Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

The USFG should not restore Net Neutrality.

In this closing argument, I will address the key points and summarize the reasons why the USFG should not restore Network Neutrality. The focus will be on the freedom of speech, the comparison with China, and the impact on ISPs and innovation.

Freedom of Speech: The current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation, including the FCC as the primary actor, have been discussed. The opposition's argument that the debate should only address net neutrality as a concept is an attempt to avoid the historical context of net neutrality legislation and its impact on freedom of speech. The opposition's suggested alternative, involving the FCC in a transparent and democratic manner, still involves the FCC as the enforcer, which negates their solution. The argument that the FCC should be transparent and democratic is an unachieved goal for decades, and there is no evidence that this approach would prevent the concentration of power over ISPs into government hands.

China: The comparison with China is not fallacious, as it highlights the potential consequences of giving government control over the internet. The opposition's argument that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the internet is irrelevant, as under current legislation, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). The opposition's argument serves to undermine their own case.

ISPs: The allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast will allow for a net benefit. The opposition's argument that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content is an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential. The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality, as ISPs would have a greater level of income with which to reform the system.

Innovation: The opposition's argument that content should not be priced differently based on production cost differential is not relevant, as businesses in general price their services based on the cost of production. The opposition's argument that the government can be trusted with the internet, via the FCC, is false, as the government has a history of censorship and control.

In conclusion, the opposition's case relies heavily on technical arguments and the exclusion of current legislation, which is crucial for this debate. The government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, and the opposition has not upheld its burden of proof. The resolution, that the USFG should not restore Network Neutrality, is upheld.

Of course I don't want to, but the bill per customer only rose a few cents, and is still under 3 dollars a month, so it isn't that much at all. However this debate isn't over whether or not customers want to pay more for services. This is about whether or not Viacom should pull channels from DirectTV services, and as you dropped every argument I posted about that, it's been proven that they are perfectly justified in doing so, and so saying that they should not is false.VOTERS:Conduct: Because I put so much effort into the round 2 debate, and my opponent responded with a one-liner, I ask for the conduct vote as that's just rude and/or lazy.S/G: If you look at the spelling of the resolution, the random capitilization of my opponent in round 2, and the horrible grammar and spelling made by my opponent in round 3, it's evident that he lost the spelling and grammar vote.Arguments: My opponent dropped every argument I made in round 2, and as such I have proven that Viacom is justified in pulling channels and so the resolution is false and as such negated.Sources: My opponent only used one source in his argument, and that one was too biased (which he dropped so it's considered true for the round) to be considered an informative source. Therefor, since I'm the only one wo has posted viable sources, I respectfully ask for the sources voteVote Con :)

I am Sorry for my Absense I lost track of the day count(I know a bad excuse but a true one) First of all My opponent proposed no criterion or core value and so mine are seen to stand. First point. My opponent gives the Cannibals and the missionary example. This is irrelevant because the cannibals are not necessarily felons and second in such a situation disfranchisement wouldn't exist because there are no laws. there is also no evidence the vote would be in favor of the missionary. 2nd: the only thing that makes the citizen of a democratic government different from a despotic one is the right to vote. Furthermore this debate does not concern what is currently being done but as to what we should do. So the constitution is irrelevant. re-build my own case (refutation of Marshall quote) I am Not suggesting they are equal but merely they get representation. If we disenfranchisethem we are turning what was once a two way street into a one way street. They are also paying or have paid there debt and further punishment hinders the rehabilitative efforts of society. Also the recidivism point is merely speculation without factual evidence and therefore is irrelevant. 2nd contention The point proposed by my opponent it simply un-democratic. It is turning towards Oligarchy which is, of course, not democratic and therefore denys justice 3rd contention My opponent is merely speculating with the recidivism rates and again therefore those statistics must be thrown out. Also if we were to include those who had not been caught we must consider all non-felons who may have commited a crime and advocate disenfranching them??? this destroys democracy not preserves it. Second the thought process used in felony and the thought process used in voting are entirely different things. Also the fact politicians would play to felons. this is infact not true, not politician would run a capmaign in prisons for the reason my opponent stated, cost. Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of the prison system is, ultimately, rehabilitation or deterrence from furhter crime. Felon disenfranchisement it nither and therefore overkill to the criminal justice system. again in a democratic society there is no such thing as a bad vote or else it would be moving away from democracy While this story is unfortunate it does not prove that felons disenfranchisement is warranted. It simply says felons ought to be punished. That is what the prison system is for and disenfranchisement does not solve the given situation. Because felons are required things of society they must be given all the rights of society and, therefore must vote. If they need government aid this is often times the fault of society for labeling them and not the fault of the felons themselves. Therefore in intrests of preserving democracy the resolution should be affirmed

Alright, second time I've been put in this position! Yay... I feel my opponent is probably the kind of person who would wait till the last round to post his entire argument so that I will not be able to respond. I ask the voters to please disregard such an action should my opponent wish to do so. My reasons being: 1. I have no chance to respond, this moots the point of debate. 2. Its a slimy tactic that should have a precedent set against it on debate.org. Please extend my points, thank you.

