Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reestablished?

The USFG should not enforce Net Neutrality.

Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently based on user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. However, the proponents of net neutrality argue that it leads to an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. In contrast, a closed internet is where established corporations or governments favor certain uses, may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.

In this debate, I will clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but instead moves towards a closed internet. Firstly, net neutrality stifles innovation by treating all internet content equally, which is not accurate. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-book all use similar amounts of internet space, but are not equal in importance and should not be treated as such. Additionally, net neutrality would treat PTP (peer-to-peer) games online, which use massively greater amounts of content than a simple Google search, equally. This would result in consumers paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content.

Secondly, net neutrality actually stifles freedom of speech. A lack of net neutrality hasn't caused a restriction of freedom of speech, and allowing ISPs to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users. Further, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is not in the business of promoting freedom of speech and has never stood for it. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the internet and what exactly is available to us. This can lead to a less free internet, as seen in China's strict regulation of communication companies.

Lastly, net neutrality infringes on competition. Advocates of net neutrality have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block internet applications and content, and even to block out competitors. However, it is the prerogative of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Further, net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly

Rebuttals will be in Round 3 for fairness and so we both are allowed equal time to rebuttal. So I will make my points.Welfare is bad for the economy because it is the governement trying to help people. But them trying to help people is hurting the economy because it starts to interfer with the laissez faire principle of not interfering with the market. If the goverment is paying people in the lower class to become lower/middle class, then it could mess up the class structures and by that hurting the economy from an unbalanced class system. Unfortunately, to help the economy, the government really only should prevent monoplies but other than that not provide people with money just because they are poor. The economy would be better if the class structures naturally unfolded with some lower class, some middle class, and some upper class. This is why welfare is bad.

Thank you, Con. First, Con argues that original intent isn't the best way to interpret the Constitution. Con believes in nonoriginalism, where the focus is placed on the principles, rather than the specific intent, of the framers. I would argue that originalism is in fact the only "fair" way to interpret the constitution under the American system of government. Suppose that a judge has no consistent method of interpretation. He or she just gets some emotional feeling about who should win or lose and then interprets the Constitution to guide the decision toward that outcome. This (lack of) method would be obviously unjust. Keeping that in mind, let's consider how a "living constitution," "progressive justice," or other nonoriginal method of interpretation would work. What is meant is not that we should amend the Constitution; obviously Article V, as my opponent pointed out, allows for that. Neither does nonoriginalism mean that we should apply the original words to new fact patterns. Instead, what is usually meant is that we should apply the original words to create entirely new principles of constitutional law. Under the American system of government, democracy is held in high esteem. Some argue that originalism places too much emphasis on the past and too little emphasis on progress and the present. But, although it would truly be undemocratic to have a law that could never be changed, that is obviously not the case with our Constitution. The 14th Amendment was put in place to do just that: override portions of the constitution that were now deemed intolerable. The true conflict is not between past and present. The real issue is: Should today's judges be allowed to change the law written by yesterday's legislators? After all, judges are not allowed, under the Constitution, to change it or to make laws. Their sole duty, as regards judicial review, is that of interpretation. If they use nonoriginalism, deciding not based upon original intent but upon what they think should and should not be the law, then they are usurping their position. Concerning Brown v. Board of Education, this is from the decision: "[D]oes segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ... "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." ... We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." The judges did not make up their own meaning. The framers of the 14th Amendment intended blacks and whites to have equal protection, and the judges realized allowing segregation was affecting "colored" children negatively, leading to a system that was far from "equal." This case is miles away from Roe. Anyway, if Brown has no Constitutional basis (which is not the case) then that is another issue for another debate. Con says: "As a result, new questions constantly arise over how to apply the Constitution in new contexts. Originalism doesn't help solve these questions because its "original intent" doesn't speak to them." So instead our judges should make up a new meaning that does "speak to them"? They should ignore the original meaning and fabricate one more relevant? Such a system would clearly be unjust, placing a vast amount of power in the hands of nine appointed -not elected- judges who will occupy their positions until death. The framers of the Constitution would be most indignant to realize that such an unjust position was given so much backing, that so many educated Americans would advocate allowing judges to decide their own meanings. EVEN WITH ORIGINAL INTENT: Con argues that implied rights can be included in the Constitution. I would agree that that is possible. Now, to Con's reasons why the right to abortion might be an implied right: Common law made abortion a crime after quickening but not before. What does common law have to do with anything? The only relevant period is that surrounding the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment. Common law had many far weirder and unjust practices harkening back to medieval traditions. For example, all men 14 and over had to be trained in using the longbow, under common law. https://www.rocketlawyer.com... The idea of "quickening" being the time when the baby's soul comes into existence was the cause of that particular weird law, and I am sure there were plenty of sexist common laws. Plainly put, common law is to the Constitution as a flashlight is to a lighthouse. Besides, arguing that the 14th Amendment makes abortion a liberty after quickening but not before is a dramatic case of nonoriginalist interpretation, as I can hardly think the composers put that much thought into it without making their intentions clearer. The main focus at the time was on segregation, not abortion. Pro didn't provide proof the actual adopters did not intend a right to abortion. The legislatures that passed the 14th Amendment, as I pointed out earlier, in most cases had already or would pass anti-abortion laws. As a result, I hardly think abortion even entered their minds. The AMA's testimony is good evidence that the scientific world regarded the fetus to be a person who should be protected. Abortion laws were to protect women from botched abortions. A little thought debunks this one. Self-abortion is much more dangerous than abortion done by a doctor. As botched abortions are even more common when done by the woman herself than when done by an untrained doctor, it seems improbable this was the case, given the AMA's lobbying and the medical push for protection of the fetus. More likely, perhaps, is the theory that the legislators' main goal was to combat doctors specializing and charging for abortions. This is not indicative of a carelessness about self-abortion but rather of a tight focus upon the illegality of the commercialization of abortion. I have seen no sources backing up Con's claim, so I cannot be sure about the exact reasoning. Original intent is the only just, democratic, and constitutional means to interpret the constitution. Under original intent, there is no constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade's preclusion of state prohibition of even 1st-trimester abortions, and absolutely no basis for the "right to abortion."

