The weak debate of week number 8

Well, this week's workshop was certainly... interesting.

Our task was to form a debate for and against the internet, in regards to the "Is Google Making Us Stupid" article we read last week. The side I was on was the "for" team.
The "against" team went first, making points about the internet ruining journalism and threatening musical artists. Amanda and I were to cross-examine these points. My argument against these points was that the internet has provided a medium for citizen journalism - that mobile phones and digital technology has allowed for participatory culture - where the audience participates in and shapes the media themselves. For example, when a US Airways plane carrying 155 people crashed into the Hudson River in New York earlier this year someone posted a picture of passengers huddled on the wing of the plane on TwitPic (an extension of Twitter) and it was picked up by various media outlets around the world, including BBC News.
As for it threatening musical artists, my argument against this was that the internet also provides unsigned musical artists with a place to broadcast their own music. MySpace and YouTube are prime examples of artists using the internet to display their talents. This is the way popular artists, such as Lily Allen, were discovered. Even bloggers, such as Perez Hilton, are responsible for artists like Mika and Lady Gaga hitting the big time. These are artists whose music would have probably never seen the light of day had it not been for the internet.
Next up was Kate's turn to make some points. She joked that she probably speaks more to her brother on Facebook than she does in real life. In response to this, a girl on the opposing side commented "don't you find that quite sad? I think it's really sad when families are like that." Colour me crazy but I found this to be quite a rude, personal remark. I find it absolutely pathetic when a person attacks the person making the debate, rather than their argument, because they have nothing better to contribute. In my opinion, all it does is highlight their ignorance and stupidity. The girl had no idea what Kate's home life is like and was in no position to judge her, or rather humiliate her in front of the whole class. Honestly, some people need to get off their high horse. It reminded me of that Question Time episode on the BBC the other week, with Nick Griffin of the BNP making a comment about how his father had been a spitfire pilot in WWII whilst Jack Straw's father was imprisoned for being a conscientious objector, in that it had no purpose in the argument and was a comment made simply to insult and humiliate the opposition.
Amanda shared the opinion that this was a bit of a low-blow and rather out of order, proceeding to stand up and tell the girl straight out that she was being quite personal and what she said was just not on.
Like a trooper, Kate carried on and made an analogy - how would farmers cope if you removed their JCB tools and tractors and told them to go back to the old horse and cart method of ploughing fields? One of the opposing side piped up, "I don't see what JCB tools have to do with the internet" - now I'd be amazed if anyone didn't understand what Kate meant by her argument. In fact, I'd be so bold as to call anyone that didn't a plain moron. No, this was a comment made simply for argument's sake, which a proper debate is not about. Kate was simply asking how would people cope if you removed the internet.
Finally, she put forward a challenge to the opposition (as a couple of them plainly were quite against the internet - not just playing the role of being against it for educational purposes) - if they're so against the internet then why not go without it for a month? At this point a girl, a friend of the girl I mentioned earlier, stated "I went without the internet for a month when I first moved here, thank you very much" then made an awkward motion with her hands, a kind up messed up z-motion in an attempt to look big and hardcore that failed miserably - especially when she made a complete 180-degree turn away from Kate to avoid eye contact. She obviously was not confident in making her point or sticking up for her friend. Regardless, and I verbally stated this to the girl myself, her going without the internet when she first got here was not by choice, which is what Kate's challenge was asking. If we didn't have the internet I'm sure most of us would make do until we got it back, but I sincerely doubt if you asked anyone to give up the internet for a month without the promise of money or other favours they would actually go ahead and do it, no questions asked. Again, it was another argument made for argument's sake.
When all's said and done though we clearly won the debate. Maybe the numerous personal digs and catty comments were simply jealousy on their part, or an attempt at bullying gone wrong. Who knows, who cares? I certainly don't.
It just goes to show what a risky business debating is when not done professionally and absolutely highlighted the ignorance of some of my fellow students. This week was the first instance of me actually being irritated in a lesson/lecture which is why I feel it relevant to write it down in a blog post. Uni is a great place to learn and to make friends and have fun, but with every yin there's a yang and uni also provides an environment where it is quite possible to make enemies, as well as friends. All I can say is it is a damned good job I wasn't the recipient of one of their childish remarks or insults, because bullying disgusts me - especially in a place of learning for people over 18. This is not secondary school anymore; it's time to act like adults - I just wish some people would cotton on to that fact and sit the hell down.