No? You do realize your arguing in favor of the law, right?

I apologize for not posting my round on time and for asking for a post early in my opponents turn. I regret that it may cost me a point, but it is deserved. In regard to my opponent’s first contention, I am not arguing that people should own nukes, missiles, and the like. But I am arguing is that under the current law, the government MAY NOT take away those rights at all. However, in regards to his comment about the drug cartels, laws already exist banning those items, yet the cartels have those items. Did the law stop THEM? Now, on to his second contention; He says that the original justification for the second amendment is that “the country were invaded, all the men of fighting age would grab their muskets and come to the defense of their country. ” He is correct and, except for the part of the musket, that is STILL the justification for it. My opponent has defeated his own argument with his own argument. And on to his third contention; he references the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). He says that if the second amendment were in play then it would just be BAT. In this case, I agree with him. The problem is that the second amendment is not in play. The whole problem with the current situation is that we have too many bureaus, departments, and czars with power over our right to bear arms. To this fourth contention I say that if you look at the third contention and see that his argument about the right “not coming from the second amendment” is false. The fact is that the second amendment is not in play, but should be. And finally, to his fifth contention, he said that “Public slaughter of school children and theater goers seems to be getting morepopular in our culture. He hit the nail on the headwith that statement. He pointed out the way to fix the problem. The problem is not the guns; the problem is the people. You should focus on the mental health laws of the nation, not the gun laws. In conclusion, my opponent has pointed out that the second amendment is not being practiced today. He pointed out the exact problem with the current politics of this nation. Today’s debate is about whether or not The Constitution is the law of the land or not. However, it is quite clear that it is the law of the land.

The government and the mob are completely the same thing. What do you call somebody who steals? There called a robber, but the government calls it taxes. What happens to me when I kill somebody? I'm labeled as a murder and throw into prison. What happens when the government kills people? Its called "protecting our interests" and labeled as heroic. Does might make right? If the government does it in full scale and thugs do it in little scale are they the same thing? I'm sorry but big a little thugs have thuggery in common even if one has stars and strips on them. Like Ben Franklin said "A highwayman is a much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang" Yes we do live in that society. Every day we a heading to a police state. I could give you story after story of police (the government) abusing their power and being corrupt. So I think I will. http://www.lewrockwell.com... James Emerick Dean: Executed By the Police http://www.lewrockwell.com... America's Police Brutality Pandemic Now I can't find the one article from July, This one man's car caught on fire, he was on fire eventually got put out the police tasered him two times and then shot him in the head We should care what they do because as I have said the government is a group of violent thugs. Now see the thing I don't have anything to hide either but the thing is I don't what people to know what I'm doing 24/7 good or bad its my life not yours and not the governments. Its very disturbing to me that you would give up your right to privacy so easily. Well of course they'll set it up in just one or two house here or there. But what is stopping them from puting them in every house "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington The purpose of government is to protect our rights not to infringe on them. As stared in the declaration of independence, and backed up with the constitution and the bill of right as I have stated the 4th amendment states pretty clearly what the government can do with our privacy; they can't do a thing with it

