A comparative analysis and evaluation of two positions/oppositions to the Digital Security act,2018. One position call for the abolition of the law and another for amendment to specific clause. What are the relative strengths of each positions? How do you evaluate those positions?

There are two main views on the Digital Security Act, 2018. One is to get rid of it, and the other is to change it. They say that the law is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. The amendmentists want specific changes made to specific clauses in the law.

The abolitionists make a lot of important points. First, they say that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the right to free speech. There are also people who say that the law isn't clear enough, and that it gives the government too much power to censor and control the internet. Finally, they say that the law doesn't need to be made because the government already has the power to censor and control the internet under other laws.

The amendmentists also make a lot of important points. In the first place, they say that the law is needed to protect the country from cybercrime. Abolitionists also say that the law isn't so unclear or vague as the abolitionists say, and that under existing laws, the government has the tools it needs to censor and control the internet. As a last point, they say that the amendment process is open and democratic, and that the abolitionists are just trying to make a point by opposing the law.

Overall, the abolitionists have the better case. Unconstitutional: The government has too much power to censor and control the internet with this law. It is also unnecessary. If you think amendmentists are right, you'll have to agree with them less. The law isn't unconstitutional, which means that the government has the power to censor and control the internet under existing laws. People also don't have as much say in how amendments are made as they do in how they get rid of them.

The abolitionists have a better case because the Digital Security Act, 2018, which was passed in 2018, is unconstitutional. The law doesn't give the government enough power to censor and control the internet. It's unclear and vague, and it gives the government too much power to censor and control the internet. If you think amendmentists are right, you'll have to agree with them less. The law isn't unconstitutional, which means that the government has the power to censor and control the internet under existing laws. People also don't have as much say in how amendments are made as they do in how they get rid of them.

Step-by-step explanation

This law, called the Digital Security Act of 2018, has caused a lot of controversy since it was first proposed in 2016. This act has two main sides: those who want to get rid of the law and those who want to change specific parts.

The people who want to get rid of the law say that the act in its current form isn't lawful and should be changed. That the act gives too much power to the government and violates people's right to privacy, they claim. Because the act is so broad, they say the government could use it to get what they want.

That even though the act has some flaws, it is a good start. They say that the act is needed to protect the country from cyber-attacks and that it's important to have a law in place that deals with digital security in place, as well. Those who are against it say that the act doesn't give the government too much power to spy on its citizens, and that it doesn't violate people's right to privacy.

There are both good and bad things about both of these jobs. People who want to get rid of the law have a better case when they say that the act doesn't follow the law, which makes their case stronger. When they say that the act is needed to protect the country from cyberattacks, they aren't as strong. When it comes to arguing that the act is needed to protect the country from cyberattacks, the case for amending specific clauses is stronger. When they say that the act violates their right to privacy, they aren't as strong as they used to be.

All in all, I think that the position in favor of amending specific clauses is more strong. In this case, they are more likely to say that the act is needed to protect the country from cyberattacks, and they are also more likely to say that the act does not violate people's right to privacy.