the alotment: 5 domains, 9 total links.

9747 displayed characters according to character count, not including moderator notes.

reply to post by LordBucket


First let me thank my opponent for their gracious attempt at making this interesting with such a weak opponent. Next, I will apologize for any miscommunication on my part. I did “concede” everything the internet has been up to this point in time. It has had a wonderful run. Unfortunately for my opponent the topic states "The internet is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world”

The word “is” to me means that all of the internet’s previous glory is moot. By conceding that the internet has already been a dramatic influence in the past, I had hoped to avoid that distraction and save my opponent some time from debating moot points.

What we are debating is whether or not the internet “is” still a viable medium for dramatic change in the physical world.

I would like to also thank my opponent for further trivializing the internet by confining it to the realm of theatre. Here is the definition of “dramatic” that my opponent has chosen to use?

1. Of or relating to drama or the theater.
2. Characterized by or expressive of the action or emotion associated with drama
3. Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect.

At this time I won’t comment further on the significance of that definition, except to say that is certainly much narrower of a definition than I would have chosen, and it serves to show that nothing by that definition can effect change in the “physical” world.

Maybe my opponent has misunderstood the topic. Perhaps this debate has a language barrier? Simply changing my physical state by causing me to read a passage or listen to some sound is not the “dramatic” change the topic is about? If it were, then one could argue that a butterfly landing on a dandelion on a summer afternoon is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world. A butterfly’s actions are more profound, entertaining, and emotional than the majority of content on the internet, but I don’t believe that is the topic at hand.

My opponent used 4Chan as an example in this passage:

If you want your dramatic in the form of action and emotion, we can start our tour with Project Chanology. Basically, a couple people on 4chan decided to "troll" the Church of Scientology, and this led to years of very much physical, "in real life" protests and marches against them, as well as millions of people being made aware of Scientology via youtube videos. How did they make this happen? Simple: they announced and organized it all on an online image board. An online medium was used to organize the biggest thorn in the side that has ever existed in the history of the church.

In my personal experience I have never been affected by anything related to 4Chan, or Scientology. I have lived in many cities, and I have never seen such a protest. The Church of Scientology continues to attract followers and raise money and run a successful business plan. In reality, the only thing I know of the Church of Scientology comes from a South Park episode, and I watched it on television, not the internet. I believe this examples goes to further trivialize the novelty of the internet as an effective medium for change. Simply associating with 4chan, or Youtube, already lends an air of “unbelieveability” and skepticism to the whole notion.

My opponents next example was this:

If you want "dramatic" in the form of very real and personal experience of people across the world, simply think of how many grannies out there got to see their grandchildren for the first time via a picture sent through email. Think about how many soldiers at war are able to stay in contact with their wives through the internet. Think about how many people have met and get married to people they met online. Think of the 11 million people whose daily lives are ruled by how much they play World of Warcraft.

So, how grannies have seen their grandchildren for the first time by other means besides email? Is this a new phenomenon? The delivery mode of the mail may have changed, but was it dramatic? Was it life-altering or new? Quite possibly it is not even an improvement! How many family reunions have been cut short or preempted because a video chat would suffice? Does a video chat have the same “dramatic” and “physical” effect as a first embrace? I think not!

My opponent goes on to talk of 11 million people playing World of Warcraft. It seems my opponent has inadvertently admitted that the “virtual” world has become autonomous and has no real effect on the physical world. 11 million people that were previously in their own homes reading, or playing sci-fi games, or interacting with a very limited group of like-minded individuals are now doing exactly the same thing! Where is the change? The drama?

And, for my favorite example, which I am pleased to bring into the debate by using my opponents own links and statistics, let us ponder this statement:

Google 17th highest market value in the world
Amazon: 101st highest market value in the world
Ebay: 217th highest market value in the world

These are internet companies. What goes on online has the power to make or break companies with more wealth and power than most small countries. Since the "physical" aspect of this topic has been brought into question, let me reiterate that: the internet is used as a medium for activities that have resulted in billions of real world dollars changing hands.

I believe I made the point in my opening that the internet has become simply a means of commerce and vice. It is useful as a marketing tool…..an advertising medium. Everything my opponent links to is proof of that concept. So can an advertising medium, or a new means of commerce really be a “viable dramatic medium for change in the physical world?” I think it can, and it has been, and it is no longer.

Let’s compare another dramatic change in the advertising and commerce world. Let’s compare the internet to the Sear’s catalog! Would anyone reading this forum consider the Sear’s catalog as a “viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world?” OF COURSE NOT! But, it was considered exactly that after its original inception and subsequent success!

History of the Sears Catalog



The 1943 Sears News Graphic wrote that the Sears catalog, "serves as a mirror of our times, recording for future historians today’s desires, habits, customs, and mode of living."
…
Fueled by the Homestead Act of 1862, America’s westward expansion followed the growth of the railroads. The postal system aided the mail order business by permitting the classification of mail order publications as aids in the dissemination of knowledge entitling these catalogs the postage rate of one cent per pound. The advent of Rural Free Delivery in 1896 also made distribution of the catalog economical.
…
"Our trade reaches around the World."
…
He placed the Graphophone in an office setting, and the optigraph moving picture machine appeared. Reflecting current events, the lantern slide collection included shows on the Klondike gold fields, the destruction of the Maine and the Cuban war

Sears Archives

In my own lifetime I have seen Sears Catalogs used as a t ractor seats, step stool, pornography, car repair, home improvement, fraudulent crimes, Christmas list, and every imaginable means of commerce. Does this mean the Sears Catalog IS still a viable means of dramatic change in the physical world? OF COURSE NOT!