Extending all arguments.My opponent has violated the rules of conduct, to which he agreed to by accepting this debate. The opening arguments are to be made in Round 2, as was stated in Round 1. It's a shame my opponent has not complied with the arrangement of this debate, as I was looking forward to my opponents case. Furthermore, this will have some negative consequences. We have less rounds to debate at our disposal. Also, my opponent has one more round for rebuttal and he has more time to respond to my arguments as well.Anyhow, my case stands firmly and I will continue await the first move of my opponent.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's back up a second.Breaking the character limit on the debate by using an outside source is extremely abusive and unfair.First, character limits exist in the debates for a reason, so that we can keep voters from reading novels for every round. Arbitrarily going over character limits would kill voting incentive on the site more than it's already dead, meaning that virtually no debate would ever receive a vote. This would kill the debating aspect of this site, which is a pretty bad thing to happen for people who are wanting to debate (like us right now).Second, he has zero excuse to want to go over the character limit because **HE'S THE ONE WHO MADE THE LIMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE**. When creating the debate you have the option to set what the character limit is. He set it to 8000 characters rather than 9000 or 10000. Of course none of those are anywhere close to the over 17k+ characters he wants to use in his last round, which makes it incredibly unfair to me. I have half the amount of characters he used to respond to all of the characters he used, which is really unfair. So it's pretty simple. I agreed to a debate with an 8k character limit, not a limitless debate. He's blatantly going over it. Hold him to the character limit. He reached the 8k mark in his last round at this point:"BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! GOING TO THE 3D PRINTE"Anything after that should not be evaluated, unless he wants to bring these new arguments up in the final round (which will also be unfair because I can't make new arguments or offensive rebuttals in the final round because he can't respond to them. If I can't make new arguments or rebuttals, he shouldn't be able to either for fairness). BACK ONTO THE ACTUAL DEBATE. LETS START FROM THE TOP.Extend my first response to the nationalization plan that the entire idea he's presenting is the definition of utopian. All he does is list out a bunch of things that will happen and will work and will solve all the issues he's presenting to us to be solved without actually explaining how it actually does what he says it will do or if it's even possible in the first place. His response is that it isn't utopian, but "practical". That's not responsive to the argument I'm making because that still doesn't provide any of the warrants that he needs to actually provide the solvency behind his plan. Without it, we have no reason to want to buy into the plan.Extend my second response that says that there's zero way for the gov't to constitutionally nationalize the entire housing market. His response is to do it via making a national union to lobby and strike against the gov't to do things. That's not nationalization. Nationalization is literally defined as moving from private to government controlled[5]. Unions aren't government controlled, especially unions for private sector companies (like housing companies). If that's his plan, then he's not actually nationalizing anything, therefore isn't actually defending his original advocacy. Don't let him be a moving target because that's extremely unfair for me to have to constantly deal with him shifting his advocacy.But even if this would be considered nationalization, his plan falls apart on mutliple levels. A) He provides no actual warrant to show that a majority of renters would want to join this union, so we have no reason to believe that this portion of his plan will ever happen, B) There's no warrant provided to prove that this union would strike against the government in the first place, and C) Even if it did, the only change it would result in is they all lose their homes because they didn't pay rent on where they live. Extend my third response saying that we have no idea where any of this "credit" he says is being given out is coming from, which makes the plan super vague. He's says that the credit is equity, which is "just a piece of paper". This puts him in a double bind, either a) it is just a piece of paper and thus valueless and it wouldn't actually be able to change anything, or b) it does have value to it, thus we need to figure out who is financing that value we're giving to people. He doesn't provide any source, don't buy into the plan until he provides you with actual solvency.Extend my fourth response saying that this would tank the economy and hurt the taxpayers and point to the example of how we natinoalized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He says that this is a strawman because that's not what his plan is talking about. This puts him in an even worse double bind, either a) it's what he's talking about and he provides no responses to the economic harms to the government and taxpayers, or b) it isn't what he's talking about, which means he's not actually nationalizing anything because **THAT WAS THE RESULT OF NATIONALIZING HOUSING COMPANIES**. There's zero reason to ever think the plan could work. Also, even though none of his house build math actually applies to anything because it's a) still not nationalizing, and b) not his 3d printing plan (which he even admits), let's look at some of the abusrdities that he makes. "Want electricity, run an electrical cord." then promptly be arrested for stealing power from elecrtical companies without paying for it. "Want water, run a hose" then promptly be arrested for stealing water from water companies without paying your utility bill. 5/7 planning. Perfect. Much efficiency. So his plan has collapsed on five levels just from this point alone without looking to 3d printing. That's five reasons to negate. And, he never responds to any of the arguments I make against 3d printing within his character limit. Extend those all as dropped. But even if you ignore him going over the character limit, let's look at some of the responses.Extend my first response that we literally don't have the tech to do what he's suggesting, and won't for another century. His response is we can and sites his Home Depot example. A) This literally doesn't respond to the experts on 3D printing of homes who are saying to actually mass-produce cities we need another century to have the right tech to do it, meaning we can't do his plan, and B) even if his Home Depot example is relevant to this (it isn't at all), let's look at the math for it. That math solves for 1 house. Cool. 100 houses?Maybe. 1000 houses? Ehhh... 10000 houses? Little ridiculous...564k+ houses[6] to provide homes for all of the homeless people in America? Literal definition of absurdity.Extend my second response that the whole reason they're cheaper and more efficient is because they kill the amount of jobs in making houses from 26-32 on average[7] to **1** person. If he's wanting to make more jobs, he's literally doing the opposite of it. His response is that I suggest we should do a rain dance and push brooms? U wut m8? Talk about a strawman...control+f my last round and you won't find those words anywhere.So not only do we not have the tech to do what he wants to do, but doing so would kill the housing market and lay off virtually everyone working in it.CONCLUDING:Debate is pretty simple. Hold him to the 8k character limit. His plan is entirely unrealistic and, even if it were possible, would hurt us more than help us. No reason to want to do the plan, so you negate.[5] - https://www.google.com...[6] - http://www.socialsolutions.com...[7] - http://www.plummersdisposal.com...

You are just restating something you already said, and, was rebutted. I am still awaiting your rebuttals.

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...


Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

The US Government should not restore Net Neutrality.

Thank you, Pro, for your swift and insightful rebuttals. Let's delve into the concept of Freedom of Speech. Pro contends that the FCC would infringe upon this right through the enforcement of Net Neutrality. However, the debate's resolution is centered around whether "the USFG should restore Net Neutrality," without specifying the particular form of legislation. Thus, the argument is directed at Net Neutrality as a general principle rather than a specific policy. Pro's argument is too narrow, focusing solely on the FCC's role rather than the concept of Net Neutrality itself.

