Feb 24, 2010 0
Arguing for the affirmative.
1) Social, geographical, and other factors are negated because of the anonymous nature of the internet. These can be excluding factors for relationships created in the supposed “real world.” The internet, as a medium, equalizes people in this sense and allows for freer communication.
2) People tend to portray themselves relatively accurately via the internet. For this reason, people who are compatible for friendship/relationships/communities can be joined either in person or on the internet.
3) Due to the nature of trust, it is not necessary that both parties be fully honest. Trust in this sense is experienced only by the individual who senses that he can disclose freely and that others are disclosing freely as well. However, in many cases, mutual trust exists through mutual honest disclosure.
4) We could ask is meeting in person the only means by which a trusting relationship can be created? Why should telephone communication, skyping, or letter writing be considered valid for creating relationships while chat messaging isn’t?
Counterargument 1) The opposition could potentially argue that the anonymity enjoyed by internet users could potentially be used for all sorts of trouble ranging from mischief to serious crimes. However, these arguments are simply matters of regulation and do not pertain to the internet’s ability to host communities.