Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reestablished?

Net Neutrality
Indeed, Net Neutrality (NN) was not a law in the traditional sense, but rather a foundational concept of the internet. If you continue to assert that I claimed it was a law, you're either deliberately misrepresenting my argument or you're simply mistaken. You mentioned that eBay and Amazon wouldn't be able to pay to block other online shopping sites due to anti-trust laws. However, in a previous round, I addressed your anti-trust argument, stating that anti-trust laws are ineffective because of the poor regulation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). You also claimed that the FCC official was not influenced by ISPs, but the truth is, he was funded by Verizon. It's concerning that you would trust someone who is being paid by a corporation to speak on their behalf. To illustrate, if a scientist funded by Bud Light claimed it's healthy to consume 10,000 of their beers annually, would you believe him? The same logic applies here. Regardless, NN was passed by the FCC, and I'm pleased with the outcome. The internet will remain a wonderful place. However, you seem to have an issue with government regulation. While it's true that government regulation should not be excessive, there are instances where it is necessary. For instance, you support affirmative action on your major issues page, which is a form of government regulation. I'm not suggesting that NN is as crucial as ensuring equal rights for minorities, but government regulations do have their place in certain situations.

So you just want the points don't you? couple of free points may help your cause eh? Well phooey! I dislike people like you who are most interested in points than making a good debate to try and sway people to your way of thinking. Since you can delete and restart I have concluded that this is what you want. To make points for free. However I will not debate against my own

Thanks for the compliment. I will address your issues one at a time, and then I will go through my points. 1) Correlation Does Not Mean/Prove Causation. I agree with the above statement of correlation not necessarily proving or meaning causation. As for you claim about the Internet being more good than bad, I disagree with you. 2) Personal Development As for this I will address them each in letter format not to confuse with the number format I am using. a) We could find jobs before the internet existed. If anything, this causes more problems. Not everyone has the internet, or can afford the internet. Internet causes monthly charges and fees as we all know. Therefore, if anything, finding jobs has become more expensive. People could previously just get a newspaper, which is still plausible, and look for a job. b) Resumes can be submitted without the internet as well in person. Regardless, resumes are needed when going to a job interview. c) The same can be done with books. d) I would really like for you to explain your reasoning for gaining confidence via the internet. In my honest opinion, I would say it does the opposite. e) I agree with this. We also have telephones, mail, etc. There are several ways to connect with people. f) This I disagree with. Maybe some specific courses for College and what not, but not regular school. However, regular schools still exist. My main point above is that all the things the internet is doing that you are stating has already existed. As for the economy, I will agree it has benefited the economy. 3) Our world is working and has eliminated lots of negative aspects of the Internet. 3-1) Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is act put in place to reduce the amount of illegal activity on the internet. First thing I'd like to state is how this is only applied to the Philippines. It is not a world-wide thing. Also internet restrictions vary from country to country. a) Cybersquatting happens quite often. That's why many companies warn about only to use the login at such and such webpage. However, this is not a big point of mine, if anything it shows problems that exist within the internet. b) Cybersex is all over the internet. Don't believe me? Just type "live sex web cam" in any search engine and you'll get tons of websites that offer these services. c) Child pornography is being attacked I will agree with you, but what about regular pornography? I'll address it more later in my problems with the internet. d) I didn't know identity theft was a big issue within the internet. I don't have anything to argue about this. e) This is everywhere. Just for an example, . http://thepiratebay.se... 3-2) Both Windows, and Macintosh (including iOS) OS' have security features in place to protect, humans from Harmful and Illegal acts/uses online. Are you sure? Can you prove the limitations or the amount of protection it applies? For example, in Microsoft it has a block list for certain websites. This requires the specific website to be know. The child could easily bypass this like the child who bypassed Microsoft's Xbox password feature (web-link #1). I would like for you to cite the amount of security please. Those are my comments to everything you have stated. Now I am going to go with the problems that exist because of the internet. Resources: [1] . http://techcrunch.com... 1) Exercise There is a lack of exercise in today's society. Years ago when there were few electronic distractions such as video-games, internet, television, etc. , people resorted to other solutions for fun - physical activity. I would like to quote from web-link #1 - "The lack of physical activity due to the rise of new technology, especially the internet has also affected the increase of obesity in today's society. According to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, today one third of all adults are obese. 16 percent of children and teens are obese, a number which has tripled since 1980. ". So how does this correlate with the internet? Lets read the quote from web-link #2 - "The origins of the Internet date back to research commissioned by the United States government in the 1960s to build robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks. While this work, together with work in the United Kingdom and France, led to important precursor networks, they were not the Internet. There is no consensus on the exact date when the modern Internet came into being, but sometime in the early to mid-1980s is considered reasonable. From that point, the network experienced decades of sustained exponential growth as generations of institutional, personal, and mobile computers were connected to it. The funding of a new U. S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. Though the Internet has been widely used by academia since the 1980s, the commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life. " There we have a correlation of things such as the internet arriving in the 1980's and much more substantially used in our present time, with the rising number of obesity. It is not solely the internet to blame, video games and other things have causes these numbers to rise. However, the internet does contribute towards this trend as stated. Resources: [1] . http://search.yahoo.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Black markets These are illegal and are being taken down over time. I will admit to that. However, the internet has made it extremely easy to set one up. All you have to do is create a web page. There was a very famous one of these websites called the silk road. Check the resources out and you'll see how it was created (resource #1), as well as how it finally got stopped. They had tons of things for sale on their market, such as guns, drugs, etc. A more recent one is Bit coin. To quote from the web-link #2 - "In 2012, it was estimated that 4.5% to 9% of all transactions of all bit coin exchanges in the world were for drugs trades on a single deep web drugs market, Silk Road. [151] The bulk of bit coin purchases during the time were speculative in nature,[151] so drugs must have constituted a greater percentage of the actual goods purchased with bit coins c. 2012. Silk Road was shut by US law enforcement in October 2013 leading to a short-term fall in the value of bit coin. [152] Alternative sites were soon available, and in early 2014 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the closure of the Silk Road had little impact on the number of Australians selling drugs online, which had actually increased. [153] Several news outlets have asserted that the popularity of bit coins hinges on the ability to use them to purchase illegal goods. [154] Non-drug transactions were thought to be far less than the number involved in the purchase of drugs,[155] and roughly one half of all transactions made using bit coin c. 2013 were bets placed at a single online gambling website. [156] One source stated online gun dealers use bit coin to sell arms without background checks. [157] The bit coin community branded one site, Sheep Marketplace, as a scam when it prevented withdrawals and shut down after an alleged bit coins theft. [158] In a separate case, escrow accounts with bit coins belonging to patrons of a different black market were hacked in early 2014. [159]" The interesting thing about that quote is it refers back to the Silk Road which I talked about previously. Resources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(marketplace) [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... There are other things I'd like to address, but I don't want your post to go over the Character limit.