For instance, consider legislation that requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a transparent and democratic manner. In such a scenario, the FCC would have little incentive to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, rendering Pro's argument irrelevant. Pro argues that the FCC has previously regulated content on TV and radio, which could lead to the infringement of freedom of speech on the internet. However, this argument overlooks the fact that the FCC was allowed to define "content neutral" in the past. Since the debate is centered on Net Neutrality as a principle, any legislation that prevents the FCC from defining "content neutral" would invalidate Pro's argument.

Moreover, Pro fails to acknowledge the structural differences between TV/Radio and the internet. The internet decouples the strong link between transmission and content, making it impossible to directly compare the two. For example, when watching NBC, viewers are only exposed to NBC's programming. In contrast, internet users can access content from any source, even if it is created by a competing ISP.

Pro's slippery slope argument, suggesting that Net Neutrality could lead to censorship similar to that in China, is also flawed. Firstly, the argument is logically fallacious due to the slippery slope fallacy. Secondly, the socio-political differences between America and China make it unlikely that Net Neutrality would result in censorship. Pro's argument that government officials seek to maintain power is irrelevant, as the differences between the two countries make it unlikely that freedom of speech would be infringed upon.

Regarding competition, Pro misses the point by arguing that sites should be blocked solely because they traffic pirated content, regardless of legal activities. However, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, not just sites with pirated content. Many sites use BitTorrent for legal purposes and have no pirated content. For example, the Internet Archive and gaming websites that use BitTorrent technology for updates and downloads

I'm new to this, so what are the rules of the public forum? Also, we must debate quickly, or I may not have access tothe website within 24 hours.

I clearly stated to Con in the comments how I set up the debate. I don’t have to be a novice to make a debate in this style. I personally would consider myself still a noob to the site since I have only been on the site for 3 weeks, and a lot of my wins are from the other member forfeiting the debate. “As to your claim that full burden of proof that is not correct. Currently there is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins. This is a recognized debate style by this site. Also it does have an argument currently supporting it. All though I do admit it is just an opinion based argument with no source other than myself. This is still an argument. If Con wishes to lose there one round advantage making such a semantic argument that is on them.” Since Con knew before the debate started that there was no burden of proof and it would be who ever made the best argument this stands for the debate accepting this debate without any notification of the non-acceptance of this term Con as agreed to it. The Debate: The US is founded upon liberty and freedom. Not allowing Homosexual Marriage is violation of these principles. It is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage. There is no justifiable reason to have 14 supreme court cases, since 1888, ruling that marriage is a fundamental right to everyone and then deny a group of people this right. If I made an argument that senior citizens should not have the right to free speech, women the right to privacy, people wearing blue shorts could not cross state lines, or brown haired people don’t have the right to bear arms you would laugh at the ridiculousness of my argument. Homosexual marriage bans are no different. It is still denying a group of people a fundamental right. http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.gallup.com... http://www.afer.org...

"'I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace. ' Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. " I am not sure this relates to the topic at hand, which is social networking. "Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. " That really didn't change much, so I accept your resolved premise. My opponent has failed to correctly source his information, so I will do it for him. Ought- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Well being- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I accept the definitions as provided. "The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. " Maslow's theory states that one of the last things needed is respect for others and respect from others. There are many other things in his theory needed more than these. " It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. " Why? You have not provided any information why this would be the case. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 1: "'Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday. " ~ . http://www.lockergnome.com...; Freedom of expression, according to legal precedent, does not include harassment. Therefore, this information is irrelevant. "Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. " What if someone is self-employed or doesn't represent a company? "Social networking sites are no longer private. " Social networks were never private. That is the entire point of a social network; For people to talk, mingle, share jokes, pictures etc. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 2: My opponent has stated two contentions for contention 2. They are: "Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. " and "Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. " My opponent also states the "benefits" of behaving appropriately. I will post a short rebuttal for each. "Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. " On a social networking site, many people will not find it appealing, but rather boring. "Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. " Only if you are an employee of a company. If not, the point is moot. "It may make a great first impression. " That also gives it the possibility of not making a great first impression. The "cons" of behaving inappropriately: "Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. " Once again, if you do not have an employer, then they can't be angry at you. "Giving a poor first impression. " It may not be a poor first impression. It may strike someone that I am a vibrant young individual instead of some dry, stagnant, static person. "People may NOT find you appealing. " Once again, it gives the opportunity to find you appealing as well. It is obvious that the "benefits" do not outweigh the "cons". REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 3: "Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " They can only do as they please as long as it is within the laws. "Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation" Obligate - to pledge, commit, or bind . http://dictionary.reference.com... Bind- to make compulsory or obligatory . http://dictionary.reference.com... I know, a bit of a circular definition, but my point is that when you have an obligation to do something, it is compulsory to do that obligation. Even with my opponents trickery, he has not proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that his resolution is true. He also keeps using social contract and has not yet defined it. Social Contract -the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... "You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. " Obviously, these statements are not related to each other at all. Once would cause death if not complied with. "It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? " No. You have not provided any information what forming a society has to do with social networking or freedom of expression. CONCLUSION PRO: "I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites," One random court case and an assumption about employers does not show me enough information about the contingency being divulged and exposed information. "that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately," Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. "and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " I have proven that they can not do as they please, but rather what lies within the laws. All contentions are refuted, therefore the resolution is negated. CONCLUSION CON: My opponent has provided little or no information for his contentions, and what little information he has provided has been refuted. Also, he has provided little information for the resolution. He barely mentioned social networking and did not mention freedom of expression. Therefore, we can clearly conclude that standards of professional behavior ought not to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites. It was a tad bit hard sorting through your argument, but I did the best I could. Best of luck in the final round. I look forward to your reply. PS I really wanted to say more, but I was limited to only 8000 characters, of which I have none left after this sentence.

