Good morning honourable adjudicators, precise timekeepers, my loyal teammates, the goverment

side and not to forget members of the floor.

I will start w my rebuttal .........

We, the opposition stands true that our burden is to prove social media should not be held legally
responsible for the actions of their users’ misinformation and hate speech. The phrase legally
responsible here means
Now, I’ll proceed with my arguments.

Before you get to registered for a new account, most reputable social media companies such as
facebook,twitter and instagram requires users to agree to a terms of service agreement. Users that
don’t follow the rules specified in a ToS are subject to termination. The existence of this terms of
agreements is to serve it purpose to be a protection mechanism for consumers. ToS are crucial for
protecting your content frombeing copyrighted as well as for protecting you from potential liabilities.

It's the agreement that sets the rules and guidelines that users must agree to and follow in order to
use and accessthe socmed .In this agreement, it includes the necessary sections to inform users of
the guidelines of using certain socmed , what happens if users are abusing the socmed, and so on. All
of these can result in having those users who are found abusing your website temporarily banned.

As a user of social media myself, you probably do what I do and quickly scroll through terms of
service agreements and privacy policies ignoring the fine print to get registered for a new account. I
believe that one of the reasons why users spread misinformation and hate speech is because they
chose to not read those terms thoroughly. Should we really blame it on social media platforms if it’s
the user’s choice to not read and adhered to those ToS? Obviously no, why should they be expose to
liability for content posted by a third party.

ToS had helped users from being exposed to misinformation and hate speech but if their personal
choice is to not obey the community guidelines set by ToS, it’s imposssible for us to blame social
media when they take freedom of speech online for granted. If they choose to obey it, definitely, ToS
can serve it purpose to prevent abuses on social media such as spamming other users, posting
defamatory content or attempting to infect the app with malware from happening.
Next, users are solely responsible for the misinformation and hate speech. I said so because they are
the one who should be held legally responsible for their actions, rather than placing the entire
burden of responsibility on social media plartforms. For example, content filtering is a feature where
almost every reputable social media platform provides to monitor and manage the loactions where
users are browsing on the internet, enabling an organisation to either allow or block web traffic in
order to protect against potential threats and enforce corporate policy.

Users would outsmart these filters and use vpn (virtual,priv naetwork) to bypass it. Vpn provide you
with an IP adresss in another country for you to bypass the filter. The foreign IP adress makes it
appear as though you are based in a diff loctaion, meaning you wont trigger a site’s geo-blocks and
can circumnavigate ( to avoid ) restrictions.

Age limit

Freedom of speech
REPLY SPEECH

1. Summarize

What is it about?

Important issue? policy

What happened?

2. Show my team’s position and case

What did we present?

What did we show?

Why is our argumenrs relevant?

These are our arguments, our arguements are relevant to what this debate’s about

3. Compare to show ur position is better than the other team

Why you should win this debate? Why are our case better?

We made this argument, they made those argument, why are our argumennts better than theirs.

Why ours are more important and clear.

We give them credit on when they say

But I stand by that we win this case bcs

Review!!!!!

What have they not done? What have we done?

BE BIAS!!! To be persuasive

Our team wins this debate.....

briefly