The internet is the Sears catalog of our time. In its infancy it changed the world, but it is now an aging and defunct system for advertising. If one could make the case that the internet still has potential as a medium for effecting dramatic change, then one could make the same case for billboards.
I am not a big fan of the Socratic Method. It served to get Socrates killed, and it seems to be a passive-aggressive form of trapping your opponent and making them seem inadequate with their own words. Still, in the interest of fair game, the rules of the forum, and noting that my opponent first attempted to make their case in the forum of popular opinion outside this thread, I believe I will propose some Socratic Questions here:

1. Can you name at least 5 changes in the physical world during 2010 that were solely a result of the internet? (Changes in temporary physical state of single person or group do not suffice. A shooting star can do that.)

2. Can you give any vision, direction, or suggestion as to how you would specifically use only the internet to effect a dramatic change in a stranger’s physical world?

3. Can you state what makes the internet unique as a medium? In other words, why would one choose the internet as a medium for effecting a physical change over other established methods?

Can you name at least 5 changes in the physical world
during 2010 that were solely a result of the internet?
(Changes in temporary physical state of single person or
group do not suffice. A shooting star can do that.)

Are you seriously suggesting that "temporary physical state changes in people or groups" don't count as examples of physical change? So if I shoot you in the foot and the wound heals, you're saying that the gun wasn't a viable medium of change for your state of health? Your criteria are ridiculous.

I think the answer to your question is that I can't find examples that you won't be able to find a way to misrepresent, but if you're willing to be intellectually honest about it, it's trivial to find year-2010 examples of the internet being used as a medium for change. You want altruism? How many millions of dollars were donated to the Haiti relief fund from online sources? How about politics? According to facebook, House and Senate candidates with higher facebook standings are subtantially more likely to win elections. Finance? American companies are establishing themselves in the chinese market through online advertising. Activism? According to this Washington Post article about a man beaten to death by police:

After the photograph of Said's corpse started circulating on Facebook
and Twitter, a protest outside the Interior Ministry in Cairo was the
largest in living memory against police brutality.

If social media in the Arab world were merely outlets for venting or "stress relief" -- as detractors claim -- then Said's fate would have ended with some angry comments on Facebook and a tweet or two railing at the Egyptian regime.

Instead, thanks to social media's increasing popularity and ability to connect activists with ordinary people, Egyptians are protesting police brutality in unprecedented numbers. On July 27, the two police officers connected to his death stood trial on charges of illegal arrest and excessive use of force. If convicted, they face three to 15 years' imprisonment.

That's four, and for number five I'll give you an example I'm more familiar with personally: According to Liga International, roughly 10% of their 2010 volunteers out of a membership of 562 people first heard about and joined Liga after reading about it online. They operate medical clinics in Sinaloa. That's real life doctors saving real life people solely because they stumbed on a website for a volunteer organization and thought to themselves, "Hey. That's really cool. I could donate my time and save some lives."

So there are your five examples. Props for asking for five, which not coincidentally is exactly the number of source links allowed by the debate rules. I will, however, use my fifth link to direct you to this list of distributed computing projects going on right now. What is distributed computing? The premise is simple: There are millions of computers on the internet that spend most of their time not doing anything. And there are a lot of physics/math/chemistry/biology/etc. problems that can be solved by throwing millions of years of computing time at them. Comparitive analysis of genetic data from multiple subjects to identify regions responsible for diseases. Brute force number crunching to solve otherwise unsolvable math problems. Solid-state physics modeling to predict material behaviors.

Lots of things that are very useful, and that are going on right now. You asked for five examples, so I gave you five. Now check out that link for a list of sixty six internet projects going on right now, many of which have the potential to have a real life effect on our world in a variety of fields.

2. Can you give any vision, direction, or suggestion as to how you would specifically
use only the internet to effect a dramatic change in a stranger’s physical world?

I could, but why? There is no need for "only" the internet to be at cause. It need only be a medium for change. If I send you a letter by post, you'd agree that the postal service is the medium for the transmission of that letter, right? It doesn't matter if a mailman picks up the letter from my mailbox, or if a car is used to drive the letter to your house. The postal service was still a medium of transmission. Similarly, if the internet is one contributing factor in an event, it doesn't make the example invalid just because other factors were also involved. If I raise a million dollars online and give that money to a homeless charity, the internet was still involved as a medium even though people, and not underground cables are working the soup kitchens.

So, recognizing that the question is silly...I'm going to answer it anyway. Yes. Very easily. For example...shut it down. Take a few moments to ponder what would happen worldwide if the internet suddenly disappeared one day, and ask yourself how "dramatic" an effect it would have on daily life.

3. Can you state what makes the internet unique as a medium?

The most unique quality of the internet as a medium is that it makes mass communication readily available to anyone. Television can send a message to many people, but those people can't easily relay messages back, and not everyone can get on tv. Anyone can mail letters, but it's expensive and impractical for most individuals to mail letters to millions of people. The internet makes accessible to anyone, powers of communication previously reserved only to governments, corporations, and the very rich.

