First Draft The Refutation and Concession

1. What is my thesis?

People should not revive network real-name system as a key to protect our society.

2. What is the opposite position?

However, people should revive the naming system as a protection of society. 

3. What arguments can I anticipate?

a)Song Guangxing, Yang Pingfang(The Influence of Network Real-Name System on the Management of Internet Public Opinion), b)Eric Pfanner(Naming Names on Internet)

4. How will I counter these arguments?

a) I will use observation and statistic that argue this system is inefficient and infringing people's privacy is bad  b) I will use an example(cyworld)

Explicitly my argument doesn't consider the real-name system in the aspect of social protection, even though the effect is minimum. There are many people who oppose to my argument such as Song Guangxing and Yang Pingfang. Song Guangxing and Yang Pingfang argued that "by using network real-name system, we can encourage the netizens to restrict their actions more strictly, and to be more responsible for their network speeches and to act more rationally and it is helpful for forming responsible citizen consciousness, raising the level of social hazard, reducing network crimes, and finally purifying the environment of the Internet." in their research paper, The Influence of Network Real-Name System on the Management of Internet Public Opinion. However, there's no evidence that show effective reduction of cyber problems. Rather, cyber problems has been increased after exertion of the naming system.. According to a statistic from Broadcasting and Communication Commission, percentage of malicious comments on Daum Agora, Moneyside, and Dcinside has been increased. Thus, the naming system on the internet has no effect on solving any cyber problems rather this system encourage cyber problems in certain websites. Also Song Guangxing and Yang Pingfang argued that "It is also helpful for lowering the expense of dealing with releasing false information on the Internet and infringing on people's privacy." However we cannot sure that anonymity system has been irritated by expense of dealing with those things.   Frankly speaking, we can expect reversed situation : Rather the real-name system will irritate people with expense of strengthening security process. The cost of strengthening is much more than that of expense of dealing with false information and restriction on public's privacy. Mr.Schmidt,the chairman of Google, supported for the use of real identities . Google wants to know more about its users because this information is valuable to advertisers and other business.

"If we knew that it was a real person, ten we could sort of hold them accountable, we could check them, we could give them tings, we could, you know, bill them; you know, we could have credit cards and so forth and so on, there are all sorts of reasons," he was quoted as saying in Edinburgh. He is saying that he stores users' identifications to make it easy for the company to understand their customers. However, it is really risk-taking. What if Google were hacked by someone? What if the hackers hacked most of the users' identification? What if their identification are all related to their family's and friend's identification? Serious problems will be brought about. Thus, the "silly" naming system must not play a role in cyber place ever.