You are only repeating yourself and adding few arguments to your old arguments. round one: you say it brings prosperity and allow people to work at home (with no sources to prove it what-so-ever), I rebut with cyber-bullying and stalker/sexual predators round two: you say educated people can navigate it safely and it brings people together, as shown by debate. org, I rebut with trolls and spammers and possibility of children being affected, and hoaxes on the internet, showing the websites' untrustworthynessround three: you say the internet gives off information (which I already stated! ) and people can differentiate the trustworthy and biased articles. (Then why are the tips there for how to tell if a website is trustworthy or not? If people can differentiate, then there is no need for such articles! ) You continue stating "help bring people together". .. again? And then you say. .. "it brings the world together. .. ." You stated that twice. Just saying! Ok, so now, my final argument. Con has merely one source on his side (unless counting debate. org), so I will win sources wise. Conduct, maybe Con win, since he has "THANK YOU" in all caps. Spelling. .. .not sure, possibly tie. .. And finally, Convincing arguments. Well, I have to say, con did quite a nice job attempting to counter all my negatives effects of the internet. Because I do not want to lose the argument conduct-wise by bringing up a new point in my conclusion, I shall sum up everything I said in the previous rounds. The internet is not always credible, as people can post whatever they want, even if it's a lie. (One great example being the "fact" above. :P)The internet has cyber-bullying and predators, both which are very hard to stop. The internet has bad suggestive effect on children with its trolls and spammers. Children can also be effected by video games. (according to a newspaper article,a student was found dead in front of the computer for being to addicted to playing games) . http://content.time.com...The internet can invade your privacy (with cyber-bullying and the news) In conclusion, the internet brings more harm than good. It is because of the ever-changing nature of the internet that it harms many people.

Before I forfeit this round, let me explain to you why I should be voted instead of con. I know that johnjohn12 is actually online right now and is just chickening out simply because he/she cannot argue back. Perhaps if you were prepared and knew that your opponent was this intelligent, perhaps you would not have backed out and not debated with me. Like I said before, you have the following errors preventing you from winning this debate even if you made rebuttals: -Too short of an argument that is also too vague -Does not take a stance or any position; simply remains neutral -Lacks thesis, arguments, introduction, etc. -Topic is too general and pro is unclear of what to say -Policy was not specified as a ban or prevention law With that said, should you have fixed or prevented these errors, you would have won. But because you have made these errors and forfeited each round after that due to fear of loss of debate, you are going to lose this debate whether you like it or not. You have a 0% chance of winning, while I have a 100% chance of winning, even if I am offending you and pointing out your debating flaws. A least I have provided a thesis, stance, arguments, rebuttals, logic and reasoning, conduct, and good spelling/grammar, while opponent failed to provide any of that.

.. Two rules too: 1. ) Do not disrespect anybody. I don't want to waste my time with people saying things like 'Obama sucks'. You are entitled to your opinion, but this debate is attacking/defending POLICY ONLY. 2. ) Please back up everything with sources clearly labelled. Like this: Rebuts opponents argument. 1. ) argument, makes a point 2. ) argument, makes a point SOURCES 1. ) www. google. com 2. ) peta. org i just randomly made up the pages, but you get the idea. Source 1 backs up info in Argument 1. And (obviously) you are not limited to 2 arguments. By accepting the challenge, you are agreeing to these two rules.