So yes, the internet does have a unique quality. Which is very convenient for my argument. But, I will also point out that "uniqueness" of function is not at issue here. Only viability of function. Yes, there are other communications mediums that also do what the internet does. The internet happens to be faster, cheaper, more accessible and more versitile than any of them. But even if it wasn't it would still be a viable medium. For example, I consider the internet to be a superior medium to television. But that doesn't make television unviable as a medium for change. If, for example, alien "first contact" were aired live on national television, that would absolutely change the world. If plain text words and black and white pictures were printed in newspapers to report that same thing, that would also change the world. I maintain that the internet is a better medium than either television or newspaper...but it doesn't even need to be better to be a viable medium.

Socratic Question 1
At a rough count, you've agreed over a dozen times that the internet "was" an effective medium for dramatic change. Yet you claim that that it isn't any longer. Justify that. We've already discussed lots of examples of dramatic change brought about through the internet. Why do you believe all of these changes it was viable for yesterday are no longer possible today?

Socratic question 2
I directed you to a wiki list of online distributed computing projects going on right now. Some are trivial. Others are very significant, How do you rationalize that internet computing projects doing things like locating genes responsible for disease don't qualify as as dramatic real world change?

---

And, just to quickly address a couple things:

In my personal experience I have never been affected by anything related to 4Chan, or Scientology. I have lived in many cities, and I have never seen such a protest.

That's nice. Millions of people have. You've probably never been infected with AIDS either, but you wouldn't deny that's a significant real world phenomenon.

How many family reunions have been cut short
or preempted because a video chat would suffice?

If they have, then that would mean the internet has changed their real life family reunion, right?

My opponent goes on to talk of 11 million people playing World of Warcraft.
It seems my opponent has inadvertently admitted that the “virtual” world
has become autonomous and has no real effect on the physical world.

I don't think autonomous means quite what you think it means. In fact, I've read over that paragraph several times and I'm still not sure what you intended to say. But if something online draws the attention of 11 million people an average of 3+ hours a day (I've used up my links, do your own search) I'd say that totally has an effect on the real world. And if you want to measure your drama through the human experience of turmoil and angst, I think I can safely say that even something as trivial as blizzard releasing a single new vanity pet counts as dramatic. But for the portion of the audience who isn't laughing out loud at that statement, just look at the numbers: 11 million people average three hours a day playing WoW. That's thirty seven hundred human years per day. Every single day, roughly roughly forty-eight entire human lifetimes are spent playing world of warcraft. That's over seveteen thousand lifetimes per year.

Does anyone want to pretend that's not significant?

That's just one online game.

Let’s compare the internet to the Sear’s catalog! Would anyone reading this
forum consider the Sear’s catalog as a “viable medium for effecting dramatic
change in the physical world?” OF COURSE NOT!

...wait, what? Using that logic...let's compare your argument to a dead fish. Would anyone listen to it? As you say, "OF COURSE NOT!"

But your argument is not a dead fish. And the internet is not the Sears catalog.

If one could make the case that the internet still has potential as a medium
for effecting dramatic change, then one could make the same case for billboards.

Sure you could. And the millions of dollars that go into marketing and political campaigning would tend to agree with you.

reply to post by LordBucket


I am going to reply in reverse order for clarity.

Let me first say that putting up a billboard with a message is not “dramatic change.” Sure, it does get a message out there for people, but it is still up to those people to make the change. They could have received that message from any number of different viable mediums and none are “effective” and “dramatic” until the person receiving the message has taken some physical action. Therefore those mediums did nothing to effect that dramatic change.

Let’s compare the internet or a billboard to a megaphone. If I put up a billboard outside a crowded theatre lobby and it says, “RUN, FIRE!” there will NOT be a mass exodus from the lobby. It may spark up a conversation or two, but it won’t cause a dramatic, physical change. If I hand a megaphone to a Baritone voice and they state, “RUN, FIRE!” it WILL result in dramatic, physical change. If I put up a street sign saying “merge left” some people will merge others will wait, and nothing dramatic happens until the lane actually ends. If I post a police car with flashing lights, a recognizable authority figure, and clear penalties for ignoring its presence, then we get an immediate, dramatic, physical change.

Therefore, we can ascertain that not every medium, even if somewhat effective, is a “viable medium for dramatic, physical change.”

Now, as for the Sear’s catalog, I already posted rhetoric from the time period showing that the Sear’s catalog “aids in the dissemination of knowledge,” and served “as a mirror of our times, recording for future historians today’s desires, habits, customs, and mode of living.” The catalog boasted “our trade reaches around the world.” It was the sole source of pornography (in the form of bra ads). It was the newest and most far-reaching form of commerce. People feared that it would make the General Store obsolete! For the first time people could make purchases from their own home and have them delivered to their doorstep! I stated, “The Internet is the Sear’s Catalog of our time.” A case could be made that the internet is a direct descendant of that Sear’s catalog! Surely it deserves a better rebuttal than a dead fish? Although, the Sear’s catalog in today’s day and age is nothing more than a dead fish. It went from the most dramatic development in commerce in its own time to a dead fish much like the internet is doing in this generation.

I also addressed your example from the World of Warcraft. Yes, I believe that 11 million people play that game. I believe that they might average 3 hours per day. I rebut the fact that there is any change, especially physical or dramatic change. Do you consider it a dramatic, physical change to get up from a Dungeons and Dragons board game and sit down at a World of Warcraft computer monitor? I certainly do not! Monopoly, Boggle and Trivial Pursuit replaced Rummy and Chinese checkers. Was that a dramatic, physical change? I think not!

