Debate Sample Scripts

Motion: large social media companies make unfair use of users’ personal information
Affirmative Team
1st SPEAKER

Good morning/afternoon adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. Today’s motion is large social media companies make unfair use of users’ personal information.

To begin with, I will first define the word ‘fairness’. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, fairness is the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is right or reasonable. So equality is a crucial factor for fairness.

Our teamline today is that “The relationship between social media companies and their users is largely unequal and non-consensual.” Today, I will be talking about the inequality between companies and users, then my 2nd speaker will show you how social media get personal information from users without their consent and my 3rd speaker will make some rebuttal and summarise the case.

First of all, users have to sign unequal treaties with social media in order to use their services. Nowadays, social media has become one of our daily necessities. We are all familiar with social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and we post our personal information like photos, date of birth, family members on our account. However, before you can use their services, you have to agree to the Terms of Use Policy and agree that for example Facebook will store your data permanently and transfer it to third parties.

What’s worse, according to Facebook’s Terms of Use, Facebook reserves the final right to amend the terms and regulations and it is notorious for changing its privacy setting frequently. It changed the settings just this year, in January and it claimed the purpose is to enhance its service by protecting users’ information. When a user wants to delete their account, Facebook even reserves the rights to store their data permanently. All these treaties are largely unequal because the users do not have full control over their privacy. As soon as they sign up on Facebook, they have to cede their rights to the company completely. It is an unequal power dynamics.

The opponent might argue the Facebook users “agree” to cede their rights to Facebook when they click “I Agree”. However, we say such an “agreement” is very unequal and unfair. Since Facebook is a powerful listed company, individual users always have no say in what the company decided on the privacy regulations. According to an article of Digital Trend, Facebook mandatorily made users’ certain information public and made their accounts visible on search engines in last year’s October by changing its privacy settings again. All these are not what the users agree to when they sign up. But since the users are caught in an unequal treaty, they have to say but to reluctantly accept the unfair treatment.

Since the social media treatment of users is against the principles of equality and thus fairness, today’s motion must stand.

2nd SPEAKER

Good afternoon adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. Today, our opponent still tries to mislead us to believe that social media like Facebook respect the consent of the users. However did you know that Facebook share users’ information with third parties for example advertisement companies for commercial purposes. So I would like to ask everybody a question, do you want your private information like photos, messaging records, home addresses to be sold to other people that you don’t know? Do you want your private information to be passed to a third party?

We believe some social media companies do not respect the consent of the users. First, when you have activated your own Facebook account, its means that you are giving your own privacy right to them. The meaning of “Privacy” means the right to determine whether, when, how, and to whom, one's personal or organizational information is to be revealed. However Facebook is using your personal details and selling to a third party. Facebook is changing their Term of use Policy without the consent of users. Facebook changes policy very frequently, for example Facebook changed its privacy settings by switching the default posting status from “Public” to “Friends only” for new users. I didn’t get any notice about this policy, and it was different from the time I agreed to the policy when the first time I apply and created a Facebook account. So as we can see they are using your privacy and personal data when they do not respect the consents of the users.

Secondly, many social media applications import information from users’ phones without their consent. In 2012, Twitter admitted that it imported the contact books from users’ iPhones so as to reach out to more potential users. Other social media sites like LinkedIn also has similar functions – They search your mailbox for potential contacts that you can connect with. These “import” functions are usually not clearly stated in the Terms of Use Policy and users have their information on the phone unknowingly stolen.

To recap, social media have a history of using user’s information without their consent. As this is an unethical and disrespectful business practice, we stand for the motion that social media companies make unfair use of users’ personal information. Thank you.

3rd SPEAKER

Good afternoon, adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. Today’s topic is “Large social media companies make unfair use of users’ personal information”, and we, the proposition team still believe that this statement is true. Our teamline is that “The relationship between social media companies and their users is largely unequal and non-consensual.” Our opponents have told us Facebook has admitted that they have send their user’s personal information to other people like polices, detectives for investigation purposes. We admit that this is an advance for maintaining social order. However, Facebook should have notice their users that their account will be investigated. For example,
When there are detectives or polices outside your door, they will ask for your permission to search your house, instead of sneaking into it right? Therefore, users should have the consent of their account’s personal information will be used.