Ben Franklin once said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."For the debate I offer the following definitions (All Merriam-Webster):decreased- (past tense of decrease) to lessen in intensity/ degree further regulated- regulated (past tense of regulate) is defined as the control by means of regulation; "further" then means a continuation on current regulation and add an additional regulation.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Point 1: The powers that are given to the NSA are not properly expressed-Within recent years, spotlight on the powers of the NSA has now fully and national been the scene of much criticism. As this is today a growing age of information the true ideas of privacy have yet to have truly been outlined by the United States congressional system. With the growth of fear of terrorism in the United States, new acts such as the "Patriot Act" have immediately given exclusive and ever increasing power to the NSA. With this growth of power however, the true extent of this power remains completely undefined.In The Guardian article titled "Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA" it points out not, citizens, but in fact members of congress were denied access to information involving the process of gaining of information by the NSA. For example, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) was asked by MSNBC reporter "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" to which his reply was: "The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillance's, the Meta data and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me." Going further it found that members of congress, on both sides of the political spectrum, were completely denied access to any information on even their most basic intelligence gaining. Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith stated: "If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to do my job...[my job includes] making decisions about whether these programs should be funded, but also an oath to safeguard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment.The president is also subject this point as well. Most recently, President Barack Obama was unaware of the surveillance on Chancellor Angela Merkel. (http://edition.cnn.com...) If members of congress and the president do not known on this until the same time the exact issue was then made public then the program itself is lacking in a basic ability of people to understand the non-secretive basis of how information is gained. This then proves that these powers need to be "further regulated" in order to allow this basic information known.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Point 2: These powers are growing not stagnating nor shrinking-The powers of the NSA today have now increasingly grown, not shrunk. According to the New York Times Article titled: "N.S.A. Report Outlined Goals for More Power" the NSA did issue a February 2012 paper in which they states they would "aggressively pursue legal authorities and a policy framework mapped more fully to the information age". Likewise they went on to state that they have the authority to gain information on "anyone, anytime, anywhere". Finally, the NSA stated that " The interpretation and guidelines for applying our authorities, and in some cases the authorities themselves, have not kept pace with the complexity of the technology" which alone proves the necessity of legislation to further decrease this power before this interpretation becomes even broader. What many believe is the NSA's simple mission is counter terrorism, but this barely makes up a small portion of the NSA's true goals. The Electronic Frontier Foundation found that this authority has been expanding to include "foreign intelligence information". This broad term has gone on to refer the gathering of foreign intelligence that deal with the U.S., then making the statement of "deal with the U.S." even more broad in interpretation. Today, the largest interception of information by the NSA occurs in nations such as: Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Egypt, and the United States. This lack of definition goes farther to prove that these powers are growing in"Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority II" By Robert Levy, he points out that: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."But to further show the growth of this surveillance, this map shows the nations where it is most prevalent. Those nations are then darkened below: In Conclusion:1)The powers given are not properly expressed and therefore should be further regulated.2)These powers are growing unacceptably high and therefore should be decreased.For all these reasons I urge you to vote in affirmation of the resolution.Sources:http://www.cato.org...http://www.nytimes.com...https://www.eff.org...http://edition.cnn.com...http://www.theguardian.com...Benjamin Franklin. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved January 3, 2014, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...

This argument seeks to demonstrate that the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare) is a terrible piece of legislation that never should have been passed and should be repealed immediately. My arguments are as follows: a) The ACA is not effective. It does nothing to improve access to health care, does nothing to address the costs of health care, and actually makes health care more difficult to get access to. b) The ACA is inefficient. It creates a huge number of new bureaucracies of unelected bureaucrats who have the ability to control the most intimate details of our lives, and it expends billions of dollars and creates tens of thousands of pages of Byzantine regulations that impede a physician's ability to do his job. All of this effort produces no real increase in the availability or quality of health care because of the way the law is structured. c) The ACA has failed to meet even the most basic of its own deadlines and broken all of the promises made about it. Implementation has, in the words of one of the Senators who wrote the bill, become a "train wreck." Even the Labor Unions and the very Congress who passed it want exemptions from it because it basically ruins the health care system for anyone who is subject to the law. Even a cursory examination of the promises made about the ACA shows that virtually all of them have been broken: "If you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep him/it." "This will cost XX billion dollars." "Insurance premiums will drop." The list goes on. d) The ACA makes working as a physician such an unattractive option as a career path that over 40% of currently practicing primary care physicians surveyed have said they will leave the practice of medicine before Obamacare goes into effect to avoid the burden it will place upon them. This will make finding a doctor incredibly difficult, as there is already a critical shortage of primary care physicians in some parts of this country and a large percentage of the doctors who are quitting have private rural practices... the kind we need more of. e) The bill itself was passed by a parliamentary trick against the will of the People, by a Congress that deliberately excluded the opposition from the process and hadn't even read the bill when they passed it. Even now, 2/3 of the country thinks Obamacare should be repealed. f) So many problems have come out of the implementation of the bill that it is a near impossibility for the government to meet any of the deadlines written into the bill. This has led President Obama to directly violate his role according to the Separation of Powers and change legislation he signed into law by simply refusing to enforce portions he doesn't like. These exemptions show in bold color the rot and corruption that exists at the core of this Administration, as the exemptions have been used to reward allies and punish enemies. These points and several others that I will bring to bear if necessary make a strong case that the law was ill-conceived, badly written, poorly executed, and should be totally scrapped to make room for a clean start. I welcome a challenger who will endeavor to prove me wrong.

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.

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 the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

The USFG should not restore Net Neutrality.

