the Refutation and Concession (September the 23rd)

1. What is my thesis?

News sites should allow anonymous comments. 
2. What is the opposite position?
Anonymous comments on news websites should be banned. 

3. What arguments can I anticipate?
1)responsibility/integrity issues

4. How will I counter those arguments?

1) by saying that banning anonymous comments will not solve responsibility/integrity issues..the thing is that anonymous comments are not the problem, but the content. Not the people. It's the content that tick other people off, and so solving the anonymity problem will not solve what news sites aim to solve. Frankly, they cannot solve content wise issues because unfortunately, everyone just simply cannot agree and disagree about the same things. 

REFUTATION AND CONCESSION

 Of course, there are always those who claim that people should be held responsible for offensive things that they write online. They claim that it's a matter of humanity, integrity, and respect for others. However, if you think about it, it is not that people hate the person who wrote a certain comment. They disagree with the content, which makes themselves think that they dislike the person who wrote it. So the problem is the content, not the person.  Now in the world wide web, at least one person is bound to feel offended about what another writes. One does not necessarily have to be commenting something offensive for other people to be offended.Thus, if news websites tried to fix the issue of nasty anonymous comments, they will most likely fail to because different people would still be offended by certain comments. Also, people who are under their real names are bluntly offensive anyhow. For example, the Wall Street Journal requires its users to comment under their really names. Nonetheless, its comment pages are still filled with words that the majority of people find abusive and insulting. People will always be offensive (despite how vague the meaning is), even under their real names.