Ask yourself the following question, "What is the First Amendment for?" If you came up with any answer to that question, any answer at all, then you are necessarily implicated in a regime of censorship. The reason is that when you say the First Amendment is for something, it becomes inevitable that at some point you will ask of some instance of speech whether it in fact serves this purpose or whether it in fact does the opposite. That is, if you have what legal scholars call a "consequentialist view" of the First Amendment—a view that values free speech because of its "good effects"—then you are necessarily on the lookout for forms of action, including speech action, that subvert those effects. It does not matter what you choose as the "good effects," at some point it will be a logical inevitability that some speech action subverts those effects. The conclusion is easy: as soon as you locate and move against speech that compromises these "effects," you are engaged in an act of censorship already implicit in the First Amendment from the beginning. The other option in identifying the essence of First Amendment freedoms is defining free speech not in relation to some desired consequences but in relation to a moral imperative that is indifferent to consequences, even when those consequences undermine free speech itself. The problem here, however, is that this "moral imperative" is necessarily not "free," it is substantive, moral, political, an imperative that is necessarily at the expense of some other possible imperative. Thus, by identifying a free speech principle in relation to a moral imperative, you again undermine the free speech principle. Point is, whether one is a consequentialist or a nonconsequentialist, you will have to determine how a free speech principle is defined and the policy that follows from it. The problem, I argue (along the same lines as legal scholars and theorists Peter Weston, Judith Butler, Larry Alexander, Paul Horton, and Stanley Fish), is that as soon as you define, accept and justify a "free speech principle," the principle itself has necessarily been compromised. That is, any attempt to justify rather than merely identify a free speech principle will require acceptance of principles that will compromise the said free speech principle. This is not the only argument made against free speech and the First Amendment. Revisionist thinkers have challenged the traditionalist understanding of First Amendment doctrine in other ways, by 1) undoing the distinction between speech and action, thus depriving First Amendment theorists of an object to clarify, and admitting that no action can be regulated or any action can possibly be regulated; 2) pointing out that any "neutral" or "impartial" vision of free speech is always and already hostage to politics, to some underlying "substantive vision," and thus making viewpoint discrimination implicit within free speech doctrine; 3) by arguing that words do not simply describe the world, they effect and change the world, which is just the same thing as arguing that speech is an action. One way of replying to these arguments, made often by First Amendment watchdogs, is to say that the "purpose" of the First Amendment is to insulate the discussion of ideas—the so-called "marketplace of ideas"—from political interference. So, they say, draw no lines, declare all speech protected, and then step back and see what happens. The problem, of course, is what happens when certain kinds of speech is produced that does more harm than good, for example, speech giving information to the country's enemies, obscene speech, threatening words, etc. In fact, it seems that this is what Con is doing, arguing that when I used the word "but" at the end of a paragraph, I was offensive, yet nonetheless my speech was protected. To this I would say, first, that while people always say they want to protect all speech, in practice this never actually happens. Yes, using the word "but" may be offensive to a few people, but this is not the kind of speech that is in question here. We are talking about speech that itself undermines the free speech principle itself, or speech that causes serious harm to others. Point is, we have no way to determine at all what benefits would follow from protecting all speech, but we can determine that there would be negative consequences from doing so. Think about it: What is the risk of governmental regulation of speech? It is the risk of partiality, that is, the risk of proceeding on the basis of something less than the whole truth. Problem is, the condition of partial vision is the condition of humanity, we will never have the whole truth. In other words, the only risk of not protecting all speech is to accept the condition of humanity, i.e., partial vision. Not too bad. On the other hand, what is the risk of NOT regulating speech? Well, racial bigotry, anti-semitism, threats, even violence. In fact, in the landmark pornography case American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut, the court clearly articulates the power of ideas expressed in speech: "A belief may be pernicious—the beliefs of Nazis led to the deaths of millions, those of the Klan to the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail. Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others." They continue, "pornography affects thoughts," "is an aspect of dominance," "works by socializing," and therefore not only "an idea" but "the injury" [1]. The court accepts these premises, yet proceeds to protect pornography because, in their words, "If pornography is what pornography does, so is other speech." The argument provided by the court is that the general capacity of language to have consequences is precisely the reason to protect it. In other words, the court recoils from the result that, because speech inevitably produces power relations, political effects, harmful speech provides the argument for the possibility of regulating all speech. The court concludes, "If the fact that speech plays a role in a process of conditioning were enough to permit governmental regulation, that would be the end of freedom of speech." Yes, exactly. The court could not follow their argument to its logical conclusion, the realization that freedom of speech never had a beginning because speech is in every sense an action, and actions are subject to regulation, but that does not mean the court does not recognize this conclusion as valid. This is simply one of those moments in legal practice where the court stops short of its conclusion, not because the conclusion is wrong, but simply because the conclusion was undesirable. The court's decision in no way changes the logical conclusion of its premises. I'll continue my arguments in the next round.