Our opponents have also stated that some users don’t mind to have their personal information to be revealed to the public, but do these people’s opinions represent everyone’s opinions? This is just their very own thoughts and shouldn’t be generalized. For example, I don’t like to go to school, so does that means that everyone should not go to school and just stay in home? Therefore, an individual thought should not be generalized.

Our opponents also said that users should take their responsibilities as they have already click the “I Agree” button after reading the Terms of Use Policy. However, what makes it unfair to users is that even we read the Terms of Use Policy clearly, we still don’t have the consent of the revealing of our personal information as Facebook changes their Terms of Use Policy too frequently. Other than that, we don’t even have the power to control the revealing of our personal information or to oppose this unequal Terms of Use Policy that Facebook has set up. Therefore, Facebook should take the whole responsibility of the revealing of our personal information.

To sum up the case, Facebook users are forced to agree to the Terms of Use Policy before even using any Facebook’s service. They have no choice or right but to accept the frequent and unreasonable changes Facebook make to their privacy policies.
Also, Facebook users can’t delete their account completely as Facebook store their data and share it to third parties usually for commercial purposes. This is extremely unfair to Facebook users and these rights should be protected.

Facebook also share their users’ personal information with unknown third parties without their consent. It is unfair to users as they don’t want their information to be searchable or displayed on newsfeed. It is also dangerous as third parties might use this personal information for illegal uses.

On the other hand, Twitter and LinkedIn has stolen user’s contact book without their consent. They claim that it can help them to connect with others more easily. However, this is unfair to users as their right to privacy is not respected.

Therefore, today’s motion must stand. Thank you.
Negative Team
1st SPEAKER Good afternoon adjudicator, ladies and gentlemen. Today, our dear opponents are telling us that ____________________________________________, However, our dear opponents, please remember that using social media is not a necessity in life. Without the existence of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, or even Instagram, will we be dead? We may die of hunger without food; we may collapse if we keep on working non-stop; but we CAN live without social media websites. No one forces a user to sign up for social media websites. If you sign up for it, you AGREE to exchange your personal information with the free social media services, like the service from Facebook.

Today, our team line is that “Social media companies carry our mutually-consensual exchange with users.” My 2nd speaker will be talking about the reason for social media revealing information to 3rd parties and how revealing information is beneficial to the general public while my 3rd speaker will conclude our case.

First of all, we must be clear that when people register on social website like Facebook, they are required to read the terms of use and the data use policy, before they click on the button “I agree” for signing up. Therefore, users should notice that there is a possibility that their personal information will be disclosed to third parties since they have given their permission to Facebook. That is apparently not unfair since users had AGREED to give their data to Facebook. They were not forced to do so. And as I said, Facebook is not a necessity and they have every right to decline the Terms of Use. If they are not willing to provide data to the company, they can choose not to use the social media.

In the Terms of Use of Facebook, it has clearly shown that our personal information will be used for improvement in Facebook, and for some research data for different companies, for example Facebook will give our personal information, including the information of other downloaded apps, our contact list to some of the advertisement companies, in return of money. All this business practice is fair and legitimate because it involved the consent or agreement of the users in the first place. It is like a contract that users voluntarily sign into.

Besides, as I mentioned above, Facebook will also use our personal information to improve their services, for example Facebook will use our own personal information to show some related advertisements in Facebook. It also benefits us as we may find some related games, or apps for our daily life! Because of the reasons above, it shows that social media companies carry our mutually-consensual exchange with users. And therefore, today’s motion must fall. Thank you.

2nd SPEAKER

Good afternoon adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen.

Our dear opponents claim that (social media frequently change privacy regulations, thus) social media makes unfair use of users' personal information. However, users have controls over their personal information and it’s not unfair if you have a choice. Users are allowed to change their privacy settings so that the content users shared such as photos and status can be viewed by the public, friends, close friends or only themselves. They can even categorize their friends and make their posts only visible to certain groups of friends. This is a consensual process as the users can change their privacy settings upon their wills. It also proves that social media DO care about users' personal information by adding different functions to allow users to protect themselves.