You stated that “something as trivial as blizzard releasing a single new vanity pet counts as dramatic.” First, I would like to point out the oxymoron in that statement! How can anything “trivial” also be “dramatic?” If Justin Bieber lifts his shirt up to wipe sweat off his brow, it is the most dramatic thing that will happen to a 12 year old girl for a week! Is Justin Bieber’s bare stomach an effective medium for change?

As for my opponent’s contention that because I have not been affected by 4Chan, then I have also not been affected by AIDS, of course I have been affected by the AIDS virus. Not “infected” but “affected.” My sexual practices have changed. I now get routinely tested. The discovery and spread of the AIDS virus has had a dramatic, physical affect on the entire world! There is no person that hasn’t given it a thought or felt a little stress about it. 4Chan on the other hand is entirely unknown to the majority of the world. The only place I have ever personally seen it mentioned is on ATS. It is not a dramatic, physical change to the world at large. My opponent’s analogy goes to further prove that there are effective and viable mediums out there for effecting change, but the internet is not one of them. It is but one tool in a toolbox of communication and marketing devices.

Now, I will skip back to the beginning of my opponents post.

Am I

seriously suggesting that temporary physical state changes in people or groups don’t’ count as examples of physical change?

YES!

A reflection off a passing airplane might get my temporary attention. I might read a headline on a newsstand and ponder what the article might be about. I might hear a baby crying and temporarily feel nostalgic, sad, concerned, annoyed, etc. I might even alter my path to check on the baby or avoid the noise. These are all temporary physical changes in my state, but the medium that caused them is not a “viable medium for dramatic, physical change.” Babies are very effective communicators! They get your attention! But, they are not a viable medium. A sun glint or glare is dramatic! It is impossible to ignore and can even be damaging to eyes, but it is not a viable medium in most cases.

My opponent stated:

roughly 10% of their 2010 volunteers out of a membership of 562 people first heard about and joined Liga after reading about it online.

For my opponents example, it was 10%. Or approximately 200 people. The other 90% or 1,800 people volunteered through other channels! Was that a dramatic change? A 10% increase in volunteers is certainly a good thing, but in today’s economy turmoil Volunteering is up anyway. Approximately 2 million extra people volunteered in 2010 compared to 2009. The internet is an acceptable way to find information on volunteer groups, but it is not dramatic. There is no evidence that the 10% increase that Liga saw was not a result of the economic times, or that those 10% would not have found another way to volunteer, or another group to volunteer with.

Before I address the Socratic Questions, I want to point out that my opponent conceded this point:

I think the answer to your question is that I can't find examples that you won't be able to find a way to misrepresent, but if you're willing to be intellectually honest about it, it's trivial to find year-2010 examples of the internet being used as a medium for change.

To grab a page from my opponents playbook, should we end the debate now? Has my opponent conceded that there is not a single current example that I won’t be able to rebut? Surely a viable medium capable of dramatic, physical change would have some evidence from the current year? But, I do agree that we will only find trivialities.

Sure my opponent went on to give examples in politics, but where did the majority of political advertising dollars go?

Broadcast television, cornering nearly 60 percent of total political spending, will still be the undisputed champion in the political advertising space and may see some follow-along ad dollars from online combo buys from the campaigns. With 95 percent penetration, TV is still the fastest way to reach the broadest audience of registered voters.

However, there will be no corresponding bonanza for online media. We forecast online political ad spending will total $20 million in 2008, less than one-half of one percent of all political advertising.

Source
So the biggest Advertising and Manipulation experts in the land are earmarking a whopping 0.5 % of their marketing dollars for online spending? That does not seem like a “dramatic” number?

My opponent also went on to list “distributed computing projects.” These projects are available from sources outside the World Wide Web. Universities often share computing power. Networks exist outside the WWW environment. Many people are beginning to build private networks. As I stated in my opening the “internet” or “world wide web” is quickly becoming obsolete for anything other than marketing. The real future of “dramatic” change is happening in a cellular environment from user to user and among thousands of private networks popping up all over the world. “Network computing” is still growing, but the “internet” as we know it today is nothing more than a digital Sear’s catalog.

May I point out that my opponent also entirely deflected my SQ #2!

I could, but why?

Why? To build your case. To satisfy my curiousity. To show that you believe in the argument you are making. If it is too difficult to provide an example of how you would personally use the internet as a viable medium, then perhaps you are not fully vested in the argument you are making! I completely understand.

Answers to SQ:
#1: I believe this because it was new. A “new” girlfriend is dramatic. An “old” girlfriend just has drama! Entirely different, LOL!
I believe it is being replaced by other media. I believe it has been bastardized by corporations seeking to make a buck off of it. I believe it is inundated with information to the point of having no information. I believe for every decent thing about the internet, there are a dozen problems to block its effectiveness. I believe there is so much faulty information, hoaxes, and faux news that anything credible is discounted or lost in the sea of information.

#2: Network computing projects are not “the internet.” Linking together a few hundred computers via established communication lines such as DSL or Cable or Cellular technology is different than utilizing the World Wide Web. Network computing is still growing, and it will likely replace what we currently know as the internet. In my opinion, the “internet” is now a social and commerce platform. It will continue to be used much like the old “party lines” when telephones were an emerging technology. It is a nightclub, a Sear’s catalog, and a flashing billboard. Nobody is curing Cancer or mapping genomes on the world wide web, they are doing it in their labs, with their colleagues and they are utilizing several communication techniques to collaborate on their projects. When it comes time to publish their results, they will utilize a Press Conference, Cameras, Radio Stations, the World Wide Web, will be an afterthought, just like it was for political advertising!

reply to post by getreadyalready

putting up a billboard with a message is
not “dramatic change.”