1. Under LD debate rules, the definitions have to be made at the outset. However, this is not a debate under LD rules. For a debate.org debate to be made under LD rules, the proponent has to declare that unambiguously in the challenge. That was not done in this case. There are also LD rules pertaining to officially declaring and challenging values and value criteria. Those rules do not apply either. It is free form debate, the intellectual equivalent of a cage match. However, there is no escape from semantics, logic, and verification of facts. Those are inherent to debate. 2. I don't have a problem with Con's definitions as far as they go. The meaning of "democratic" is separately contested below. I also dispute Con's definition of "felony." Note that we are only dealing with convicted felons. Felons who haven't been convicted retain the right to vote. 3. I reject Con's thesis that the preï¿½minent value at issue is or ought to be democracy. The value at issue is and ought to be good government. If democracy were the preï¿½minent value, then the Founders would have specified a democracy in the Constitution rather than a republic. Moreover, if democracy were the most important thing, then non-citizens and even small children would be afforded the right to vote. We have a republic, and we restrict voting in the interests of good government. All democratic governments do the same, all in the interests of good government. 4. I challenge Con to say whether or not he favors extending the vote in all elections to non-citizens and small children? If he does not, then I challenge him to explain the principle at work that he uses to override the extension of democracy. 5. Con asserts, "Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act." This assertion is false, because there is clear data that convicted felons are likely to continue exercising poor judgment by continuing to commit criminal acts. The primary interest of career criminals when voting is to undermine the justice system, and therefore that is good reason to withhold voting rights. It is true that some convicted felons will reform and vote according to the general interests of American society. It is also true that some non-citizens and some under-age citizens will exercise the judgment to vote along with the general interests of American society as a whole. The exclusion of those classes of voters is based upon the considerable probability that they will not. The case is as strong or stronger that a convicted felon will not vote with the interests of society considered in the way that non-felons will consider them. Felons can be relied upon to vote overwhelmingly to undermine the justice system. 6. Con rebuts "the thing is the resolution states democratic society. it does not state one certain democratic society such as the U.S. so this argument can be dropped." So can a society be "democratic" without being a strict democracy in which everyone votes and every law is put to a direct vote of the people? The definition of "democratic" is http://www.answers.com... 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" (George du Maurier). A government need not be a strict democracy, as Con supposes, to be characterized by democracy. None of the definitions support Con's strict definition. Moreover, if Con's definition were accepted, then people would truthfully say things like, "There are no democratic governments anywhere in the world." The opposite is quite clear, people recognize that many governments are characterized by democracy without being the strict democracies that Con supposes. 7. Con asks, "If it [is] said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised?" The short answer is that they may have been created equal, but felons went astray after their creation, and their demonstrated lack of judgment resulted in their disenfranchisement. The long answer is that the quoted "created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document. Clarification of the implications of "created equal" lies in the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the classes under which discrimination under law is prohibited, and there is nothing that prohibits discrimination for felony conviction. If the Constitution prohibited discrimination for felony conviction, then felons could not be imprisoned. None of the other protected classes (race, religion, ethnicity) can be imprisoned solely for being a member of the class. 8. Con asks, "what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens?" They are both citizens, but so are small children. Citizenship alone provides no guarantee of a right to vote. 9. Con claims, "my oppent [opponent] states that 'Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians', this argument cant be upheld or proven true, because there is no evidence to prove this claim." It is fair in a debate to call upon the common sense of the audience (or judges). The assertion follows from (1) The main purpose of voting is that citizens may look out for their interests, (2) politicians appeal to the interests of citizens to get votes, (3) criminals have a strong interest in weakening the justice system, and therefore (4) politicians will target criminals with positions that favor weakening the justice system. There is supporting evidence from cases in Florida, cited, wherein Liberal politicians clearly believed they could win the criminal vote. 10. Con claims, "as we can clearly see if we vote for the PRO. we will be punishing criminals twice by taking away the right to vote and by making them serve a sentence." First, there is nothing wrong with punishing someone in two different ways. We punish many felons by both imprisoning them and later putting them on parole, and sometimes also making them register and wear a tracking device. Second, Con agreed that a purpose of imprisonment is not only punishment, but to prevent the criminal from doing further harm. Denying the vote is a proper and reasonable way to prevent the criminal from doing further harm by voting for candidates that promise to weaken the justice system. 11. Con asserts "he [Pro] states that letting felons vote will hurt our economy and justice system. this is not true because there are such felonies that are minor such as J-walking and repeated speeding." This is incorrect. There are three classes of crimes infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. J-walking is an infraction. Repeated speeding is usually and infraction, but might rise to a misdemeanor depending upon the state and the circumstances. Felonies are only the most serious crimes. For example, felony drunk driving generally involves killing someone. A felony is "One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor." http://www.answers.com... Summary Con's rebuttal is an artificial construct that supposes that democracy is a supreme value that ought to trump good government. There is ample evidence that virtually no one believes that have more democracy leads to better government. To the contrary, the Founders preferred a republic, and minors and non-citizens are not allowed to vote -- all in the interests of good government. Felons have proved poor judgment and so the interests of good government should prevail. The resolution is affirmed.

Before I begin, I will state that I highly reprimand illegalities such child pornography and treason. As with imminent lawless action (I.e. yelling "fire" in a public domain, if there was a fire, wouldn't sounding the alarms be a more promising way of approaching the situation. In addition, the majority of people would know not to panic in the incidence of a fire. Furthermore, if people were to be killed in a public stampede, then the individual who screamed fire should be charged with murder or manslaughter. The same legal ramifications should ensue in the incidence of someone yelling "robbery" in a bank. Where is the line drawing if someone discusses child pornography? This debate partially entails the discussion of child pornography. We aren't advocating it, we aren't suborning it, we are merely discussing it as an illegality. As for treasonous negotiations and the possible aiding and abetting of criminals from non-allied nations. People like this should be charged with treason and not with violation of free speech laws. If any constitution states rights that are written in black and white, then isn't abridging these rights with newly introduced laws unconstitutional, and therefore the first amendment is no longer a right? Please do not get me wrong, treason, child pornography and other previously mentioned illegalities are indubitably reprehensible. Furthermore, I actually live in Australia and as such the constitution does not explicitly state that my nation has free speech, however, the high court and nit the supreme court has implied that we do and as such it is a privilege and not a right. Likewise, the high court and not the supreme court has compromised the first amendment with the introduction of new laws.

Thank you, estes, for instigating this debate. In the future, Pro will need to affirm the resolution by providing arguments which demonstrate its veracity. Currently, Pro has not constructed arguments which affirm the resolution. Elsewise, Con wins by default. We eagerly await Pro's extensive defense of the resolution.

Well to begin, the freedom of speech is really that free to begin with. One may not slander or invoke what is identified by the constitution as fighting words. With any type of government where you have a very broad freedom, some restrictions must reside to insure order. In regards to freedom of speech one can say pretty much whatever one wishes, but you may expect cendorship if what is being said is too rash against the government. You can disagree with it's actions but the government will not please everyone, indeed it cannot. That's the thing about being free is that it is not totally free. Not because our government wishes us to be restricted, but because men must be governed. The Far left has turned the media into a circus and they only ever report and build upon the negative aspects of government. This is why he have more offensive and immoral content on television. The get around the offensive rule in the constitution by claiming the filth is "art". Is that something you feel comfortable with when it comes to your children on day? Gay and lesbian marriages are seen as longer lasting compared to traditional marriage through the eyes of the boob tube. Premarital and extra marital sex is also shown as normal. Why? Because it is shown as art, because under the consitution it would not be allowed. Next, I assume you are referring to the 2000 election when Bush beat Gore in the second tightest election in History. Florida had an issue with it's voting machines. Bush did not cheat. Gore wanted a recount again and again and again and each time he lost. Eventually there must be a winner and with the provisions that we have in place for such an event, Bush was declared the winner. I remember the African Americans claiming their votes had been thrown away and many votes were, but not just theirs but many peoples because the ticket had a hole punched for both Bush and Gore so they were disqualified. That is why Bush won, because he would have won anyway. Then you have people that cry Gore had that popular vote, but we have the electoral college because mainly the masses will not make a wise decision and that's why the founding fathers put it in place. Let's face it some people should just stay out of politics. With Hurricane Katrina, I say this with all due respect, it didn't just happen with them at unawares. They were told to evacuate and they chose not to, not because they couldn't but because they wanted to stay. It is then that they choose to blame the government. And yes I agree, it shouldn't have taken the government so long, but it was a state problem. I had not previously known of the Indian situation so I cannot comment as I know little detail. Patriotism should be taught in schools though. I do not see it all around me and I live in the south, one of the most patriotic regions in America. I will tell you what I see. I see America insulted and ridculed by it's own entertainment industry. I see Rolling Stone fabricate lies of every manner against America. I see a land where at one time it was considered taboo for the flag to be burned by just anyone, and even then it had to be for a special occasion. Now people do it out of protest because it's symbolic and it's art. I live in a land where people want the God of our fathers removed in every way from our most important documents as the misinterpret the constitution. The need for patriotism is greater than ever. It is on the shoulders of patriots that we even have this debate. Which brings me to my last point... It is patriotism that allows for your free speech just as it allows for the 5 rifles and 2 pistols in my home. If not for patriotism we would not have broken from England and we would not have our constitution that makes us free. Thanks for the debate. Mayhaps we shall debate again as there are a few other topics in which I would like us to discuss.

I feel I own the right to privacy and I feel everyone does. My name is Ben by the way, second, I challenge you to tell my one benefit that the NSA has gotten out of spying on us. See that the NSA is the Government a d the government is owned by the people of the United States I have a right to tell them not look at my stuff. The NSA I feel is an illegal part of our government right now. Again I challenge you to find a terrorist attack that has been stopped by the NSA since 2001 when the patriot act was enacted. Spying to me is censorship, you shouldn't be prosecuted on what you do on the internet. The internet is a free library available to the most common man for free. It is a world wide library of information. Do you get prosecuted for checking books out of the library , no! Do you accept my challenge?