Many thanks to my opponent for an engaging debate and timely responses! To clarify, we are debating the general principle or concept of Net Neutrality, considering all forms of network neutrality legislation. My opponent argues that the connection between the FCC's infringement on freedom of speech and the rejection of net neutrality legislation is flawed, as my arguments only address the FCC as the legislative enforcer. However, there are several issues with this counterpoint. Firstly, all current network neutrality laws would utilize the FCC as the enforcer. My opponent's sole example of legislation not requiring the FCC as enforcer still involves the FCC, so unless a contradictory example is provided, this argument is irrelevant. Moreover, my opponent assumes that the FCC does not already operate in a "highly transparent and democratic manner," but this is not the case. Even with such transparency, there is often a gap between obligations and reality in government. Without specific legislation detailing how transparency is achieved and ensuring solvency, this remains a hypothetical solution.

China is used as an example to highlight the similarities between censorship in China and the potential consequences of net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon notes that the intention is not the same as China's Great Firewall, but the practical effect could be similar [1]. Given the historical implications of the FCC, it is reasonable to be cautious of such possibilities. My opponent's argument that infringement on freedom of speech would never happen due to differences between the US and China is naive. Regardless of these differences, the human nature that drives the desire to influence others exists in both nations. The FCC has already infringed on freedom of speech, a fact my opponent has not disputed.

A crucial issue in this debate is whether ISPs have the right to block specific content. I support this right for ISPs, and my opponent argues that this would result in legitimate content being blocked from users. However, ISPs, as service providers, should decide what their service includes. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I agree that ISPs should be transparent with consumers about their access. Nonetheless, my opponent must provide reasons why ISPs should not have this right to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden they have not met. I urge my opponent to present reasons why this is outside the rights of ISPs, as the only argument thus far is that it is not consumer-friendly. This is why consumers switch ISPs, and the free market provides alternative options.

I concede that I did not explicitly state that an

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 understand. I'm currently in the process of moving myself, and only put together weak arguments one hour before the deadline each of the last two rounds. I hope we can revisit this debate at a later date, one where my arguments are better and where both of us have more time.

I am Sorry for my Absense I lost track of the day count(I know a bad excuse but a true one) First of all My opponent proposed no criterion or core value and so mine are seen to stand. First point. My opponent gives the Cannibals and the missionary example. This is irrelevant because the cannibals are not necessarily felons and second in such a situation disfranchisement wouldn't exist because there are no laws. there is also no evidence the vote would be in favor of the missionary. 2nd: the only thing that makes the citizen of a democratic government different from a despotic one is the right to vote. Furthermore this debate does not concern what is currently being done but as to what we should do. So the constitution is irrelevant. re-build my own case (refutation of Marshall quote) I am Not suggesting they are equal but merely they get representation. If we disenfranchisethem we are turning what was once a two way street into a one way street. They are also paying or have paid there debt and further punishment hinders the rehabilitative efforts of society. Also the recidivism point is merely speculation without factual evidence and therefore is irrelevant. 2nd contention The point proposed by my opponent it simply un-democratic. It is turning towards Oligarchy which is, of course, not democratic and therefore denys justice 3rd contention My opponent is merely speculating with the recidivism rates and again therefore those statistics must be thrown out. Also if we were to include those who had not been caught we must consider all non-felons who may have commited a crime and advocate disenfranching them??? this destroys democracy not preserves it. Second the thought process used in felony and the thought process used in voting are entirely different things. Also the fact politicians would play to felons. this is infact not true, not politician would run a capmaign in prisons for the reason my opponent stated, cost. Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of the prison system is, ultimately, rehabilitation or deterrence from furhter crime. Felon disenfranchisement it nither and therefore overkill to the criminal justice system. again in a democratic society there is no such thing as a bad vote or else it would be moving away from democracy While this story is unfortunate it does not prove that felons disenfranchisement is warranted. It simply says felons ought to be punished. That is what the prison system is for and disenfranchisement does not solve the given situation. Because felons are required things of society they must be given all the rights of society and, therefore must vote. If they need government aid this is often times the fault of society for labeling them and not the fault of the felons themselves. Therefore in intrests of preserving democracy the resolution should be affirmed

I'm new to this, so what are the rules of the public forum? Also, we must debate quickly, or I may not have access tothe website within 24 hours.

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.

Before I begin, I have to tell you: because this will be my first debate on the site (debate.org), I ask that my theoretical antagonist refrain from using any of the site's formalities, its procedural norms and practices, as a site of argument or debate. Put simply, I do not know the norms, and even if I did know them and still chose to establish my own procedural system, it would not change the substantive claims of the arguments I made. My Position: That First Amendment mechanisms do not, as is often claimed, neutralize power by giving everyone an equal chance to speak. On the contrary, First Amendment law is always politically inflected, and often used to maintain the status quo and to disempower those already marginalized and silenced. Finally, I argue that current First Amendment doctrine is logically incoherent, a doctrine that regulates in the name of nonregulation, and recognizes so many exceptions to the rule that it finally is, as a set of universal principles, anything but.