No, but if somebody puts up a billboard and something dramatic happens as a result of it that billboard was a medium for dramatic change. Printing a book is not "dramatic change" either, but we've already agreed that the Bible has had a dramatic effect on the world.

A case could be made that the internet is a
direct descendant of that Sear’s catalog!

And a case could be made that you are a direct descendant of an amoeba. But we expect more from you than we expect from an ameoba, yes?

First, I would like to point out the oxymoron in that statement!
How can anything “trivial” also be “dramatic?”

I guess you've never met any teenagers?

A 10% increase in volunteers
Was that a dramatic change?

If you were one of the people who is alive right now because of those 10% of doctors, then yes, I'm pretty sure you'd agree it was a dramatic change.

4Chan on the other hand is entirely unknown to the majority of the world.

Fox News is pretty mainstream, dude.

should we end the debate now? Has my opponent conceded that there
is not a single current example that I won’t be able to rebut?

I'd be happy to end it right now. We're mired deeply in the backpedaling and repetition I warned about a couple posts back. All you have left is blatant misinterpretation and selectively ignoring parts of sentences, like in this little gem in which you quoted me as saying:

"I think the answer to your question is that I can't find
examples that you won't be able to find a way to misrepresent"

And then responded with the above. I especially note how you selectively bolded "I can't find examples" from within that senetnce to draw attentino to it despite the fact that I've given more direct examples of my case in this thread than probably every other debate in round two combined.

that I won’t be able to rebut?

That's not what I said, and you know it. I said "that you wouldn't be able to misrepresent." As in, deliberately and deceptively misinterpret. For example, like if I said "Gee, the sun rose 5:30am this morning," and you were to reply "OMG, you idiot! The sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates!"

Unfortunately that kind of tactic seems to be mostly all you have left, and it's getting tedious.

Sure my opponent went on to give examples in politics,
but where did the majority of political advertising dollars go?

Yeah, like that. Yes, I gave examples in politics, but the examples I gave had nothing to do with advertising dollars. You're spamming non-sequitors.

May I point out that my opponent also entirely deflected my SQ #2!

No, I clearly answered it, and you would see that if you simply scroll down a whole paragraph from the part you quoted to see the response I gave:

"So, recognizing that the question is silly...I'm going to answer it anyway. Yes. Very easily. For example...shut it down."

So basically, your lying, you're misquoting, you're misinterpreting, you're selectively picking parts of sentences and ignoring the rest...not very classy debate tactics, and the judges have already demonstrated by their votes in the first round that they're too smart to fall for this stuff.

So basically all you're doing is wasting both our time.

Linking together a few hundred computers via established communication lines such as DSL or Cable or Cellular technology is different than utilizing the World Wide Web. Network computing is still growing, and it will likely replace what we currently know as the internet.

Wow.

Somebody Did Not Do The Research

The real future of “dramatic” change is happening in a cellular environment
from user to user and among thousands of private networks popping up all over the world.

...so, the "real future" of dramatic change is private networks in which users can communicate with other users...but the internet, which is networks that are connected to each other in which any user on any network can communicate with any user on any network...is archaic?

...k.

reply to post by LordBucket


Before I begin to respond to the little bit of content that my opponents last post contained, I would first like to point out the emotional state of my opponent. While I am flattered to have had this frustrating effect on my opponent, I hope we can continue the debate in a more civil manner. My opponent has decried my tactics and accused me of lying and misquoting? I welcome anyone to read my posts and see for themselves that I did include the context of each quote. I chose to respond to one portion or another, but I did not “misquote,’ and I certainly have not “lied.”

Furthermore, my opponent accused me of not doing any research and “wasting both our time,” but my opponent’s post did not contain any specific rebuttal of the passage that was quoted, and the only link provided was completely irrelevant? Reading the “Did Not Do The Research” linked article was a complete waste of time, and an intentional merit-less misdirection.

Now, my opponent also offered this tidbit:

Yes, I gave examples in politics, but the examples I gave had nothing to do with advertising dollars. You're spamming non-sequitors.

Yet his exact quote from the previous post was this:

And the millions of dollars that go into marketing and political campaigning would tend to agree with you.

My opponent appears to have “not done the research” of reading their own words? It quite clearly states that my opponent believes the “millions of dollars that go into marketing and political campaigning” supports his point, while it is clear from my linked source that it makes up only 0.5% of all political advertising. After being proven wrong, my opponent has attempted to attack me personally and deny their own words? Odd tactics for someone preaching “class” in the debate.

My opponent insists on standing behind 4Chan as the example of power of the internet, even linking to a Fox News video. Well, I watch Fox news from time to time, and I have never seen 4Chan mentioned. I stated earlier that I have never seen, heard, typed, or spoken the words “4Chan” outside of ATS. I am willing to bet that I do not have a single acquaintance outside of ATS that has ever heard of them either. I implore the judges to ask around and find out for themselves. My opponent has a further problem with the linked video. The problem is that 40% of the United States does not have access to Broadband, and therefore they cannot watch the YouTube link provided!