Back to our case, the business model of Facebook is to provide free services in exchange for users’ information. When users registered for their Facebook accounts, they have agreed to ‘give’ their personal information such as age, gender, education etc. in exchange for the free services Facebook provides like news feed and messages, which helps them to stay connected with their friends. Different people have different valuation over privacy and services. Some people value their privacy more than anything else, so they decided not to join Facebook. But some don’t. That’s why as long as people accept that they want to receive the free-of-charge services Facebook provides, the whole exchange process will be justified, and that Facebooks collects personal information with the consent of the users.

Facebook is a listed company. It provides free services to 1.32 billion users worldwide, so where do they make money? With the CONSENT of the users, Facebook transfers their personal information such as age and occupation to third parties including advertising companies. This way of making profit contributes to 92% of the overall revenue of Facebook. The revenue, however, is not wasted. It is used to improve the free services that Facebook provides. For example, providing privacy controls in 2008, and introducing the much-loved timeline function in 2011. Facebook did not neglect the interest of users. They use the money to make improvement and provide better services to their users. Since Facebook gives back to their users by providing better services, their business practice is fair.

For today’s motion to stand, our opponents must prove to us that users are unwilling or forced to sign up to Facebook and give their personal information to Facebook or third parties. Or else, today’s motion must fall. Thank you.

3rd SPEAKER

Good Afternoon adjudicator, ladies and gentlemen, today, our dearest opponents keep on reiterating that companies use users’ personal information unfairly. However, our opponents simply still cannot see the legitimacy of social media companies using users’ personal information.

To start with, I would like to rebut some of the points that our dear opponents have just talked about. They have mentioned that pictures that you have liked or were tagged by other friends will be displayed on the newsfeed. Moreover, sometimes users may not want photos with their ugly faces on to be tagged or searchable. However, what we can see is that FB or IG actually doesn’t have the responsibility to keep users’ information secret. More importantly, it is indeed their friends’ responsibility to seek permission before they tag them on the pictures, so that information will be exposed on the newsfeed. Therefore, in many similar cases, it is the friends’ faults to tag the user but not FB’s responsibility. FB is only just a commercial company to make money from its service. Also, our dear opponents have just mentioned that users actually have no option but to press the ‘I agree button’ on the Term of Use Page on various social media sites. However, what our team believes is that social media is not a necessity in life and is just a kind of entertainment. So, users actually don’t need FB or other social media if they don’t want their information to be used at all. Also, we truly believe that if one joins the game, one must follow the rules. Users could simply decide not to join such social media site and they are not forced to join it at all. They also have the responsibility to read through the Terms of Use before agreeing.

In addition, our opponent believes that social media sites share users’ information with third parties without the consent of the users, no matter if it is for commercial or investigation purposes. Yet, if it is for investigation purposes, what our team believes is that if a notification is sent out at the early stage, it will definitely scare away the criminals and they will flee at once. Consent is not necessary if it is for an undercover investigation. Besides, this will even give away the police’s investigation process. Under the above rationale, in no way should a notification be given out before the police conduct their investigation with users’ personal information.

On the other hand, regarding using the information for commercial purposes, as my team mates have said, it is indeed the users’ choice to allow social media to expose their information for business use, take FB as an example, users are informed through the Terms of Use. Moreover, since FB and other social media companies are indeed Business Company. Money is an important component to maintain a company and its income mainly comes from advertisement. So, using users’ information to earn profit is actually very important from the business aspect.

As a matter of fact, the vision of a company is earning money, so it is necessary for them to make money, in exchange with their services. Therefore, what we can see is that this is indeed a justified exchange which is mentioned by our first speaker. Apart from that, since the value of personal information is decided by the users themselves, once they agree with the Term of Use or even willing to sign up to such social website, they are already giving the consent to FB to use their personal information. It is indeed a justified exchange to allow the companies to make profit through selling their personal information. In return, users enjoy free services.

To conclude, social media using users’ information is indeed legitimate and sometimes even constructive to the society. As a result, social media companies actually do not make unfair use of users’ personal information, since they are all legitimate exchange. So today’s motion must fall. Thank You.