Broadband is decreasing now, claimed to help the economy bla bla bla, (Vikki S. Katz, Matthew D. Matsaganis, and Sandra J. ball-Rokeach, Ph.D., University of Southern California, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102.) but it means that minoritys which depend on cheap public broadband will not be able to send their radio and TV news at all. But it also means that because most people get their news from public TV and radio which is corrupt with racist ideas (Chucks Amajor, Mark Sanders, DeRonnie Pitts, http://www.stanford.edu......, )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org......)

This argument seeks to demonstrate that the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare) is a terrible piece of legislation that never should have been passed and should be repealed immediately. My arguments are as follows: a) The ACA is not effective. It does nothing to improve access to health care, does nothing to address the costs of health care, and actually makes health care more difficult to get access to. b) The ACA is inefficient. It creates a huge number of new bureaucracies of unelected bureaucrats who have the ability to control the most intimate details of our lives, and it expends billions of dollars and creates tens of thousands of pages of Byzantine regulations that impede a physician's ability to do his job. All of this effort produces no real increase in the availability or quality of health care because of the way the law is structured. c) The ACA has failed to meet even the most basic of its own deadlines and broken all of the promises made about it. Implementation has, in the words of one of the Senators who wrote the bill, become a "train wreck." Even the Labor Unions and the very Congress who passed it want exemptions from it because it basically ruins the health care system for anyone who is subject to the law. Even a cursory examination of the promises made about the ACA shows that virtually all of them have been broken: "If you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep him/it." "This will cost XX billion dollars." "Insurance premiums will drop." The list goes on. d) The ACA makes working as a physician such an unattractive option as a career path that over 40% of currently practicing primary care physicians surveyed have said they will leave the practice of medicine before Obamacare goes into effect to avoid the burden it will place upon them. This will make finding a doctor incredibly difficult, as there is already a critical shortage of primary care physicians in some parts of this country and a large percentage of the doctors who are quitting have private rural practices... the kind we need more of. e) The bill itself was passed by a parliamentary trick against the will of the People, by a Congress that deliberately excluded the opposition from the process and hadn't even read the bill when they passed it. Even now, 2/3 of the country thinks Obamacare should be repealed. f) So many problems have come out of the implementation of the bill that it is a near impossibility for the government to meet any of the deadlines written into the bill. This has led President Obama to directly violate his role according to the Separation of Powers and change legislation he signed into law by simply refusing to enforce portions he doesn't like. These exemptions show in bold color the rot and corruption that exists at the core of this Administration, as the exemptions have been used to reward allies and punish enemies. These points and several others that I will bring to bear if necessary make a strong case that the law was ill-conceived, badly written, poorly executed, and should be totally scrapped to make room for a clean start. I welcome a challenger who will endeavor to prove me wrong.

It seems that my opponents sole argument is that poker isn't gambling, therefore it should not be subject to the, "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act". I beg to differ from him in this assertion. Let's take a look at some of the definitions of "Gambling": "Gambling is the of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period". -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling "An activity characterized by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance". -en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gambling "Play games of chance for money; bet" "Bet (a sum of money) in such a way" "Take risky action in the hope of a desired result" - Google Dictionary All of those definitions describe the game of poker. As any professional will tell you, there is a huge amount of luck involved in the game. "I guess if there weren't luck involved, I'd win every time." - Phil Hellmuth, holder of a record 11 World Series of Poker bracelets.[1] "It's hard work. Gambling. Playing poker. Don't let anyone tell you different." - Stu Unger, winner of three WSOP main events.[1] Clearly, poker is gambling. Therefore, it should be included in the activities covered by the,"Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act", which it is. Hence, the Department of Justice is being reasonable in enforcing the law by preventing the companies involved from continued operations within the United States. Just because they don't like the law, it doesn't mean that they can devise methods of circumventing it. Which, they clearly DID do. [1]http://www.viewonpoker.com... http://www.fdic.gov...

The government of any country should not be able to limit anything being posted, or received from cyberspace, until they pay for the specific domain of the website. A. Regulating what people may see as well as say goes against human rights, and in the Unite States of America for any American who may come across this, this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it goes against the first amendment in the Bill of Rights which states every person shall have the right to free speech B. In the case of hiding pornography from children, the parent at home with the computer can simply use a proxy server and have everything filtered through there. The reason this statement was made is that in many of my other debates I've taken place making the same argument against many people used the fact that governments should stop children from being able to access pornography. C. If a government were to take any action on a website, it would be illegal as they have no right to the domain. Let's run a hypothetical here. Let's say a website were to be taken down by the U.S government for whatever reason the government decided to take it down. If it were to be a website that they had no right towards, then that is illegal on the governments sake as they have no right to the domain. Now lets say a website were to have profane words amongst the text, and the government were to either replace the characters with '*' then that would be incriminating as it goes against humans right to free speech.