In an effort to maintain a fair and equal debate, I will forgo this round, and we will (should) move directly into rebuttals in the final round. See comments.

Whether the Internet revolution should or should not undermine intellectual property is based on the grounds of whether intellectual property is or is not an actual valid notion. I will commence with a simple but adequate account of my position: An idea action cannot be owned by any group or any individual as property.

Unfortunately, my opponent (the negation/con) has not given any points or a case at all in this debate for the affirmative to refute. Therefore my opponent has no case to build upon. I would still like to encourage my opponent to post a refutation in this round of my case to at least keep this debate going, and then I would like to still end with a rebuild and summary statements in the fourth round. But, because my opponent has no case or points while the affirmative/pro has given points to this resolution, I urge you to vote in affirmation/pro of this debate. I am also looking forward to the negation/con's refutations within this round.

First, to quote your second round, "the only time that the government should be allowed to make a law without an amendment is… war time" It seems that you have conceded that my primary contention is valid; that any legislation that doesn't meet a strict interpretation of the Constitution's limits ought to be rejected, unless we amend the Constitution to allow for such legislation. The only contention that you offer is the stipulation that Congress ought to have such a power (the power to pass extra-constitutional laws that violate the strict restrictions offered in the Constitution) in times of war, when "the country is in danger," and, "said action is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to protect the people of the United States (emphasis in original). This is, however, extremely dangerous. Firstly, how do you define "danger" or "absolutely necessary" in the context of these exceptions? Could I not argue that if our country is in danger of electing a poor president, and such a president could put our country in other perils, that suspending the election would be absolutely necessary to protect us from such a calamity? I certainly do no advocate such a policy, but it meets your requirements as written! Open-ended statements such as those are rife with the potential for abuse and misinterpretation. Besides, it was exactly under such a premise that a Republican congress and Pres. Bush launched the infamous ‘Patriot Act' that is so universally reviled as not only unconstitutional but a dangerous abuse of executive power! One kink in the armor can let the fatal arrow pass through. If we allow one law, or laws in one specific scenario, to circumvent the limits imposed by our Constitution, we set a dangerous precedent that will likely be followed up with further and more perverse distortions of our Constitution. We must reject all unconstitutional laws based upon their unconstitutionality alone; no matter how appealing, "necessary," or otherwise beneficial a law may be, if it is unconstitutional it MUST NOT be passed. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a constitution at all? Making a constitution of any kind a, "living document" in fact makes it a dead document. As I have said before, being governed by a constitution that is subject to contentious and loose interpretation that can be tailored to fit any legislation at all is equivalent to being governed by a blank piece of paper; it becomes meaningless.

