THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT DIGITAL INFORMATION HAS DONE MORE HARM THAN

GOOD IN PROTECTING DEMOCRACY

___________________________________________________________
second speaker aka second minister
_____________________________________________________________

- give intro speech

- state role
- state whether agree/disagree with the opposition’s definition
- if disagree, rebut definition
- rebut points/issues given by the opposition leader
- state 2 own arguments

A very good day to the chairperson, time keeper, members of the opposition team,
adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. I'm the second speaker for the government team
and I will be continuing my team's case today. Our team strongly agrees with the
statement which is this house believes that digital information has done more harm
than good in protecting democracy simply because of the serious impacts it brings.

First and foremost, the opposition team has been perceiving the ideas that digital
information has done less harm in protecting democracy by accusing all of us the
government here! This is absolutely outrageous! We the government believes that
everyone__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

So, I’m not going to refute the definitions given by the opposition. I will continue with the
rebuttal. Let me now rebut their first point which is lack of options. The opposition claims
that_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Ladies and gentlemen, let me now proceed to my own points.

The second argument of my team is echo chamber. Between now and 2030, how will
use of technology by citizens, civil society groups and governments affect core
aspects of democracy and democratic representation? Will they mostly weaken core
aspects of democracy and democratic representation, mostly strengthen core aspects
of democracy and democratic representation or not much change in core aspects of
democracy and democratic representation? Some 49% of these respondents say use of
technology will mostly weaken core aspects of democracy and democratic
representation in the next decade, 33% say use of technology will mostly strengthen
core aspects of democracy and democratic representation and 18% say there will
be no significant change in the next decade. Digital technology has had a fundamental
impact on democratic politics. However, some studies have suggested that the effects
of echo chambers are weaker than often assumed. Of course, some degree of
ideological bias is inescapable, and can hardly be blamed solely on the internet.
Newspapers, for example, have always catered to their audience. Nowhere is this
clearer than in the UK, which has arguably the most partisan press in the world. But,
despite whatever editorial leanings publications may have, a robust legal and – in
some cases regulatory – framework places media outlets under compulsion to at least
report facts when it comes to news. Whatever the faults of the mainstream media,
they do not have carte blanche to concoct fictions, libel or slander.But what the
internet has done is facilitate the emergence of alternative news sites. And here,
factual accuracy can no longer be taken for granted. Untethered from journalistic
ethics, some outlets thrive by telling their audience precisely what they want to hear.
And social media allows the rapid growth and spread of everything from the
ludicrous Pizzagate conspiracy theory to rampant climate-change denial – and exists
across the political spectrum.This proliferation of urban myths and conspiracies would
perhaps be laughable if it weren’t so uniquely dangerous.

My third argument is political harassment. Research into the harassment of politicians

and other public officials in Northern America and Western Europe demonstrates that
30–93% of politicians report having experienced harassing or stalking behaviour which
can comprise serious risks for the integrity of democracy and government. This leads
to intriguing questions such as: what types of threats do politicians face and how do
they respond to those threats? This article presents the results of research on those
questions in The Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews and Q- methodology were
applied to gain insight into the different types of threats and the ways in which
aldermen cope with these threats and harassments. The types of threats and
harassments are diverse from verbal abuse to physical violence.

So, ladies and gentlemen. Before I take my seat, allow me to make a conclusion and
clearly say why digital information has done more harm than good in protecting
democracy simply because of the serious impacts that it brings. We, the government
strongly stand that digital information has done more harm than good in protecting
democracy. With that ,thank you.