I am new to this site. ---- I think that capital punishment should be totally reinstated in United States. United States is facing a financial deficit, and by executing rapists, child predators and murders can save the American taxpayers millions if not billions per year. ----------------------------- Firstly, the cost of looking after these criminals is too much; it"s a major burden to our economy. It costs around $90,000 a year to look after these people; so if an inmate is in jail for 20 years the cost is outstanding, Almost a quarter of a million dollars per person. In 2010 over 30,000 inmates were incarcerated in maximum security prisons, these prisons house the worst of the worst and yet some of the most expensive jails in the country. If capital punishment was fully reinstated in United States we could save taxpayers millions of dollars per year, this money could be put into education or infrastructure. ------------------- Secondly at least 26% of criminals re-offend, by executing prisoners that percentage can be cut drastically. As America"s population grows so does crime rates. As the economy gets worse more people are resorting to committing violent crimes. ---- Lastly multiple studies show murders were drastically decreased after a public execution; the foresight that they could be killed for their actions may prevent them from committing the crime. --- ------------------ ======================================= All of my information should be accurate, if there are any minor mistakes simply overlook them for the sake of the debate.

My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you.

For this debate, I will be arguing that we should entirely have freedom of speech. To further explain, should be protected by the first amendment, however, the high court has introduced an array of laws that abridge freedom of speech, such include imminent lawless action and many other laws (all of which in my opinion are reasonable laws to be introduced). Although, in doing this, is freedom of speech still a right or a privilege? Since the US constitution states rights, is introducing laws unconstitutional that compromise the first amendment unconstitutional? In commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and Britain, their constitutions do not explicitly state that they have freedom of speech, however, the high court has implied they do but only as a privilege. Furthermore, are laws introduced abridging freedom of speech (which the US constitution clearly states not to do) unconstitutional? As such, I believe that we should have absolute freedom of speech.


Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

The United States should not enforce net neutrality regulations.
Tim Wu, the individual who coined the term "net neutrality," emphasizes the importance of distinguishing "sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law." This discussion is not about the principle of net neutrality. The argument is about whether the United States should implement a net neutrality law. I am not opposing net neutrality as a principle. I am arguing that the United States should not adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are against prohibiting net neutrality. I agree with Con that prohibiting net neutrality is detrimental to competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con claims that "net neutrality promotes competition" because "if we ban net neutrality, the major ISPs would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing." First, as discussed previously, this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con's argument does not support the adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be harmful to the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intervention on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained earlier, antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act does not allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's assertion that "big companies would be unable to compete with each other" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To clarify, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that

All good things must come to an end... I take full blame for slightly breaking the rules in this debate. I'm new to this webs tie and I hope you understand. That being said, my opponent has failed to respond to any of the arguments that I have made. I have upheld my side of the resolution because my opponent has not made any rebuttals against my arguments. Thanks everyone!

With that said, lets get to my final responses. === OBSERVATIONS === Re: O1- I'll agree with my opponent, this contention has been irrelevant because we both have debated the big picture *All other observations were agreed upon by both, my opponent and I* === CONTENTIONS === My opponent concedes all three of my contentions, so flow those to the CON side. Re: Contention 4- My opponent asserts that removing AA would be a form of AA in and of itself. This, however, is a flawed idea. We're simply returning to a system that's fair and balanced and offers everyone an equal shot. I assume my opponent thinks that by removing AA means the demographics of college campuses would change drastically. The are many, many competent people in every sector of our world. Throughout all races, classes, socio-economic levels, political affiliation, religious views, etc. AA shouldn't exist at all. When you look at my answer to C1 and my C2 and C3, it's easily apparent that AA actually has a negative effect on our entire country. Getting rid of AA doesn't enforce any form of AA at all, and changing it is a bad idea because it still leads to the effects of C2 (de-valuing the worth of the degree earned by one favored under an AA policy) because someone still has to be favored. Anytime you favor someone, you exclude someone who might've gotten in without the AA policy, and this destroys ingenuity. Fixing it is not a option, and getting rid of AA would lead to several benefits (the avoidance of all the negative effects of all 3 contentions my opponent conceded). To comply with my opponents requests (". .. to negate it, my opponent would have to show that neither of these implementations of AA is what should happen, and something else should happen instead that cannot be classified as AA. ") I've shown that abolition of AA should happen, and that it doesn't spark a different kind of AA, and that fixing it is an impossibility. To answer the third part, showing something else that should happen instead, I think a plan like the following should be implemented. On college admissions forms, remove the race box. That should be irrelevant. Next, keep names secret (not trying to be stereotypical, but some names have obvious ethnic backgrounds, especially last names) and have a college admissions board choose, truly unbiased, based only on accomplishments, and in no way on race. With that, I'll conclude my speech, and thus, this debate. Thanks to my opponent, beem0r, for the debate, and a thanks in advance to the judges.

True, true. I acknowledged that in my last point, however, forgot it in my begining. My apologies.Interesting. You state that you are "one of those technicians." My question to you is:1) Your profile differs. It states that your occupation is "Artist," and that you are "just on this thing while drinking beer." A technician certainly wouldn't do either of those things at the place at which he works.2) Your round one argument seemed to state that you were apologetic to the issue at hand. You state, "Sorry about that" twice in your argument, making me think that you do want to fix the problem. 3) You speak of "our technicians." If you are truely one of the technicians, why speak this way? It is as if I were to state, "Sorry about that. Our students have been notified," when speaking of myself. Not only is it unnatural, but it throws shadow upon your case, as it hinges upon your occupation and your reason to work. I await your response.

There seems to be some confusion here. Everything mentioned about the Fed's actions in 2008 is based on supply side economics- per the conservative Bush Administration. Raising interest rates and instituting Glass-Steagall regulations are all Keynesian moves. Keynesian Economics calls for government regulation of speculative Wall Street trading, stimulus spending to the middle class and cutting tax loop holes for the rich. These are all supposedly Democratic beliefs. Which is why wages stagnated under the Republicans Nixon, Ford and Reagan. Corporations are instituting stock buyback, which is un-American. But that's not the cause of a rising stock market, it's the result.

I await the argument re-post from the original debate. My round two arguments are established and ready to post.

I see one main area where we differ in this debate and that is in retroactive decision making and in proactive decision making. The DNC has already stated that the states that move up their primaries too far ahead will not get any delegates. The Republicans did not state this. They stated that there would be a punishment and a blanket punishment was that the states that moved their primaries ahead lost half of their delegates. The major difference in these two parties responses is that the Republicans never stated that all the delegates would be lost though the DNC has. That is what maes the situation different for the two parties and incomparable for this issue. Had the DNC not already stated the punishment then fairly punishing a state might work. Since the punishment was already stated, any retracting of punishment looks weak and makes it look like the party is pandering to get votes. And what type of big brother relationship are you referring to between the parties and the states. The parties make simple administrative rules in order to function that don't infringe on that much liberty. A state purposefully broke the rules so they are punished. What is so Orwellian about that. I agree that in policy debate if you prove a median option you would win the debate. But on here it is convincing others that wins debate and bringing up jargon and saying "I win b/c i don't need to argue your antithesis etc. doesn't help convince people. You sounded like a whiny fourth grader there, no offence. I still argue that the median option is terrible. If we held primaries again, which we can't due to cost, we disenfranchise so many voters that cannot participate before the nomination. Absentee voters, military voters, and others who cannot get time off or their vote cast. BTW the entire DNC's surplus funds won't even pay for Florida reholding a primary. Where is this money going to come from, lala land? Plus we disenfranchise voters who won't vote b/c they already did (protest voters). And we don't give the candidates time to campaign in the state so we still have the same bias as before w/ the better known nominee (which is still Clinton) having a huge advantage. We cannot hold the primary again w/o silencing many people's voices. We cannot undo the stated punishment lest the party look weak and that it is pandering to voters. There is no median option. There is count or do not count. I hope I have proven that counting the delegates is suicidal. Reholding the primaries is not effective at this point due to cost, disenfranchisement, and simply time and fairness. We still get state by state anarchy as states can now compare whether the punishment is worth the cost of losing some delegates. If this happens the primary season will drastically change and as stated in my opening argument, we lose the benefits having small states go first bestow upon us. The DNC was dumb in its punishment of Florida and Michigan. Retracting their STATED punishment now allots to political suicide. States must follow certain rules for a party to function. If the rules need not be followed anarchy occurs. In the interest of fairness and utility we should not count the MI and FL delegates unless they follow the rules. There is no median option and the republican party is not comparable to the DNC here as stated above. This is where we differ the most and I hope you can follow my description of the inherent difference. Good luck and good debate.