I will not have time to post a full round, seeing as I had school and then when I got home my Internet wasn't working, leaving me with only thirty minutes. opponents arguments: "Such a blanket punishment is decidedly unfair, because it punishes the lightest offenders as strictly as the highest ones. Since punishment should be fair (i.e. it should fit the crime), these registries should be discontinued." I agree with you, it is unfair that sexual offender is such a blanket term, but registries should not be discontinued. If you pee in public, you risk being caught and labeled as a sexual offender. Well, use your brain and DONT do pee in public. There are gas stations, parks, restaurants, etc. that someone could stop at and use the bathroom. There is no need to go in public. "Sex offenders shy away from seeking therapist help, because they fear being revealed and put on the list permanently." They may shy away from seeking therapist help, but if they (or the family) knows what's best, they will seek help, no matter what. And if they are sexual offenders, they need to be put on the list anyways to warn the surrounding area. "Rehabilitation builds the future; punishment gets stuck in the past and neglects today and tomorrow." punishment and rehabilitation should go hand in hand. They should put a sex offender on the list until they have been rehabilitated, and then they can be taken off the list. I know this is not the case, so they should be punished. Punishment will show them what happens when they do something like that. would you rather punish the person that hurt the child or punish the child? because not punishing the offender is the same thing as punishing the child. That is not fair that the child went through the pain. "Such dehumanization is the cause of much social evil: racism flourished because blacks were dehumanized; Nazism grew through the dehumanization of Jews. I ask the reader to affirm that all humans are equal, that offenders are human and deserve our concern... that, in the words of Martin Luther King, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." so you are comparing people who hurt other people to Jews and blacks? Sex offenders deserve this, The Jews and blacks didn't. Gossip is not all the time true, so if we don't have a registry, who will know what is true and what is a lie? my arguments: sorry its not alot, again, I didn't have the time. 1) sex offender registries may stop future sex offenders from committing their crime. They will not want to be put on the list, so they will simply seek help. 2) you cant just simply stop registries. There would be to many parents who would have a problem and complain. And what would you tell them the reason that you stopped them was? Because it hurt the sex offenders feelings? Boo Hoo. There are kids out there who will never get there virginity or trust in other people back because of what these sick people did. The websites will be posted in the comments section, I am really pushing it for time right now. Thanks. And just answer this: If a sex offender were living by you, would you want to know?

This was the topic for the LD nationals in 2007. I thought it would be fun to debate. Rounds will go as follows: Round 1: con states rules Round 1: Pro presents his arguments Round 2: Con presents his arguments and rebuts to pro's case Round 2: Pro rebuts to con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Round 3: Pro rebuts 10,000 character limit. 3 days to post argument (per round)

Hello :) This will have to be a quick round. Today is my birthday, and I will not be home all day. (I only have seven hours left as of now.) "Dunno. Not really relevant to the resolution though, since that's a question of interest groups, not what should be" Since there are so many laws protecting dogs, puppy mills should be considered one of them. "Let's say Obama outlaws having ears, and mandates that anyone who has them be chopped off. Reversing this policy would be "going backwards." Yes, it would be going backwards for him. :) "Wonderful." ...Do you have any pets? Would you care if someone abused those pets? "How so?" Because everybody would be thinking, " oh I don't have enough food. Let's not feed Fido until we get enough money in two weeks. " (Not feeding your animals is illegal: malnutrition.) "Sugar plants deserve protection from being made into candy, because many end up in candy stores, and the public won't know what kind of sugar plantation it comes from" But that sugar won't come home and be scared to death because they never have been outside of a cage or socialized with people, will they? "Which would justify, at best, puppies raised in better conditions being labelled for those conditions, and false advertising being illegal. Not puppy mills as such being illegal" There are such conditions as these above. They are called responsible breeders. These breeders actually take care of their dogs. This is the only kind of dog breeding business I like. Of course, they are not puppy mills. They do not keep their puppies in a pen, and they make sure the puppies are in good quality health, or your money back! That being said, these puppy mill breeders will continue doing it privatly...and not wasting money to make advances on their pups. http://www.hsus.org... "Need is not a rightful claim" So, if your job stopped paying you, and stores stopped selling food, you wouldn't try to change anything? You wouldn't tell your job that you worked so they need to pay you? Oh, sorry, I forgot, "Need is not a rightful claim" "Irrelevant until it is shown that puppy death or puppy malnutrition warrant legal protections against them as such." quote out of my source: "adequate food provided at suitable intervals of quantities of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition to allow for proper growth and weight and adequate water provided with constant access to a supply of clean, fresh, and potable water provided in a suitable manner for the species" As I have mentioned in previous rounds, puppies do not get the proper food supply they need. The quote above comes from ANIMAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. http://animalpetdoctor.homestead.com... (you can find what quote I wrote in chapter one) "By what right can such a rule be established?" That puppy mills should be illegal "All dogs are like slaves, except the ones in the wild. Otherwise they would not have collars. Adding sex to the issue does not change the morality of the matter, either they are yours to do with as you wish, or they are theirs to do with as they wish. I uphold the former by reference to their nature" So is it okay to beat you kids? They are yours, after all. --- I think puppy mills should be illegal because most of the things they do are illegal, and it would better to shut them down, instead of running the cruel business. It would be better for the puppy's sake (and if that's not good enough, it would also be better for the buyer's sake, because they would not have to worry about getting a puppy that is sick or mentally sick, somehow. Like I said, I have to go, I am actually already running late, but I would like to thank my opponent, and thank the voters. Also, please give RFD's when voting. Thank you :)


Question: Should Net Neutrality Regulations Be Reinstated?