40 percent reported no broadband or high-speed access to the Internet, while 30 percent said they have no Internet access at all.
Sponsored by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and conducted by the Census Bureau, the survey found that most of those interviewed said they either don't need broadband or find it too expensive. Some said they have no computer, but many of those in rural areas reported that broadband is simply not available.

Survey
So, while I feel for my opponents frustration with having me as an opponent, and I commend the tenacity for sticking with the argument despite their frustration, I still do not understand where I have “backpedaled” or “lied” or “misrepresented” or “misquoted” and the only repetition I have seen has been on the part of my opponent standing behind 4Chan as the best possible example of the power of the internet, and continuing to ignore the supporting information I provided to back up my comparison of the Internet to the Sear’s catalog? Apparently my opponent has an affinity to “dead fish” and “amoeba” and fails to read the supporting information and respond with an intelligent rebuttal.

It becomes difficult at this point to simply respond to my opponents post, as the post had little substance or merit outside of personal attack, so I bring in this quote from Futurist, Thomas Frey, Google’s Top Rated Futurist Speaker and Executive Director for the respected DaVinci Institute.

Over the past decade, Thomas Frey has built an enormous following around the world based on his ability to develop accurate visions of the future and describe the opportunities ahead.

This extraordinary book explains the engine that has catapulted the Internet from backwater to ubiquity—and reveals that it is sputtering precisely because of its runaway success. With the unwitting help of its users, the generative Internet is on a path to a lockdown, ending its cycle of innovation—and facilitating unsettling new kinds of control.

The Internet’s current trajectory is one of lost opportunity.

The Future of the Internet

So, while my opponent continues to argue that any temporary physical change no matter how trivial by their own admission is supportive of their argument, I will defer to respected leaders in the realm of Political Marketing, and Respected Keynote Speakers that agree that the internet has lost its innovation, is sputtering, is on a path to lockdown, and is not a good source to sink sizeable investments into. If professional politicians and campaign managers do not see the internet as a “viable medium” to hang their political hopes on, and if the Davinci Institute is no longer recommending it as a cutting edge resource for new business, and if my opponent cannot offer any better examples of physical change in a “dramatic” sense outside of the theatrical definition, then I do not see any further need to build a case.

As my opponent has already stated on multiple occasions:

I'd be happy to end it right now.

I concur, and I will await my opponent’s next move as to whether the debate needs to continue.

I believe my case stands on its own merit at this time. My opponent first attempted to try the case outside of this thread and in the discussion thread, before posting a legitimate response here. My opponent has subsequently used abusive verbiage and attempted to speak for me, belittle the argument at hand, steer the argument away from their weak examples and more towards personal tactics and personal attacks, and has failed to provide any new substantive examples in these later posts. If my opponent feels this argument is getting “tedious” and doesn’t feel the need to argue further, then I am ready to accept the decision of the judges. If my opponent has anything more substantive to add, then I will be happy to make further posts in response. I await the will and pleasure of my opponent.

In closing, I would like to point out the elephant in the room.

Imagine if the debate topic had been "There is an elephant in the living room." So I showed you the elephant. And then put your hand on the elephant. And let you feed him. And then had him give you a ride around the room. Would you believe that there was an elephant?

Pointing out that there is no elephant dung in the room does not refute that there is an elephant. Pointing out that there are no humans in the room with first name initial E. and last name Phan does not refute there is an elephant. Misunderstanding what elephants are and suggesting that there are also walruses in the room does not refute the elephant.

"The internet is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world”

I've demonstrated this. Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

In the first round getreadyalready asked for five examples of dramatic change resulting from the internet in the current year 2010. So I gave him five examples. Only one is neccesary to demonstrate the viability of the internet to effect change.

Setting aside the meta-debate, the majority of getreadyalready's argument centers around two premises: that it's incapable of dramatic effect, and that it's no longer capable of the effects we agree it once was.

Dramatic effect
In round two, this question was asked:

"Why do you believe all of these changes it was viable for yesterday are no longer possible today? "

The reponse (in full) was:

#1: I believe this because it was new. A “new” girlfriend is dramatic. An “old” girlfriend just has drama! Entirely different, LOL!
I believe it is being replaced by other media. I believe it has been bastardized by corporations seeking to make a buck off of it. I believe it is inundated with information to the point of having no information. I believe for every decent thing about the internet, there are a dozen problems to block its effectiveness. I believe there is so much faulty information, hoaxes, and faux news that anything credible is discounted or lost in the sea of information.

This response is inadequete. An "old girlfriend" is completely capable of being a medium for change in your life. Obvious example: if you marry her. The "new media" he proposes is replacing the internet? Private networks. From his opening post in which he proposed that the internet was synonymous with the web to his third round in which he didn't seem to realize that the internet is a network of private networks, nothing he's said demonstrates even a very basic understanding of the subject matter. Corporations making a buck off the internet does not render it incapable of effecting change. And "faulty information, hoaxes and faux news" can very easily cause drama, as demonstrated by Oprah Winfrey announcing a fictitious national pedophile network based on the words of a web hoaxer trolling her online message boards.

Nothing in his response refutes the dramatic effect, and some of his response confirms it.

"Is no longer"
In round two, this question was asked:

"How do you rationalize that internet computing projects doing things like locating genes responsible for disease don't qualify as dramatic real world change?"