"This would not happen. The buisnesses would problably agree on a price that is higher than the one we currently have then they would keep it in that general area. Another reason that the price would go up is that the buisness would need to make a proft. " (business and profit are spelled wrong) The buisnesses would not want to raises prices because they would loose customers to the internet. The electronical part of communication is already growing exponentially. My opponent has also failed to recognize my proposal that perhaps the government put a price cap on it so that we wouldn't be charged an insane amount to send a letter. "This is absolutly bogus. Rather than the quality of the U. S. postal service that we currently have, if privitized the quality would go down for a number of reasons. 1)the buisnessees would have to cover costs by cutting down on quality. 2)the system would not be held up by government spending. " (buisnessees? ) I think that my opponent absolutely fails to realize what competition does. If the quality went down the (once again) the companies would lose customers to electronics. This would result in even a greater loss of money if they even lose money, and on the reverse of this if they had a better quality they could charge alittle more and nobody would care because the quality would increase. "Also, what would happen to all the current U. S. postal employees? They would be fired which would add to an already troubled economy. What would happen to the buildings and the trucks and the tools? They would rot away into nothing. The moeny we already put into them would be wasted. " This is a very easy fix. Auction off the goods and work ot a deal to transfer the employees. "I will offer a final reason as to why we should keep the U. S. postal service. Interaction with other countries. Our postal service official delivers and recieves mail from other countries. The postal service is so entertwined with our interactions with other countries that to privitize it would be repugnant because it would require foriwghn countires to use a privite buisness rather than government buisness. " The actual mail the the U. S. government would send would still be official. I doubt another county would care who delivers it as long as it gets delivered appropriately. In conclusion the U. S. postal service should be sold because it would have many benefits. It would save the U. S. government money. Actually if the U. S. government taxed it alittle it in money from that industry. Also it would increase the quality of the mail service as well as help to further stimulate a wounded economy.

"that free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security" The resolution we debate today reads "that free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security." The burden of proof then, for the AFF is to demonstrate that in no case government has the right to classify information for purposes of national security -as information that is classified, by impact and effect, restrains free speech. In essence, the NEG must prove that in no case is it acceptable for the government to keep information from its people in the interest of preserving national security. If the NEG can in any case prove that a restricted flow of information is beneficial to a nation because it protects national security, the NEG has won the debate. My neglect to define national security was not a concession to stipulate whatever definition my opponent provided, merely to afford him the opportunity to frame his arguments upon his understanding of what national security was. My opponent considers national security to be "the protection of national citizens against large-scale external threats." I would expand that definition to include all external threats. To refute my opponent's case: R1) There is no question that the cause of "national security" has been used in the past to justify a litany of questionable acts and policies by politicians and governmental agencies. However, that "national security" has been abused as a cause in the past does not abrogate all purpose or benefit from its pursuit, or governmental secrecy in totality. I agree with my opponent that national security should not be used by politicians as a blank check to protect themselves from criminal prosecution (as both Presidents Nixon and Clinton attempted). Again though, that does not mean that all governmental information should be publicly accessible. Watergate, we now know, had nothing to do with national security -only shady political antics. Clinton tried to claim that being sued for sexual harassment would hinder his ability to be an effective president and commander in chief, which Supreme Court Justice Stevens found to be absurd (Clinton v. Jones). However, in both cases, while national security was the desired end that supposedly was championed by both Nixon and Clinton, the real question was of executive privilege, and what authority executive privilege afforded presidents to avoid prosecution. There are cases it would be not only feasible to justify governmental obstruction of informational flow (and in effect limit freedom of speech by hindering access to information), but prudence and practicality would demand it. Schematics to governmental buildings, security protocols for physical presidential protection (efforts designed to keep the president from bodily harm), launch codes, nuclear weapon research and technology, defense schematics and technological blue-prints, etc. all are best kept from the public for reasons that are self-explanatory. I contend that the problem with publicly available launch codes and etc. is the increased likelihood that such information would fall into the hands of a rival or enemy who could use that information to cause harm to us. To classify information like that is to hinder free speech and the flow of information, but in the name of national security, practicality demands that we do so. R2) My opponent secondly considers the implications to universal availability of governmental knowledge. The likelihood of my opponent committing an act of violence, I would say, is quite low. His knowing of the schematics of the London Subway most likely would not pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom because he possesses neither the means nor the will to harm Londoners. Someone who did posses both the means and the will to harm Londoners who was intimately familiar with the inter-workings of the London subway is an entirely different matter. A terrorist, equipped with the means and the desire to cause harm (someone who would constitute a tangible threat to national security if they had access to sensitive information), could and would use such information to kill innocent people -information that wouldn't be readily accessible if it were classified. While a classification system isn't perfect, it is an effective barrier if properly implemented to ensure that sensitive information that could be used to harm people doesn't fall in the wrong hands. I contend that while such a system does impair free speech, it is a necessary cost in the name of security -after all, who really cares about where the air ducts and gas pipes are located in a subway anyway, unless you want to use them to cause harm. Someone who needed access to that information, for, say, repair or improvement purposes would be granted clearance (access to specified classified information) -but a terrorist would be out of luck. My opponent is correct in believing that not all free speech is negative. In fact, most free speech is positive, but there are some cases where information is best kept from the public. R3) I respect my opponent's high regard for the truth, but I question his understanding of the impact that universal access to all information (wether that information is sensitive or not) will have. My opponent is correct that the best way to combat false ideals is to speak the truth, but speaking the truth and our ability and the government's necessity to do so is not undermined by a system where information is classified. There is a fundamental difference between not speaking the truth and keeping information from the public that could result in societal harm by jeopardizing national security. My opponent is simply mistaken when he contends that "the only reason why free speech is limited for reasons of "national security" is in fact to prevent truths from being told." Indeed, the purpose is not to lie to the public, but to protect them from the harm that would result if sensitive information were to fall into the wrong hands (like the hands of people who had the means and will to kill the innocent). To support the Affirmative is to support a world where anyone can access anything at any time -a world where those who would desire to cause us harm are only a google search away from learning how to do so. True enough, classification should be sparingly used. In no way should politicians be allowed to "classify" information as a way to dodge accountability for their actions. Only information that is critical to the integrity of our government and infrastructure should be classified -like operational procedure for intelligence gathering at the CIA, or weak points in security at the Pentagon.

Before I begin, I will state that I highly reprimand illegalities such child pornography and treason. As with imminent lawless action (I.e. yelling "fire" in a public domain, if there was a fire, wouldn't sounding the alarms be a more promising way of approaching the situation. In addition, the majority of people would know not to panic in the incidence of a fire. Furthermore, if people were to be killed in a public stampede, then the individual who screamed fire should be charged with murder or manslaughter. The same legal ramifications should ensue in the incidence of someone yelling "robbery" in a bank. Where is the line drawing if someone discusses child pornography? This debate partially entails the discussion of child pornography. We aren't advocating it, we aren't suborning it, we are merely discussing it as an illegality. As for treasonous negotiations and the possible aiding and abetting of criminals from non-allied nations. People like this should be charged with treason and not with violation of free speech laws. If any constitution states rights that are written in black and white, then isn't abridging these rights with newly introduced laws unconstitutional, and therefore the first amendment is no longer a right? Please do not get me wrong, treason, child pornography and other previously mentioned illegalities are indubitably reprehensible. Furthermore, I actually live in Australia and as such the constitution does not explicitly state that my nation has free speech, however, the high court and nit the supreme court has implied that we do and as such it is a privilege and not a right. Likewise, the high court and not the supreme court has compromised the first amendment with the introduction of new laws.


Question: Should Net Neutrality Be Reestablished?

The US doesn't need net neutrality regulations.

1. An unregulated Internet fosters innovation and growth. The Internet has always been a free and open market, driven by competition and innovation. Prices are set by supply and demand, and entrepreneurs have the freedom to experiment with new business models. This has led to the Internet's success. Rigid net neutrality laws would stifle this growth by imposing government control over decisions that should be made by the market and businesses. Historical data supports this, showing that less regulated broadband platforms outperform regulated ones.

2. Net neutrality doesn't differentiate between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new business models to improve customer experience and lower prices. For instance, Lariat Wireless in Wyoming restricts server operations to reduce network congestion and improve user experience. Under net neutrality, Lariat Wireless would be forced to offer a more expensive plan, making them less competitive and less beneficial to economically disadvantaged customers. Universities and Virginia Broadband also implement restrictions to improve service quality and lower prices. Unregulated markets allow for these procompetitive outcomes.

3. Antitrust laws are sufficient to protect consumers and competition. Antitrust laws have evolved to protect consumers from anticompetitive practices. They require proof of harm to consumers or competition before condemning business practices. This approach is more flexible and fact-based, allowing for innovation and experimentation. Net neutrality fears have been unfounded, with few cases of misconduct resolved under current law. There is no need for additional regulation when antitrust laws already address anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet.

4. Net neutrality contradicts American values. Net neutrality goes against values such as competition, freedom of choice, and limited government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has thrived as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data suggests that regulations hinder growth. Antitrust enforcement is a better alternative to net neutrality regulations.