The US Government should not restore Net Neutrality.

In this debate, the Proponent argues that they should be deemed the winner because the Opposition has not presented a compelling case. However, my strategy is not to provide positive arguments for net neutrality but rather to undermine the Proponent's arguments by refuting their contentions, thereby demonstrating the benefits of not restoring net neutrality. If I succeed in this, the Proponent will not have met their burden of proof.

The Proponent has already outlined several arguments in favor of net neutrality, such as the prevention of broadband providers from blocking internet applications and content and the provision of equal treatment of all internet traffic. My goal is to refute these criticisms, thereby affirming the arguments for net neutrality by default. I do not need to provide my own positive arguments, as the Proponent has already done so.

Additionally, I have implicitly made arguments for net neutrality in other areas of the debate, such as the untrustworthiness of ISPs in regulating and controlling the internet. I will address the Proponent's arguments regarding the FCC, China's internet censorship, and the role of ISPs in blocking content.

1. FCC Transparency and Democracy:
   a. The Proponent claims the FCC is transparent and democratic, but this contradicts their later statement that net neutrality would concentrate decision-making in the hands of five commission members. This is not transparent or democratic.
   b. The Proponent argues that my solution is hypothetical and requires specific legislation. However, we are discussing net neutrality as a principle, and hypothetical scenarios should still be considered.
   c. The Proponent believes that the FCC's idea of 'fair' does not align with ours, but I am advocating for the FCC to act not only transparently but also highly democratically.

2. China's Censorship Parallels:
   a. The Proponent's argument is irrelevant, as even if net neutrality leads to censorship similar to China's, it is still a slippery slope argument.
   b. The Proponent misuses MacKinnon's article, which does not discuss net neutrality but rather the Stop Online Piracy Act.
   c. The Proponent has not responded to my argument that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared to the internet due to differences in information transmission.
   d. The Proponent's argument that the FCC may infringe on freedom of speech is merely a possibility, not a sufficient reason to reject net neutrality.