The response, (in full) was:

#2: Network computing projects are not “the internet.” Linking together a few hundred computers via established communication lines such as DSL or Cable or Cellular technology is different than utilizing the World Wide Web. Network computing is still growing, and it will likely replace what we currently know as the internet. In my opinion, the “internet” is now a social and commerce platform. It will continue to be used much like the old “party lines” when telephones were an emerging technology. It is a nightclub, a Sear’s catalog, and a flashing billboard. Nobody is curing Cancer or mapping genomes on the world wide web, they are doing it in their labs, with their colleagues and they are utilizing several communication techniques to collaborate on their projects. When it comes time to publish their results, they will utilize a Press Conference, Cameras, Radio Stations, the World Wide Web, will be an afterthought, just like it was for political advertising!

This response is not only indequete, it's flagrantly incorrect on a number of points. Yes, network computing projects are not the internet. However, distributed computing that takes place over the internet is very definitely using the internet as a medium. That's how these projects work. Anyone can download software which they allow to run in the background, and that software number-crunches on data sent by an online server. As each machine running the software completes a data set, it sends that data back to the server, which tracks which sets have been completed and passes out incomplete sets to each participating machine. It is all done online. Yes, people are mapping genomes on the internet. That's exactly how the Human Genome Project was done:

Computational Engine for Genomic Sequences
Updates of sequence data will be retrieved through the use of Internet retrieval agents and stored in a local data warehouse. Most human genome centers will daily post new sequences on publicly available Internet or World Wide Web sites, and they will establish agreed-upon policies for Internet capture of their data.

New projects of this sort begin regularly. From How-To: Join Distributed Computing projects that benefit humanity:

Donate your computer's idle CPU time to humanitarian non-profit scientific research projects. Help find cures for diseases like cancer, AIDS, diabetes, MS, Alzheimer, or help predict the earth's climate change, or advance science e.g. search for gravitational waves, help CERN build its latest particle accelerator or Berkeley search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Any one of these projects would effect very dramatic change on the world, and they're all being done using the internet as their means.

Nobody is curing Cancer or mapping genomes on the world wide web

getreadyalready is simply wrong. Here's the link to the "Help Defeat Cancer" World Community Grid. And here's a direct link to the download page for the internet distributed computing applet that does the analysis:
pleiad.umdnj.edu/IBM/help.html

Help Us Fight Cancer
Simply donate the time your computer is turned on, but would normally lie idle, for projects that benefit humanity. Like a screensaver, grid technology is easy to use, safe and free. When you are ready to use your computer, the grid software will shut itself off until the next time your computer is idle.

Finally, it is logically inconsistent for him to argue that the internet is no longer viable because it's "old" and then suggest that in the future people will prefer methods such as "press conference, cameras and radio stations." These mediums are even older than the internet, and yet he freely acknowledges their continuing viability. And yes, they are viable. If world changing information is succesfully conveyed to large numbers of people, it doesn't matter if the medium is old or new. Nor does it make sense for him to propose that "private networks" will be the growing new technology that replaces the internet.

Internet:

The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks

That's what the internet is. It's a collection of private networks....networked with each other.

---

I began this discussion with the example of the Bible, and I'm going to end with it. The Bible is a book. It's a collection of words written on paper, and it has been one of the most infuential devices in human history. The most dramatic changes in history have always been the conveyance of information to large numbers of people. The Bible may be old, but the medium of paper and ink continues to change lives today.

The internet is very much a viable medium, and I have thoroughly demonstrated that it continues to effect change today.

IN CLOSING:

This has been an invigorating and enlightening debate. I must admit that I was worried about the “con” position going into the debate. First of all, this is an “internet” debate! How is one supposed to use THE INTERNET, to show that the Internet is not a viable medium!?!? Second of all, my opponent was giving advice to newbies like me in the discussion forum one day, and debating me the next day. It was a little intimidating. Lastly, instead of debating within the thread, my opponent chose to respond to my opening post by going outside the thread and seeking a technical forfeiture from the Mods? That one sent me reeling some!

At this point, I take great pleasure in reading back through the thread! It has become clear that my opponent was either incapable, or unwilling to understand the points up for discussion here. My opponent wants to point out the “elephant in the room.” I have to agree that the elephant exists. The elephant has existed and has been a steady workhorse, but it has started to develop problems. The elephant was a blessing in the beginning, put in some heavy work, and has now become an aging and ineffective liability. It isn’t the strong, young elephant it once was. Now the elephant requires a lot of oversight and protection. There is new machinery doing the job the elephant was once good at. The elephant stands with flashing billboards painted all over it, but it no longer goes out with the adults to put in work!

I can acknowledge the internet as the defunct elephant in the room, and my previous posts have shown that during election time, the country’s most powerful politicians, and the country’s most powerful marketing managers, do not view the internet as a significant medium. They only put 0.5% of their money into that medium. The renowned futurist, keynote speaker, and adviser to top corporate heads has stated that the internet is floundering, and sputtering, and on a path to lockdown. My opponent’s data served to show that the internet is only valuable as a marketing and commerce tool. This elephant has lost its oomph!

Even in closing, my opponent has chosen to make no distinction between “network computing” and “the internet.” I don’t think anybody could refute the power of modern electronic communications. I attempted to make it clear that the debate had to center on use of the “world wide web” as a viable medium. Digital Television, Radio, Satellite Communications, Electronic banking transactions, cell phone communications, Intranets, Extranets, and the newly emerging Private Nets are all operational outside of the World Wide Web. The types of things that still require a “Web Browser” are quickly being limited to shopping and social networking. My opponent pointed toward research as an example, but that research does not require the world wide web in any form.