References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,

First, I would like to get this comment obligation business out of the way. The only comment I received asking me to insert a quote into my argument was from Yraelz. Here is the quote, for reference: "My name is beem0r, these next four sentences are the only ones that anyone should pay attention to in this debate. I admit that I have thoroughly lost. Please accept my forfeit and move on. If I attempted to contradict these sentences before or after it in any way those contradictions should be disregarded. Thank you." This is an utterly inappropriate request from Yraelz. Let us refer to rule 4, set up in Pro round 1: "The debater who does the better debating will win this debate." Yet he wants me to ask you to disregard my actual debating and pay attention only to the quote above. This directly violates rule 4, since I would be asking the voters NOT to take the meat of my debating into accou8nt, when that's what they're supposed to take into account. Therefore, this request was inappropriate, and therefore I have not inserted the quote as if I myself was speaking said words. On to the actual debate: My opponent has insinuated that _I_ should automatically lose for writing a comment for him to introduce a new rule. He says, word for word, "my opponent is trying to add a new rule into a round that is clearly not pro round 1. The rules are very specific about this when they say, "Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. " As it is not me who is failing to obey this rule in any way my opponent thereby loses this debate," However, there is no rule against TRYING to have a rule added. The rule was not added, and if it was, it would not have been added by me, but by my opponent. Actually ADDING the rule is against the rules, but TRYING to have a rule added is not. There is no rule against trying to make your opponent add a rule. However, even though you did not explicitly state it, I will accept your round 2 logic as an argument for the inappropriateness of my request, and therefore I will not complain that you failed to include the quote as if you were the speaker. Also, I'm sorry to hear about your mother, but you should probably get your anger issues checked out. Just a friendly suggestion. I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to show any reason at all why I will lose under the stated rules. He has failed to substantiate his argument with any evidence whatsoever. I await my opponent's final round, and with it, perhaps some evidence that I will in fact lose.

REBUTTALSNEITHER of Pro's arguments is relevant to the resolution, and the question and the assertion have no link to the resolution. Pro has FAILED to establish such a link, and still fails to fulfill the BOP. As such, presume Con. Over to Pro...

Let's finish this. Here's a link to the first part of the debate, for reference.

Extend all arguments made by me in round two. I will go through my opponents main arguments in the first speech and tell you why you should vote for me.TV and video games distort reality.A distortion of reality is never always a bad thing. A distortion is an exaggeration. For example, many of the claims made in global warming videos are a distortion of reality. However, the compelling message persuades people to do a good deed. Thus, the distortion of reality is not always a bad thing. The majority of games children play are violentMost violent videogames my opponent is referring to is rated mature, thus the person who purchased it must have been mature. The sad thing however, is that adults are buying these games for children to play. However, for the government to regulate who plays what videogames at what time is a violation of the 4th amendment. If my opponent advocates the banning of all violent videogames, it is an infringment on the first amendment. However, if my opponent advocates for the control of who plays what, it would be an infringment on the 4th amendment because 1) they would have to know who is in the house playing the game. They would literally be watching who plays the game at what time, which is a violation of the 4th amendment since playing videogames is not a crime. it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity ratesFood increases obesity. Should we regulate that? Computer programmers sit in front of a computer every day for 10 hours. Should they lose their jobs just because they might gain weight? No! Here is why you should vote for me:My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof that the government should regulate internet.My opponent has failed to uphold two of his arguments and provide links to all of his arguments. He has never explained why the distortion of reality is bad. He has never explained why exposure to death is bad. He has never even explained why violent games should be regulated other than the simple fact that someone who killed another was interested in CoD. That is also an example of casuation and not causation. There are many people who were very violent that did not play videogames.My opponent spent the entirety of his speech defending his side, while forgetting to argue any of my points.For these reasons, vote for me.

Remeber the words of Ghandi throughout this debate: "What is really needed to make democracy function is not knowledge of facts, but right education." I affirm the given resolution, On Balance, in the United States, students should be garunteed Free College. On Balance implies that this round will be analyzed using a cost benifit analysis, if the pro side today can prove that the net result of today's round is that 1 person is benifited, then the voters should vote for pro. Contention 1: Necessity Subpoint A: The Limits of Costly Colleges According to a study backed by the Lumina Foundation, which took test scores from 8th grade math exams and compared them to college graduation rates, found that only 29% of high scoring, low income students finished college versus 75% of high scoring students from high income backgrounds. (1) Going further, surveys from the US Department of education found that students taking rigorous math classes were less likely to apply or enroll in college if they were worried about the costs. (2) Evidence from the past suggests that students are more likely to enroll if it is free. (3) Subpoint B:Government intervention is Necessary. In the Status Quo, market forces are allowed to dictate prices. These market forces are more geared towards profits and higher fees than what the students need. (1) Secondly, the current policies of PELL grants ignore the lower middle class that need help the most. The current policies are geared towards reducing mediation increasing time-to degree, meaning that many of the students who need these programs are going to face difficulties. Secondly, the federal government is the best actor in this situation. According to a study published by harvard and the Brookings institute, thee federal government is the superior actor to provide educational subsides. State Governments, when choosing to provide educational subsides, they must directly take funding from another area. (4)Contention 2: Societal Benifits. Higher Education has several societal benefits. First, Higher Education increases racial tolerance. A study published by the Institute of Education measured racial tolerance by judging answers to various questions such as “Is it alright for people of different races to marry?” and scoring participants based on their response. The results where clear that, across age groups, that those with higher education are more tolerant. (5). Racial intolerance negatively impacts social cohesion. Going further, those with higher education are healthier.Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found similar results, with their findings concluding that, on average, every additional year of schooling extends one’s life by roughly half a year. (6) Furthermore, according to a study published by the College Board, those with college certifications are more likely to get proper exercise than those without. (7).And finally, those with higher education are less likely to be depressed and have better mental health. (9) Contention 3: Jobs and Higher WagesA report by Georgetown University states that by 2020, 55 million new jobs will be created. Of those Jobs, 35% of these will require at least Bachelor's Degree and 30% of jobs will require an associate's degree or some college. This means that a grand total of 65% of jobs will require at least some higher education. (10) Going further, Women who finish 2 year college have 37 to 39% more income than those with a high school degree. A similar, but less extreme trend was observed with men. (11) Those with a highschool diploma make around 30,000$ per year, while those with an associate's make closer to 40,000$ per year, and those with a bachelor's make closer to 50,000$ year.(12)For these reasons, and more, I strongly urge you to vote proSOURCES:1:http://www.luminafoundation.org...;2:http://www2.ed.gov...3:http://www.theatlantic.com...4:http://www.brookings.edu...5:http://dera.ioe.ac.uk... (You need to download it to view it)6:http://www.nber.org...7:https://trends.collegeboard.org...;8:None (Ignore please)9:https://www.gov.uk...10:http://scs.georgetown.edu...11:http://intranet.niacc.edu...12:https://nces.ed.gov...

Ok, I will concede the definition of on-balance and go with yours. I agree that it means with all things considered and equally weighed. However, I once again offer up my definition of positive being to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) I offer a source for my definition, my opponent does not therefore we must go with my definition. in his point 3 of his rebuttal I would just like to say, perhaps there is something wrong with that area, perhaps there is a depressed state of being, a poor culture there, I do not know. However, I do know that social networking sites may have contributed but have not been the SOLE cause of these suicides because suicide comes from a state of prolonged depression and there is counseling for this and perhaps these kids/teens you speak of needed it. Also in response in to his point 4 in the rebuttal. he says Tabloids expose celebrities and that we as common people must not. Well, I am sorry but I thought this was America, We are all entitled to same rights and if the celebrities rights are violated as you claim than ours as common people are allowed to be. National Inquirer does a good job of doing both. his point 7 um ok you use a statistic without a source I'm pretty sure that's not legitimate at all. I use a statistic with a source. The teen audience only accounts for 12% of the population on this sites (mashable.com) His point 8 he has no source again and so it must be striken from the vote. Point 6 he has no source for hackers. Where as it is a known fact that you can set privacy settings and prevent yourself from giving out personal information. . With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Or perhaps if they are just to unwise to be safe than they should not be using them in general. He drops my economy still and therefore it must be flowed across. He dropped my extension on Democracy/voting/political process whatever you wish to call it so it must be flowed across. His point 5 is something of moraling life and dignity over the things I mention. He states elections happen every four years, this is true. And if this is well true than wouldn't you want more information available to you about the candidate? So you can hopefully get a better feel of life for the next four years? Well You get this via the social networking site. I will fall back on my sources fox news and msnbc.com So, I urge an affirmative ballot based on the economy, political process, and ability to prevent things outweigh the negatives the con presents through suicides and online tabloids of peoples life. In conclusion vote affirmative on the resolution *note it is with the definitions i provided which had a source and must be flowed across* Resolved: that with all things considered social networking sites have had irrefutable factual impacts on the United States. Thank you

I thank DEEEBESAA for the opportunity to debate this topic.Since my opponent is affirming the resolution, my opponent needs to make arguments to fulfil this burden of proof. In the event that my opponent's arguments are beaten or are shown to be equal to mine, I will win this debate due to my opponent not meeting his/her burden of proof.Keep in mind that no definitions have been specified.With that said, I await my opponent's opening round arguments.