3. ISPs Blocking Content:
   a. The Proponent argues that ISPs should be

This will be my final argument, so I will try not to add new parts to the argument. "While you admit that regulation is needed to limit the negative impact of these corporations, it is my assertion that such corporations should be outlawed if their activities are known or proven to be deadly to individuals or the general public." If you look at the technicality of it, every single corporation that creates a product is deadly to the public or to the environment. We spray our food with pesticides and inject them with growth hormones, we drill oil and refine it, we put up nuclear power plants, we burn coal to power our cities, we release gas into the atmosphere from the cars we drive, etc. 90% of all human made products either were made in a non environmentally friendly way, or release things upon construction that harm the environment. What you claim would be something unimaginable. It would be even worse then Socialism. First, what you need to understand is that not everything we do helps the environment. Most things we do harm it. "This same food is sold unlabeled in the U.S. to unwitting and financially cornered individuals." This is a quite cynical thing to post. Products are made for the consumer, and the consumer wants cheap products. From what you write, I will guess that you do not understand the root of economics, so I will explain it to you. When supply is low, and demand is high, prices skyrocket. Since people cannot afford these products, the demand goes down, so does prices. To keep demand and supply at the same level, we use GMO's. These GMOs contain hormones that make it grow faster and larger and more resistant to pests. I find no harm in this. "At the heart of this debate is the question of whether the profits or profitability of corporations overshadows or overrides the safety or right to life and liberty of the general public." This is rather vague. In the U.S. and many nations in Europe, as well as Canada, Japan, and Australia, there are many regulations that defend the people vs the corporations. In nations such as China, there are not. You are stating that person-hood is bad, and that corporations do bad things in AMERICA, which they do not. We have health codes, and violating those codes gets you a hefty fine. We have a minimum wage, which I find stupid, but you have to pay all adults at least minimum wage. There is no such thing as "violating the right to life". You also said liberty. If anything, our government is violating our liberty. They are stating that we have to serve homosexuals even if our religious view conflicts with it, they are stating that we need to remove the Confederate flag, etc. Corporations have done nothing but fought for liberty. They value freedom of speech. You also argued against my freedom of religion example. Once again, it was an example. It was an analogy. I was comparing government and the American people with corporations and the American people. I do not believe in lee ways or tax exemptions. I believe in a truly free market. In true Capitalism. I believe that corporations cannot receive special treatment, nor can they be undervalued. People should not receive special treatment either, nor can they be undervalued. To tell you the truth, a multi-billion dollar corporation is more important to our country and our economy then some uneducated swine working at a factory. Corporate charters is a stupid concept. It states that you need permission to have a business. This is Socialism!!!!!! "If we are to be honest, the only reason for the world's dependence on oil is because the global elite have a vested interest in its continuance" Now you are just spouting nonsense. If we stopped using oil, our world would cease to exist. Need I remind you, without coal and oil there would have been no Industrial Revolution. We would still be using swords and rowing wooden ships. Without industry we would need extreme slavery. Without oil we have no plastic, we have no cars, we have no automated factories. Without plastic, we have no technology - no phones, no computers, no calculators, nothing. Without technology we have no advancement of our society. And a lack of societal advancement is prevalent in African and South American nations, and you can see that those nations are not doing exactly too good. Let me elaborate. Nations such as Colombia have extreme poverty and a large drug sector and human trafficking sector. Nations such as Liberia have extreme poverty, corruption, lack of funding, no education systems, no sewer systems, no modernized housing, etc. "While this may be partially true, corporation in the U.S. are mainly moving to avoid paying livable wages to employees in the states and to create tax shelters." This is true. They should not have to be forced into paying a certain amount of money. This goes against the free market. If I hire you, someone else does not get to dictate how much I pay you. It is inarguable that our economy now relies on skills and a good education. Minimum wage jobs are for high school kids so they can pay for food and save up for college. They are not so you can have a family of 4 and mooch off of our stupid welfare systems. Let me talk about tax shelters. The corporation pays a corporate tax, which in the U.S. is 35%. This means that ALL corporate income is taxed 35%. We have a higher tax rate in that sector then Canada, which is a deeply Socialist- oriented nation. The reason why China is outlasting our economy is because they now have more of a free market then we do. They have very low taxes, very little regulation, no minimum wage, etc. China does need a minimum wage, because so many of their people are poor. We do not. We have one of the highest standards of living, while 12% of the people in poverty live in China. The one thing that you have failed to do is to clarify what deadly activity actually is being done in the United States. Since you have not done that, I will do it for you, and then counter each one. 1. Nuclear power plants are a giant source of our power. As you know, these power plants are pollutants, but they do not release any Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. The only waste these produce is nuclear waste, which we then put into landfills far away from the public. Each power plant creates around 750 permanent jobs and 1400 temporary jobs. Illinois is one of the largest power consuming states. 80% of Illinois power comes from nuclear plants. We have 6 power plants in Illinois, which is approximately 4500 permanent jobs and 8400 temporary jobs. [1] 2. Unsafe working conditions. If you have ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, you will see how people used to work. Now they do not. Those same conditions are prevalent in China. We have extreme restrictions on how people can work and the conditions they work in. For example, there has to be fire exits in every single factory. Everyone is given protective gear if the job requires it. There are gloves and sanitation stations in factories to make sure that people are clean and the product remains clean as well. There is paid sick leave. There is medical insurance that you are given. If you lose a finger on the job, you can be granted a large amount of money, depending on the finger.[2] 3. Politics. This is where it gets very specific. There are lobbyists that sit around trying to get our government to give tax breaks and so on. This should not happen, and I agree with you on that part, but for a different reason. You need to look at how much money it costs to keep a business running. Firstly, a third of you money is taken away, so that is lots of profits lost. Second, you have to pay wages and medical and so on. Thirdly, you have to pay people that make the parts that you need to make your product. For example, a technology company such as Sony will need to pay AMD or Intel for the processors, NVIDIA or AMD for the graphics cards, different companies for the RAM sticks, hard drive, and then they get the case and assemble it all together. They just lose out on a lot of profits. I do not believe in tax breaks, I just think there shouldn't be a tax in the first place. We need to lower spending, get a much better budget, and then we can afford to lower corporate taxes to around 15% at most. If you believe so firmly that companies who endanger people and the environment should be demolished, then why do you spend money on electricity, gas, a computer, or any other factory made or naturally extracted products? Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.injuryclaimcoach.com...

In an effort to maintain a fair and equal debate, I will forgo this round, and we will (should) move directly into rebuttals in the final round. See comments.

*This debate should go for three (arguments) rounds. *No new arguments should be placed in the third and fourth round. *Limited to personal view only. Opponent should not have sources or ideas from any sites.

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.