My opponent went back to the idea of “shared computing” and research projects many times and once again in the closing. This topic is not key to the debate. I acknowledge the power of network computing, and shared computing. However, these projects are utilized from machine to machine using established phone, DSL, and cable lines, and machine code or specialty software. There is no requirement that they use the World Wide Web in any way, and in fact it would severely slow the process and make it less efficient if they were required to access “web pages” to do the shared computing. The “internet” is not the underground cables, or the microwaves in the air, it is the established network of webpages utilizing HTML code and typically requiring a browser to access.

My opponent claims I never refuted the “dramatic effect” in my responses. He is correct. I simply ignored “drama” in the theatrical sense as anything significant to refute. 13 year old girls, crying babies, Justin Bieber, and my ex-girlfriends all have drama, but they are not effective mediums for causing dramatic change as intended by the topic at hand.

And "faulty information, hoaxes and faux news" can very easily cause drama,

“Drama”, and “Dramatic Change” are not the same thing. I promised to get back to my opponents narrow, and theatrical definition at a later point, so let me define Dramatic Change a little better:

According to the dictionary, change is to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone. Dramatic means startling, sensational.

Source
So, to be a viable medium for Dramatic Change, one must believe they could utilize that medium effectively to change the future form, nature, or course in a sensational and dramatic way. Furthermore, I believe the intent of this debate subject was to make that change on a massive scale. The data in the earlier posts has shown that experts in the fields of effecting dramatic change, political course, or future form have avoided the internet as a medium. I trust the experts in this regard.

In closing, my opponent went back to his Bible reference. I will do the same. The Bible, and the Sears Catalog were books. They were written in a different time. They were the most effective way of communicating to a massive audience during their time. They brought a lot of new information, and a lot of fear and pushback. They changed the status quo in a dramatic way. They served as lenses of their time period. They were certainly viable and dramatic mediums for effecting change, and that change is well recognized. Neither of them IS a viable medium for change today.

The New Testament of the Bible had a good, long run of almost 2000 years. The Sear’s catalog had almost 100 years of effectiveness. The Internet has had about 20 good years. The next effective medium will probably have 5-10 years. Information and rate of change is accelerating. Most scientists agree that not only is the rate of knowledge and information exchange accelerating, but even the acceleration is accelerating! Within the next 20 years the information available to mankind will double many times over to the point that our knowledge base will quite possibly reach infinity during our lifetime! The world has changed dramatically from 2008 to 2010, but very little, if any, of that change was a direct or sole result of the internet.

My opponent has failed to show any future vision of how the internet could be used to effect change. Instead he has focused on some shaky examples from the past, which are both incorrect and irrelevant. We are not debating what the internet “was” capable of doing; we are debating what the internet “is” capable of effecting.

The fact is; imagination and sci-fi from today will probably be defunct technology by the year 2030. It is impossible to foresee what medium will be effective and dramatic in the technological future, but we can look at current trajectory, and according to experts, “The Internet’s current trajectory is one of lost opportunity.”

The internet was a good, working elephant, and it continues to be an entertaining source for social use, and it continues to be one more medium for vending our wares, but it has ceased to be dramatic in any way, and the evidence from previous posts show it is no longer viewed by experts as a viable medium for change.

Thank You to the Judges and Mods for putting together this debate, it was my pleasure to participate, and I look forward to the results!

Congratulations to the first debaters to finish their Round 2 Debate. This one is now in the hands of the judges.

LordBucket has won and will advance to Round 3.

This was a real pleasure to read. Both debaters were very competitive and consistent, and didn't bog down in sub-points. Both debaters had at eachother a bit, and I'm pretty sure LordBucket only came across as the one who started it because he posted first, so I will ignore the mutual charges of deception and misrepresentation etc.

Both sides were solid on rebuttals, though I would give the edge on that to Getreadyalready for very clever and clear analogies. MOST of the posts in this debate left me feeling like the poster had the edge. I had to call the early rounds a tie on substance even though LordBucket wasn't helping himself with his dismissive attitude towards his opponent's very novel and nuanced angle on the topic. Getreadyalready began to pull ahead in the middle, but then began to give way again towards the end. I'm can't tell you how close I am to calling it a tie. Alas somebody has to win this one because it's a tournament. Even though I think Getreadyalready showed some signs of potentially having more raw skill, his failure to sufficiently deal with the distributed computing point left me feeling like the internet IS a viable medium for change going forward. Winner: Lord Bucket

"The internet is a viable medium for effecting dramatic change in the physical world”

Well I was disappointed in this debate somewhat..

It was a wonderful topic and it appeared to me that only one fighter attacked the topic..
LordBucket

Getreadyalready never really entered the debate until his last two posts and by then, it was far to little, far too late.

This is a good example of why one should never make excuses about the topic, or his side, in any debate. It made getreadyalreay appear weak right at the start and sadly he never recovered from it.

LorBucket’s only real mistake was to respond to his opponents post as a concession and waste his time with that instead of continuing his Reponses.

Win to LordBucket

GetReadyAlready. This one was a real brawl, and Lord Bucket loses points when he uses as a reference the "Tv Tropes' someone didn't do their research" as link. GetReady gave a very convincing closing argument.

(edit to add third judge's opinion)

Congratulations LordBucket!

The Judges were right, it was a lively and prickly debate, but I enjoyed it, and I wish my opponent all the luck in the following rounds!