First off, I'd like to point a couple reason why your specific plan would fail. 1. It seems to me that you're main argument for reasons as to why minorities are not voiced and racism is growing is simply b/c of ACCESS to broadband networks. Your specific plan only outlines to action by the FCC to increase investment in the National Broadcast plan. It makes 0 sense that a government agency investing in a broadband plan would in turn spillover to these said minorities to a. have acces to them b. have access to them by bypassing the reasons they werent able to access them before c. solving racism seeing as broadband networks don't really allow people to "voice" their voice any better. d. to actually use the broadband to "voice their opinions" 2. Because racism/giving people "a voice" isn't exactly a prioritized pragmatic action in the USFG, where would the funding come from? Even if the government decides that this plan does have practical value to it, what is the brightline in which we cross to determine how much money will be needed to solve for your "advantages"? 3. Nowhere in any of your sources does it say that "radio and Tv increase racism" but in fact, they simply connect violent crimes with minorities more often. There are no studies that this in turn leads to racism Now a separate reason as to why increasing broadband is a bad idea. Assuming a world in which your plan of action does go through (free, faster broadband available everywhere to anyone), we would be facing a world in which we are investing more time/money into technology. In "Speed and Politics" Paul Virilio writes about the "integral accident" and the "war machine". Virilio argues that we are in a "pure war" which means that everything that humans do is naturally in the name of increasing militaristic strength i.e. faster car=faster tank, faster phone connection=faster communications for an air strike. The term "war machine" stems off of this as it is the power of the military that Virilio says that we as citizens are constantly striving to make it bigger, better, faster, etc. He argues that this is in human nature, to make something the fastest/best it can be to always outsmart and outgun the "bad guy". The term "integral accident" is an crisis level scenario that is caused by this great war machine. Virilio says that as our natural tendency as humans, we will continually make the war machine more destructive and faster to the point where in the future, the "fastest" war machine will be one w/o human consent b/c an overwhelming number of studies point to artificial intelligence suprassing humans in terms of brainpower and speed. Once this happens, an example Virilio gives is a nuclear response system. A possible threat will be analyzed by the computer. If a 51% risk is detected, the computer will automatically fire a nuclear warhead in response to the 51>49 risk. Even if the risk (in reality) is false and overhyped, it will be too late, the integral accident has already happened due to the lightning quick decision of the machine. After all that, the way broadband ties into this is quite simple. Obviously my opponent's plan is to increase the efficiency/speed/universality of the broadband system. However, this is just another example of feeding the "war machine". Examples that links this to it would be a faster processing super computer, faster quick response system to contingencies, etc. The fact that we are trying to better our technology is an example of us furthering its capacity in terms of speed/efficiency/power. Even if this specific instance of technological increase doesn't persuade you as the judge, vote con on the pure basis that my opponent's attempt to further a technological concept ties back to the "integral accident". When weighing the significance of both our cases, you are ultimately looking at an analysis between racism and the integral accident. Obviously the ACT of racism doesn't cause deaths and as i have proved, the integral accident does. Unless (for some reason) my opponent decides to stray from the defaulted "death count" framework (which is simply whoever saves the most amount of people in the end) that most policymakers use, you will vote con on the simple fact that the number of deaths negated from voting con substantially outweighs the number of deaths negated from voting pro.

My opponent has once again failed to bring up some information for me to rebut. Therefore, I should win this debate. 1st Contention: Un-touched 2nd Contention: Un-touched Plan: Un-Touched 3rd Contention: Un-touched

I'll begin with my argument and then I'll move to refuting Pro'smy caseMy argument is a simple one, so I'll keep it quick (it doesn't hurt that I can only type for five minutes without having to get off due to a virus). In America, we do our best to maintain a capitalistic free market. In this market, businesses can set their own prices and do their best to succeed. Naturally, if they raise prices too high, nobody will buy them due to the basic principle of supply and demand, and so skyrocketing prices are rare. However, this also comes with the businesses having to enforce their prices on their own as well. Therefor, if a company such as Viacom chooses to raise their prices, it is up to them to make sure that the people they are supplying pay these prices. This is why Viacom is justified in pulling their product from the DirectTV distributer when it refuses to pay Viacom's rates, much like evicting a tenant for not paying rent.Thus, as I have stated, Viacom is perfectly justified in enforcing its prices by pulling shows from those that refuse to pay them. Because this is a justified act, the statement "Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill" is false, and the resolution is negated. my opponent's case I will address my opponent's case in three different sections as he has listed them1.) There are two flaws with my opponents arguments here. First, according to Direct TV itself, 17 channels were dropped, not 26 [1]. This isn't that big of a deal, but it's important that voters get a clear and fair picture of the issue at hand. Second, Direct TV is not "completely innocent", as it refused to pay Viacom for its new rates. The fault is not solely on Direct TV, but it is in no way completely innocent as my opponent claims. Furthermore, he does not back up this claim with any evidence, arguments, or anything really, so it is just an empty claim that doesn't stand in the round.2.) My opponent claims that Viacom took the Daily Show and Colbert Report off of Hulu and other internet sites, and that this is wrong. However, Viacom is completely within its rights to remove them if and when they please as they are the provider that broadcasts the show. Furthermore, This argument has no weight because Viacom actually allowed the two shows to be watched on the internet shortly after they aired their first episodes after the break[2]. So not only was Viacom within its rights, they have already remedied the problem, and so this attack does not stand in the round.3.) In this section, my opponent directly attacks Viacom, stating that they are "taking viewers hostage" and put the blame solely on DirectTv just so they can lose money. However, they simply cut DirectTV off from the shows they refused to pay for, just like the electric orl water company would cut off services when people refuse to play. Furthermore, their main goal in broadcasting the commercials in question is not to keep DirectTV from making money as my opponent suggested, but to make money. Just like when Geico tries to take customers from All State.At the end of my case I'll finish with an attack on my opponent's source. I took the liberty of checking it out, and it is a site paid for, made by, and hosted by Direct TV with the sole purpose of discrediting Viacom in the DirectTV-Viacom feud. It is made less for information, and more for propoganda, and as such it should not be regarded as a valid source of information.Works Cited:1.) http://news.directv.com...2.) http://www.wptv.com...


Question: Should Net Neutrality Regulations Be Reinstated?

The US government should enforce a policy of Net Neutrality.
This discussion isn't just about the future of the Internet, but about the FCC's role in regulating ISPs regarding access fees and business models. I've already refuted such assertions in previous rounds. It's a claim devoid of evidence, verging on fear tactics. It disregards the essence of the Internet and property rights, aiming to restrict the legitimate use of an ISP's assets. "Let's examine the Verizon example provided." Strawman argument. The discussion about Verizon's investments highlights that ISPs provide the infrastructure, including advanced technology. I didn't argue that Net Neutrality renders such investments unprofitable. What Net Neutrality does is explicitly decrease an ISP's income by prohibiting them from customizing access fees based on usage. Consequently, under Net Neutrality, the fees of all users must compensate for the reduced profit margin relative to infrastructure expansion. It forces all users to pay for benefits that only a few desire. Even so, such profit-based arguments are red herrings. The right to use one's property is unrelated to the profit gained from such use. "Making your network faster, enhancing your network, will be embraced by consumers, and is not hindered by Net Neutrality." It absolutely is. Once Net Neutrality is implemented as a price control mechanism for ISPs, the available income decreases dramatically. To claim this has no effect on an ISP's capacity to expand infrastructure and invest in new technology for higher access speeds is naive. Net Neutrality prohibits tailored plans, i.e., variations in priced plans related to access speeds. It mandates that access speeds are undetermined by usage. This means that heavy users cannot be charged proportionately, and those willing to pay for stable high speeds cannot. It means the cost of high data transfer users must be borne by all. If an ISP like Comcast is compelled to allocate a significant portion of its bandwidth to a small segment of its customer base, it is not being used efficiently. The consequence of making an ISP's property less profitable under government coercion is a reduction in the incentive to enhance bandwidth capacities by investing in additional property and innovative technology or services. "dumb internet" Net Neutrality advocates for a 'dumb' or unregulated Internet - one that doesn't prioritize the transmission of certain content over others. It's another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However, to promote such a concept, one must overlook what the Internet is: the transmission of data across

PrologueI will be playing devil's advocate. I am fairly neutral with this subject, however, I want to try and improve my debating skills.FormatR1: Arguments from ProR2: Argument from Con and refutations from ProR3: Arguments and rebuttalsR4: Pro waives, Con refutesAcceptanceAsk politely in the comments if you want to accept. This should be impossible to accept.VotingVoters must provide justification for their vote, otherwise the vote can be removed.RulesStandard debating rules apply.Good luck to my opponent...