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.

i am arguing that the NSA should not be spying on anybody and you are arguing that spying on us citizens and the allies of the us is a good thing. hope that clarifies it a little bit. i dont think the NSA should be storing our phone calls, emails, texts, and everything else we do on the internet because it infringes on our freedom. the founding fathers never would have wanted this. benjamin franklin once said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." i agree with him completely. the government tells us that if your not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about but i dont trust this government. this is the same government that sent guns to the mexican drug cartels so why would they store all this information in a massive data base if they have no intention of using it? thomas jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." but today its more like life, security, and the pursuit of happiness. when obama was running for president he was against the patriot act but now he expands the patriot act. with the NSA we spy on our allies. we have been doing it since the bush years. we stored the german chancellor angela markals or whatever here name and position is phone calls and emails and everything she does on the internet as well. is that really good for our relationship with germany? shes not the only one we spy on either so its not really good for any of our foreign relations.

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......)

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.

Unfortunately, my opponent (the negation/con) has not given any points or a case at all in this debate for the affirmative to refute. Therefore my opponent has no case to build upon. I would still like to encourage my opponent to post a refutation in this round of my case to at least keep this debate going, and then I would like to still end with a rebuild and summary statements in the fourth round. But, because my opponent has no case or points while the affirmative/pro has given points to this resolution, I urge you to vote in affirmation/pro of this debate. I am also looking forward to the negation/con's refutations within this round.

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.


Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

The US Government should not restore Net Neutrality.

In this debate, I will refute the arguments presented by the opposition regarding the restoration of Net Neutrality. The claim that Net Neutrality results in a less open internet is flawed and lacks evidence. The opposition assumes that an open internet is more desirable than a closed one, without providing any justification. Personally, I agree that an open internet is preferable, but I will challenge the contentions made against Net Neutrality.

Freedom of Speech: The opposition argues that Net Neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. However, they fail to provide solid evidence or reasoning to support this claim. They assert that the FCC is against freedom of speech, but this is a bare assertion without any substantiation. Furthermore, enforcing Net Neutrality laws does not give the government more control over the internet. The FCC's intention is to regulate how telecommunication industries operate their internet services, not to control the content available to us. The slippery slope argument comparing the US to China's internet censorship is flawed. China's regulation of telecommunication industries leads to censorship, but Net Neutrality regulation in the US only regulates how ISPs transfer information on the internet. The US and China cannot be compared due to their different socio-political situations. The US government has less incentive to censor the internet and restrict freedom of speech, and citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy.

Net Neutrality and Competition: The opposition argues that Comcast's blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified. However, proponents of Net Neutrality do not use this as a reason to promote it. Instead, it serves as an example of why ISPs cannot be trusted to regulate the internet. The opposition cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast blocked pirated content. In reality, Comcast blocked BitTorrent traffic in general, which has legitimate uses such as downloading game updates and accessing the Internet Archive. The opposition fails to show that it is the prerogative of ISPs to block illegal content. The primary role of ISPs is to provide internet access, and they should not control what their clients do on the internet.

Innovation: The opposition claims that different internet content should not be treated equally because they are not equal in importance. However, the importance of content is subjective and varies from person to person. The opposition also makes a logical leap from a descriptive statement about content differences to a normative statement about unequal treatment without providing justification.

Network Congestion: The opposition uses an analogy of a household to argue that rejecting Net Ne

I once again apoligize for not being able to argue this round due to continous issues with my internet provider (Cox). I want to ask that no one votes in this debate, rather when my issue is resolved I'll challenge Pro to a final argument which can be voted on.

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...

Unfortunately, my opponent (the negation/con) has not given any points or a case at all in this debate for the affirmative to refute. Therefore my opponent has no case to build upon. I would still like to encourage my opponent to post a refutation in this round of my case to at least keep this debate going, and then I would like to still end with a rebuild and summary statements in the fourth round. But, because my opponent has no case or points while the affirmative/pro has given points to this resolution, I urge you to vote in affirmation/pro of this debate. I am also looking forward to the negation/con's refutations within this round.

Due to unforseen circumstances I will not be able to continue this debate. When im off restriction i hope we may resume. I should be able to re do this debate in 10 days. I hope we may continue tyhis once my restriction is lifted

We can argue both. I ask my opponent to slow down with this debate (putting out his argument within the last day)as I don't have Internet connection and will try to respond as fast as possible.

