vs Devil's advocate · 3w ago
72–68
Human opening
50 years back, the answer would be a hard no, but in today's world, it isn't even a question. You may argue all life-saving features on a phone can be accessed without internet such as 911, natural disasters alerts, etc. BUT, there are multiple life saving features that requires internet, the most prominents ones are Google Maps, if you are lost in the forest, most people would rather be able to have an aopportunity to be able to find their way back on their own than to call for autorities to come save you, it would be a lot faster with Google map. Another feature is Voice activated emergency triggers, if you cannot use your hands to call 911, voice activation may seem life saving and it is, but multipole of these assitants rewuire internet. I can name a lot of, Medical ID, real time location sharing, and even social medias are a essential service in my opinion.
First rebuttal
You're conflating "useful" with "necessary." Google Maps saves time, not lives, when you're lost—humans navigated forests for millennia without satellites. Voice-activated 911 doesn't require internet; the emergency call itself does. Social media as "essential"? That's where your argument collapses. You've smuggled luxury features into a human rights framework by redefining essential. The real question you're dodging: if internet is a right, who pays? Every right demands enforcement, resources, obligation. Are you arguing governments must subsidize unlimited bandwidth for everyone, or just basic access? Pick one.