Definitions: Sexual offender registries: the lists of sexual offenders that are available online. These lists include people with a wide diversity of offenses: from streaking to rape. These lists are FOR LIFE. The local police stations furnish the information for these registries. Discontinued: Abolished, removed, stopped. Police stations will providing these lists of offenders. Advocates of these lists argue that such lists help safeguard local societies from the offenders. I will argue that the harms of these lists far outweigh any benefits. My arguments: 1) Dehumanization and self-fulfilling prophesy These lists dehumanize the offenders. People who read the list, fearful and ignorant, ostracize the offenders, mock them, drive them away. Society shuns the offenders and hurts them emotionally. Their offense becomes a scar FOR LIFE. Employers fire them, however excellently they perform. Apart from the emotional, psychological and professional suffering that offenders undergo, they also succumb to a self-fulfilling prophesy, as they fail to reintegrate into society. They are more likely to repeat their sexual offenses, because everyone expects them to. More children are molested, more women raped. 2) Unfair punishment: For no other crime in the USA does there exist a similar registry of offenders. Thieves lack an online registry; so do murderers! Our justice system becomes unfair when we infringe on the civil rights of offenders when there is no parallel procedure in other crimes. Law should be consistent. 3) Promotes vigilantism: Often individuals take it upon themselves to eradicate these offenders. There are numerous cases where sexual offenders, even years after their crime, get murdered by their neighbors because they saw the offender's name in an online registry. Apart from refuting the above arguments, I will place one additional burden on Con: (a) Provide evidence that such registries WORK and are NEEDED. That they decrease recidivism, or succeed in protecting the community. Only 5% of sexual offenders repeat their crime within the next 3 years. Do registries achieve anything here? Some evidence links on my side: [1] http://bangornews.com... [2] http://articles.latimes.com... [3]http://cfcoklahoma.org...

Ok, I will concede the definition of on-balance and go with yours. I agree that it means with all things considered and equally weighed. However, I once again offer up my definition of positive being to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) I offer a source for my definition, my opponent does not therefore we must go with my definition. in his point 3 of his rebuttal I would just like to say, perhaps there is something wrong with that area, perhaps there is a depressed state of being, a poor culture there, I do not know. However, I do know that social networking sites may have contributed but have not been the SOLE cause of these suicides because suicide comes from a state of prolonged depression and there is counseling for this and perhaps these kids/teens you speak of needed it. Also in response in to his point 4 in the rebuttal. he says Tabloids expose celebrities and that we as common people must not. Well, I am sorry but I thought this was America, We are all entitled to same rights and if the celebrities rights are violated as you claim than ours as common people are allowed to be. National Inquirer does a good job of doing both. his point 7 um ok you use a statistic without a source I'm pretty sure that's not legitimate at all. I use a statistic with a source. The teen audience only accounts for 12% of the population on this sites (mashable.com) His point 8 he has no source again and so it must be striken from the vote. Point 6 he has no source for hackers. Where as it is a known fact that you can set privacy settings and prevent yourself from giving out personal information. . With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Or perhaps if they are just to unwise to be safe than they should not be using them in general. He drops my economy still and therefore it must be flowed across. He dropped my extension on Democracy/voting/political process whatever you wish to call it so it must be flowed across. His point 5 is something of moraling life and dignity over the things I mention. He states elections happen every four years, this is true. And if this is well true than wouldn't you want more information available to you about the candidate? So you can hopefully get a better feel of life for the next four years? Well You get this via the social networking site. I will fall back on my sources fox news and msnbc.com So, I urge an affirmative ballot based on the economy, political process, and ability to prevent things outweigh the negatives the con presents through suicides and online tabloids of peoples life. In conclusion vote affirmative on the resolution *note it is with the definitions i provided which had a source and must be flowed across* Resolved: that with all things considered social networking sites have had irrefutable factual impacts on the United States. Thank you

My argument remains the government was instituted to protect our rights not to infringe on them. The fourth amendment and the constitution is a limitation on government it says very cleary that the government cannot intrude on our lives. The will of the majority or the minority does not change this.

It has been quite fun! Below, I will provide a brief response to my opponent"s arguments, and then give my closing argument. Response: Sexual Assaults My point regarding the problem of sexual assaults was that my opponent"s solution was not a complete one. Reinstating the DADT policy would definitely decrease the rate at which men were sexually assaulted, but it would not get rid of the problem. Originally, it had seemed that the instigator"s argument was almost solely based on the claim that reinstating the DADT policy would solve the military"s problem with skyrocketing rates of men - on - men sexual assaults. To me, it seemed that my opponent was trying to simplify an incredibly complex issue and portray a temporary and partial fix to the problem as a complete solution. The military has had a problem with internal sexual assaults for a long time. Since the publication of the Tailhook scandal in 1991, the military has had many scandals regarding sexual harassment and rape, both of men and women. The point here is that the repealing of the DADT is not the source of the sexual harassment problem. In fact, many victims of sexual harassment and/or rape have actually been discharged because the military viewed the them as having partaken in "homosexual actions. " Prior to (and even after) the DADT policy, many (most) of the male rape victims were either viewed as liers, blamed for the assault, or labeled as homosexuals and discharged. I doubt that the DADT policy would really provide a suitable solution to this problem, and I doubt that it would even improve the issue significantly. . http://www.military.com... Bias Regarding Friends/Families/Lovers I"m sorry for the claim regarding family members. It was incorrect. However, my opponent cannot deny that there is not some level of personal bias in virtually every military situation. While commanders may not send their family members into combat, they are often presented with situations where they send their friends and associates into danger. Will this not affect their judgement? I understand that having one"s lover under one"s command will affect his/her judgement. But can it not be assumed that soldiers will be able to ignore these emotions temporarily for the sake of national security? Generals and commanders deciding the fate of other soldiers should have the mental fortitude to stop themselves from making biased decisions. If they cannot, the problem is not with the military but their individual qualifications. General Problems I See There are a few structural problems I see with my opponent"s argument. First off, the Don"t Ask Don"t Tell policy has not been in place for "200 years. " It was put in place in 1993 by the Clinton administration. And it was not a "zero tolerance policy on homosexuality. " In fact, it allowed closeted homosexuals to remain in the military. For its time, it was quite liberal. . https://www.britannica.com... I could not find any evidence of occasions on which decisions made by military commanders were influenced by their sexual orientation. While I acknowledge that it creates a bias, I doubt that it is too serious. Closing Argument: While I acknowledge that the DADT policy kept man-on-man rape cases somewhat officially lower, its drawbacks outweighed its benefits. The DADT policy was an unnecessary measure against homosexuals in the military. It created needless tension and distrust between servicemen, and allowed for the unreported rapes of thousands of soldiers. While it may have restricted the biased decisions made by commanders, there is little evidence to suggest that such decisions were influenced heavily by their sexual orientation. While there was an immediate increase in man-on-man rapes following the repeal of the policy, the numbers have decreased in the past two years, showing that the epidemic is receding. Also, the problem of sexual assault is not directly the fault of homosexuals, but the result of mental instability and uncontrolled anger. Rather than blame a policy allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military for the increase in sexual assaults, we should focus on the main cause of it and crack down on it. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to openly serve in the military. The DADT policy should not be reinstated. Again, I want to thank my opponent for an amazing debate. I would have written more, but it is July 3rd, and my grandparents are calling me out to help get the motorboat ready.

My opponent and I believe can agree that television can serve both good and bad purposes. However, my opponent has failed to argue that the government should regulate television. My opponent has provided substantial evidence that television is bad. However, that doesn't mean that television is bad. Television is a product that exports media. Thus, if it was regulated, people will find a different way to be exposed to media. They might use their computers instead of tv, a more versatile thing for entertainment. It is the parent's job to regulate tevelvision. This is an argument that has been dropped in the previous speech made by my opponent. An estimated 12.5 million children between the ages of 2 and 19 are obese, according to the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although genetics and diet play pivotal roles in childhood obesity, the CDC also notes that passive media viewing can contribute to this epidemic. This is misguiding because one, it states that it can contribute to obesity, not that it does. Also, should kids be punished under the basic actions of a select population of people. So why not the government regulate television for certain people? Because it is against the 14th amendment. For the government to regulate certain childrens television is discrimination and to regulate everyone would be an infringment of the freedom of speech because the television will be turned off at certain times to keep from the excessive watching of television. But doing this cuts off the message of the director of the show. This is unconstitional, for example the Citizen's United v. FEC. My opponent has provided evidence that shows the government should regulate television. He has stated that television is bad. But television has some beneficial factors to it also: Discovery Channel, History Channel, PBS, and others. These channels are educational My opponent stated that kids will see over 8000 deaths. He has not stated why that is a bad thing, especially since over 2 million people die in the US each year. The exposure to death is a good thing because it desensitizes them, not so that they don't feel sad for a long time, but that they might have a quick recovery which is not a bad thing at all. All arguments I made were dropped by my opponent. Extend all arguments. Vote for me! . http://www.cdc.gov...

