Editor’s note: this is the speech that won me the Leinster Schools Senior Final when I was in 6th year. I couldn’t have done it without my inimitable partner Athena, so shout out to her. Also, I told some inside jokes in the final so disregard the parts that seem nonsensical.
Motion: THW stop the development of virtual reality technologies until governments can investigate its effects
(6:20)
Team line: Toppling big techs tyranny
Our case consists of 2 independent prongs of Hume’s fork:
Point 1: The discovery and mitigation of risk in VR
Point 2: We increase adoption and development of VR
Rebuttal (25)
We get this idea from first, that they want to continue developing VR while investigating it.
- This is a silly strategy
- Why?
- They concede that harms exist, but are happy exposing users to them. It’s not good enough for them to say “these harms are small and short term” when in reality, they are irreversible in many cases. I’ll explain later what that looks like.
- Note that this strategy generates more backlash on their side.
- The government wouldn’t allow a drug that affects your brain to be sold if there were questions around its safety. Otherwise, there would be huge backlash. Stopping development is the only way to prevent this.
Idea:
- VR is good
Panel, we think that even if VR is good, the context given how big and prolific it will be on changing the cultural zeitgeist means we should err on the side of caution.
- We accept that there is a plethora of beneficial VR technology out there - e.g. doctors can virtually practice surgeries. 3 things to note.
- First, These have already been developed, the government cannot wave a magic want and stop them from existing.
- Second, they are also likely to have been thoroughly researched and safeguards created.
Third, even if we are forced to halt development, if these technologies are so great, they will probably be authorised for use quickly
- VR is unfinished
- No one is claiming that an unfinished product that is unfinished - we think governments have incentives to take VR at it’s best and worst in creating comprehensive legislation that keeps people safe
- People are best positioned to know what things are good for them. We should empower them to use VR if they think it is the right idea
- Notice that this relies on people being informed. They can’t consent to harms if they don’t understand the full extent of them, which only happens after government studies are conducted. I’ll explain later why that happens exclusively on our side.
- Oligopoly
- Already happens under status quo - Facebook buying up firms
VR good
Locks out benefits of VR
P1 (3:35)
On our frame:
- The crucial context that first prop missed in this debate is that we’re at a tipping point, where the next stage of VR is one where it’s widespread, controlled by a few exploitative tech companies.
- We’re at a crucial moment. And what prop 1 miss is that the future development will happen incredibly quickly. A small number of very competitive technology companies have invested in this e.g. Facebook and Facebook Reality Labs. Firms like Apple, don’t want them to gain a foothold in the industry, and will want to develop their technology as quickly as possible to outcompete them.
- This will revolutionise how we interact with reality.
- Companies are working on simulating remote working, entertainment, socialisation, retail etc, giving them massive influence over how we think and behave. So it’s not just the harms that prop 1 points to,
Differentiating:
As opposed to opening, we’re going to explain why these harms, even short term, are often irreversible, so we must stop development now.
We will also be the team that proves why it doesn’t matter whether we prove specific harms, the capacity for abuse alone is reason for governments to intervene.
Why is potential for abuse massive?
Neither side can predict the harms of virtual reality. What we do know for certain are a couple of things:
- Given the kinds of companies that are investing in virtual reality, the harms associated with VR are likely going to be an extension of the abuses they already engage in.
- These private companies are not democratically accountable, and given the scope of control they will have over lives, we think there is an obligation on
- We already know for certain that technology can have very dangerous and lasting impacts on individuals.
- But on top of this, we are already aware of several concrete harms associated with VR:
- Policing will be difficult given the anonymity of the virtual world, even though crimes like sexual assault in VR are just as traumatic, harming victims through tactile, auditory and visual means as an assault in the real world.
- Data and privacy violations are infinitely more likely with an exponential increase of data available - listening and recording you constantly.
- The most important thing to note in this debate is that these are irreversible harms.
- Once data is collected, it is subsequently sold and therefore incredibly difficult to remove from circulation.
- Extremely targetted ads and messaging, which will now be immersive, shape how we think, they artificially engineer our preferences in a way that strips us of our agency and the choices we make. Prop 1 don’t impact this, that is why it is so pernicious.
- Trauma induced from virtual
What happens after these investigations?
- Note panel: we don’t have to ban these technologies
- We support regulation like:
- Increased oversight of government agencies over data collection and encryption, anti-trust laws, mandated increased policing.
- At the very least, people can now meaningfully consent to these harms, which in itself is a unique benefit.
How should you weigh this point:
Clearly, virtual reality will have massive impacts on the cultural zeitgeist and on the balance of probability, there will be significant harms. We are the side that prevents those harms.
P2: Increasing adoption and Development of VR (2,35)
Even if you don’t buy our first argument on prevention of harm, let’s assume VR has no harms - it’s a perfect technology. We think getting as many people to use it as possible is the largest benefit.
How are we different to opening?
What opening misses is that there are clearly benefits to VR and especially of the social aspects.
What that means is that
The problem is that people are reluctant to engage with that kind of technology:
- Note: this is not tense with our first point, because while there are some people that really want to use VR, this argument is about appealing to people who otherwise wouldn’t use it.
What is the reason for this?
- First, People no longer trust Big Tech.
- The traction surrounding things like Facebook’s recent scandals has made people wary of tech companies - selling private data, privacy concerns etc.
- There is a consensus from both sides of the political spectrum that we need regulation.
- Second, the prospect of a virtual world is very foreign to most people - there is a lot of unknown that people are afraid of.
How do we solve this problem on our side?
- Government authorised studies assuage concerns people have about safety and regulation removes the perception of these tech companies as being out of control, which is the largest fear people have.
Why is this the most important thing in the debate?
- Even in Opp’s best case scenario where the benefits are massive we are the side that ensures that we integrate this technology into as many spheres of life as possible.
- How?
- We get more development. 2 mechanisms here
- First, Investors know precisely what regulatory barriers they are up against, while comparatively, investors have no idea what the government will do to the industry in the next 5 to 10 years.
- Second, advertisers are now reassured that their ads won’t be abused or placed next to extreme content.
- So even if we lose out on VR development in the time it takes to investigate, how should you weigh this?
- One, we restore faith in technology companies, and on quantity we increase adoption
- Two, we enable a greater rate of development with increased investment into the future.
- Three, our increased revenue lowers cost per unit, increasing accessibility.
In the world in which VR is dangerous, we mitigate those harms in point one, and the world in which it is safe, we increase adoption and development.
Side proposition
POI:
We are happy to do this again in the future
No one is claiming GDPR is perfect
The electorate are scared