THBT NFT(Non-Fungible token) is more harm than good

In early 2021, NFTs were seen as a way for artists to make a lot of money. Artists quickly bo
ught or created NFTs of their work. However, only a few artists actually made money from N
FTs, and now fewer people are interested in trading them. In other words, NFTs have becom
e less popular over time.
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. As our team mentioned earlier, we are debating unde
r the motion, ‘THBT NFT is more harm than good.’ The government side strongly supports th
is motion for three main reasons.
Before we delve into our own debate, I would like to establish clear definitions for the key ter
ms to our discussion. First, NFT refers to digital assets used in the artistic field. Next, the wor
d harm and good in this debate mean the economic benefits from the perspective of society,
seller, and consumer. Furthermore, we allow cases abroad but make a judgment in law in So
uth korea.
Now, let me move on to my own constructive speech. Today, we are debating under the moti
on "THBT NFT is more harm than good." and this house strongly agrees with the motion.
The government side is going to justify the argument by three main assertions.
First, NFTs have contradictory aspects. Second, secondary creation from NFT products may
be hindered. Third, price fluctuations are excessive within the NFT market.
I as the prime minister will take the first and second point. Our deputy prime minister will ass
ert the third point. Finally, our whip will declare the clashes of the debate.
주장 1 : NFT 의 거래 방식에서 모순된 점이 있다.
First of all, there are contradictions in the trading method of NFT. When we analyze the word
‘NFT’, the word ‘NFT’ means non-fungible token. In other words, it has a particular uniquene
ss, so it means that it can’t be replaced into other products. If we gave an example as an arti
stic work, in the case of real artistic work, we can distinguish original and copy by calling in e
xperts. But in the case of digital images, it is hard to distinguish between them as they have
no difference. Therefore, we can’t verify our ownership in digital, and can’t protect the flow of
income. What if ownership exists? As the original and the copy can be distinguished, the val
ue of the original will increase, and the creator of the original will benefit. Because of this con
cept, a technology called NFT was introduced. People try to take economic benefits by regist
ering ownership with NFTs and rather spreading their work and inducing copying. For examp
le, because the Mona Lisa at the Louvre Museum was recognized as the original, people spr
ead fake Mona Lisa paintings to promote the Mona Lisa at the Louvre Museum. People have
uniqueness and registered ownership to make it irreplaceable with other products, but it has
only been turned into a means of making money because of the nature of pursuing people's
profits. In this respect, the ambivalence of maintaining uniqueness but making and promotin
g copies is contradictory.
주장 2 : NFT 상품의 2 차 창작이 제한될 수 있다.
Second, secondary creation from NFT products may be hindered. NFT is a coin-like concept
and can be used as a means of making money and investment. There may be writers who u
pload their works to make money, but writers work in NFTs with responsibility for their works.
They are doing NFTs with the aim of showing their own rather than a means of making mone
y. The writers said, "NFT is a new platform that connects work and the world," and "a place
where you can communicate closely with more diverse people." They see it as a three-dime
nsional space that expands the worldview of the work, not just the technical/economic aspec
t. However, in the case of artists who create secondary works, NFT is an obstacle to their wo
rk. If ownership is guaranteed due to NFT, additional costs and responsibilities are incurred f
or secondary creation. Therefore, secondary creation may be hindered.
In conclusion, NFT has more harmful effects on our lives. NFT not only contradicts the conte
nt but also hinders secondary creation. In addition to this, there are various reasons, so our t
eam is against NFT.
Reply
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. From now on, we will announce the reason as we organize it. O
ur first argument was, "There are reports in the trading method of NFT." People have registe
red ownership with uniqueness in the NFT, but their work becomes widespread to others du
e to their nature of pursuing people's interests. In this respect, the ambivalence of making an
d promoting copies while maintaining uniqueness is contradictory. The rebuttal that appeare
d here is that we can regulate with some legal process, but we think that there are problems
with the essence of NFT. Our second argument was ‘Secondary creation from NFT products
may be hindered.’ NFTs hamper secondary creative development. If the NFT guarantees ow
nership, additional costs and responsibilities are incurred for the secondary creation. Therefo
re, secondary creation may be hindered. The opposing team's rebuttal to this claim, it could
be solved by using the characteristic of NFT like security, but we think that it is not a problem
of security, but the conflict between original and secondary creation. Our third argument is
‘price fluctuations are excessive within the NFT market'. We cannot expect NFT products to
be stable. Like the first post by the founder of Twitter, there are many cases where expensiv
e NFT products have become useless due to instability. Therefore, the price of NFTs is unst
able. The rebuttal that appeared here is that NFT is stable in turn, but we think that consume
r can get loss because of the instability of NFT.