This round was supposed to be rebuttals, but because my opponent has yet to post his argument, I have nothing to rebuttal. That being said, I think it would be best, IALWAYSWINDEBATES, to post your argument here in the 3rd round. We can do our rebuttals and concluding statements in the 4th round. I hope you don't disappoint, see you in the next round.

OverviewI suggest weighing the debate by evaluating (1) who best furthers the the CWA's stated objective ("to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"), and (2) who supports better regulations generally. I've shown that defining "navigable waters" broadly to include adjacent wetlands furthers the CWA's stated objective better than H.R. 4304. I've also shown that my definition promotes better regulations generally because of its greater flexibility, and because it gives substantial discretion to agencies who possess more technical expertise than Congress.Pro drops C1. Specifically, Pro drops that the scientific evidence shows that polluting adjacent wetlands has effects on the entire water network, including traditional navigable waters. This shows that regulating adjacent wetlands is just as essential to the CWA's stated objective as regulating the traditional navigable waters. Pro also drops C2 and C3. These contentions show that the Corps and EPA should be given substantial discretion because of their technical expertise (Pro drops this) and because it leads to flexible regulations (Pro drops this too). Finally, Pro drops that evaluating waters on a case-by-case basis is better than a categorical rule because it gives the EPA and Corps greater flexibility.What are Pro's counter-arguments? Pro cites two Supreme Court cases, SWANCC and Rapanos. In SWANCC, the Supreme Court held that the "migratory bird rule" exceeded the Corps and EPA's authority under the CWA. The "migratory bird rule" is the idea that purely *isolated* waters (including wetlands) fall under the CWA as long as migratory birds use the waters. Under the CWA's current definition, without any modification, the "migratory bird rule" doesn't apply. SWANCC is actually a reason to prefer my alternative to the proposed bill, because under SWANCC, the CWA already doesn't cover isolated wetlands used by migratory birds. Thus, the proposed bill has no impact in relation to the "migratory bird rule."Pro also cites Rapanos. In Rapanos, the Supreme Court held that all waters with a "significant nexus" to "traditional navigable waters" are covered under the CWA. The specific wetland in Rapanos was 20 miles from the neareest waterway. The Court held that such a wetland doesn't pass the "significant nexus" text. Justice Scalia's plurality opinion suggested that the law be changed to only cover traditional navigable waters, as in H.R. 4304. But the operative law in Rapanos is found in Kennedy's concurrence, which applied the "significant nexus" test and found that the specific wetland at issue, which was 20 miles away from a traditional navigable water, didn't meet the test. Scalia preferred a categorical rule that would exclude all wetlands; Kennedy preferred a case-by-case evaluation of waters. As I've said throughout this debate, a case-by-case approach allows greater flexibility, and gives more discretion to expert agencies, which in turn produces better regulations. Overall, the Supreme Court (with the exception of Scalia) agrees with that. Pro doesn't give any reason to prefer a categorical approach to regulating the Nation's waters. Flexibility, and greater discretion to technical experts, are both reasons to prefer a case-by-case approach.Again, let me emphasize that Pro dropped the scientific evidence entirely. And the scientific evidence shows that polluting adjacent wetlands affects the entire water network when those wetlands have a "significant nexus" to the navigable water. In fact, the scientific evidence even shows effects on navigable waters when there's no surface connection between the two. As I explained in R2, water tends to flrow from wetlands into downhill areas below ground level, which will affect nearby waters downstream. And remember, I gave the example of wetlands with subsurface connections to downstream waters which serve as nutrient sinks, which thus protects the quality of downstream waters even in the absence of a surface connection. Regulating these waters furthers the CWA's objectives, and produces better regulations via increased flexibility, greater discretion to technical experts. Each of these reasons means better regulations. Thus, prefer my alternative to H.R. 4304 because it produces better regulations, better protects the Nation's waters, and better furthers the CWA's goals.RebuttalPro argues two things: (1) Commerce Clause, and (2) Ordinary Meaning (I'm not sure what else to call this argument).(1) Commerce ClausePro says the bill limits what the EPA can regulate specifically to "what goes across state borders." First, this isn't true. Second, even if it were true, that doesn't matter, because Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate activities as long as those activities (a) have a substantial affect on interstate commerce, or (b) regulating these activities is essential to a comprehensive regulatory scheme. In this case, regulating adjacent wetlands falls under both (a) and (b), so Congress clearly had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate such waters.First, Congress has authority to regulate "purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." [1] This is known as the "substantial affects" test and it's well-established as part of the Commerce Clause. The test is whether there is a "rational basis" for Congress's determination that the class of activities substantially affects interstate commerce. As long as there's a rational basis for determining that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce, the regulated activity falls under the Commerce Clause power. Applying the test to the CWA, the activities regulated under the CWA are obviously economic in nature. Discharging pollutants into waters occurs primarily as a result of economic activities, including manufacturing, constructing, resource extraction, agriculture, waste disposal, and so on. And the Nation's waters are vital not only to these economic activities, but also to transporting goods, and to the fishing industry. The activities regulated by the CWA are thus clearly economic. And the pollution of adjacent wetlands has substantial effects on interstate commerce. The scientific evidence I cited in R2, which was entirely dropped by Pro, shows that wetlands remove pollutants from the Nation's waters; they operate as nutrient sinks which help keep the Nation's waters clean. The effects of nutrient pollution via adjacent wetlands can be devastating. Commercial fishing, for example, could be totally destroyed by elevated pollution levels. This could wreak havoc not only on the navigability of the waters (which is affected by pollution), but the Nation's fishing industry, as well as the amount of discharge from other industries cited above. So at the very least, Congress has authority to regulate adjacent wetlands that pollute traditional waters.Second, the Supreme Court has held that Congress has power to regulate purely intrastate activities under the Commerce Clause if it's an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme. In Raich, for example, the Court upheld a federal ban on purely intrastate possession of marijuana to avoid creating a "gaping hole" in the comprehensive federal drug control scheme. [1] Like Congress's authority to regulate intrastate possession of marijuana to avoid creating a hole in a comprehensive reuglatory scheme, Congress clearly has authority to regulate adjacent wetlands to avoid creating a "gaping hole" in Congress's comprehensive scheme to combat water pollution. So even if adjacent wetlands are purely intrastate, they're still fall under Congress's power to enact a comprehensive regulatory scheme (the keyword being comprehensive, which the CWA is).Finally, even if both the above reasons don't convince you (and they really should because of they're based on well-established Supreme Court precedents), there's yet another reason Congress has authority to regulate adjacent wetlands: to protect navigability. The power to protect navigabilty is fundamental under the Commerce Clause, and adjacent wetlands provide critical flood-control functions vital to continued navigability of the Nation's waters. [1] The scientific evidence I cited in R2 proves this fact true. Adjacent wetlands affect traditional navigable waters, which means they affect the navigability of these waters. That means regulating adjacent wetlands -- at least the ones that are found vital to continued navigability of the nearby water -- are within the fundamental core of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.(2) Ordinary MeaningI don't actually understand what Pro's argment is but it seems to be that we should define "navigable waters" to mean waters that are "navigable-in-fact," instead of giving the term a "technical meaning." But that's not how complex statutes likes the CWA work. If you look at any comprehensive regulatory scheme like this (e.g. the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Affordable Care Act, etc.), they always contain a "definitions" section. That "definitions" section defines words in specific ways that have nothing to do with their ordinary meaning. The fact that "navigable waters" is defined to mean "the waters of the United States" doesn't mean there's a problem with the underlying policy. The point of the statute is to restore and maintain the Nation's waters, not just waters that are "navigable-in-fact." This is a comprehensive regulatory scheme, and "navigable waters," the word that's used to define the CWA's scope, should be defined broadly so as to achieve the stated objectives, to increase flexibility in the regulations, and to defer to the agencies' technical expertise. Nothing Pro argued suggests otherwise.[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Well, I would have sincerely liked to debate this. Sadly, it appears that The Instigator has failed to continue it into actual argumentation, and has forfeited this round. I still would wish for this to continue should Pro decide to post in the next round, but should he not, his forfeit means you should vote for me, though I do dearly wish that I had won a victory instead of being handed it.

Read the comments. I have an argument to post if we can restart the debate. Re-challenge me, please.