To conclude, I would like to say my opponent did make great points, but has failed to truly examine, isn't there another way? To be a truly equal society, there are other ways than Affirmative Action based on race, can't we have it on a more equal status, like a color-blind society should. Just to point out: Asians have to deal with Affirmative Action as discriminatory as well, not just whites. In the future, I do hope that the case that was against Michigan, will truly be the status of the whole nation. May the 14th Amendement mean something, instead of just being a written piece of paper. Where it clearly states: "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Know some may say it is necessary to give boosts to previously discriminated races, to that I say we are all individuals, we think like individuals not races. If someone says they are proud to be white, they're called a racist; if someone says I'm proud to be black they get ACLU backing them up, is this not discrimination? I assume my opponent is a black-sympathizer. Blacks are also 30% in prisons, there's no Affirmative Action there, they break the most laws and all you care about is, no it's a poverty issue, to that I say: even Jesus was poor. (I'm not a Christian.). My opponent is clearly one-sided on this issue. Thank you very much, for debating and I would appreciate the voters for reading my side of the argument and to truly honor Martin Luther King Jr Dream. As a color-blind society. May he truly rest in peace, because I know as with the liberals, he can't truly rest in peace because of reverse discrimination. I appreciate you all, thank you and hope you all vote with a truly open-mind.

My phone is the only way i can be on the internet at the moment and I have lost every bit of information I had and typed. I unfortunately have to forfeit until I have access to a computer but I will type everything again and more in the next round.

i invite anybody who is for the NSA spying to debate me on this topic. round 2 will be opening statements and round 3-4 will be rebuttal and round 5 will be closing arguments. alot of people here do voting based on grammer but this is the internet so im not going to use proper grammer and i ask, please dont vote based on grammer and stuff like that.

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


Question: Should Net Neutrality Regulations Be Reinstated?

The internet should function under the principles of net neutrality. Adopting a neutral position can be seen as an implicit acknowledgment of the message's legitimacy, making it worthy of consideration. Holocaust denial does not merit attention, even if debating it leads to a resounding triumph for rationality and truth. Moreover, Holocaust deniers are not swayed by logic or evidence. Their convictions are immune to facts, rendering debate futile except as a means to amplify their message, mobilize their ranks, and legitimize their presence in the arena of public discourse. However, the issue at hand is not about censorship but about ensuring equal access to all internet content without discrimination by service providers.

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 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.

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.

I appologize for the long delay in responding. I have been extremely ill due to too infections and havent been able to do much besides lie awake in bed. I thank my opponent for his kind words. The debate has been fun, and a great engagementSince I am still fairly sick, and since this is the concluding round, I will do an overview, with some extensions at the end. All around very brief. OverviewJudges, the reason you are voting for the affirmative is because the concessions, not only unintentional(IE via omission) but also intentional (what was recognized as being dropped by the negation) have given the affirmative the only access to impacts and solvency in the round, and there is unanswered impact-offense against the negative. The negative begs for an esoteric ballot without any framework warranting the use of it in round, or as to what the advocacy of the neg does. First, look to my framework, where I say "1. Whomever can provide the most in terms of net-benefits should win the round, as that way there is little room lent for judge intervention and bias. " This goes conceeded. The negation conceeded that the round should be evaluated using net-benefits, ie real world impacts. Second, extend my impact analysis. The neg offers no impact defense, so you must assume that my impacts occur and occur with a high degree of likelyhood. Then look to the impacts themselves. I claim not only that my case prevents real world harm that is already occuring to a smaller degree from expanding, but also that the world the con constructs would make these problems worse. This impact offense goes conceeded, you must assume the negation side has negative implications for the world, and the affirmative also has a risk of solvency for problems.

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'll be your "Huckleberry". You're argument is flawed. And your topic, "The United States government should stay out of my online poker business", is completely short-sighted. My goal is, at the end of this debate, that you, and the judges, will agree with my contentions. I believe this first round is for salutations, so. .. "Greetings. .. .now, bring it on" Thanks for instigating the debate.

This website has some serious problems. In the debate https://www. Debate. Org/debates/We-need-bigger-government/1/, The voting period began on March 7, 2019. Five days later an email went out saying an "argument was due" (after the debate ended? ). Also in that debate CON's argument was lost in round 2/. Here is a comment made. . . . "I am CON. Again I posted my reply. . . The timer reset to 3 days. . . My argument again did not appear. . . ~! " and then "Finally. . . . My argue has been posted. Thank you. ". Then later that argument disappeared! There was a similar problem in the debate. . Https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Trump-is-a-bad-president/3/. Here is the comment "Where is my round 4 argument. It was posted, Accepted, And now gone. " These glitches are affecting these debates. They must be fixed. Also these "glitched" debates must be "set aside" until these issues are fixed.

In an effort to maintain a fair and equal debate, I will forgo this round, and we will (should) move directly into rebuttals in the final round. See comments.

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

Thanks for a great debate! My opponent has offered a shocking amount of apologism and defense for a system that is corrupt to the core and has no business wielding the power that it does. I am astounded that after all this evidence showing that an external body has the willpower to do whatever they wish with the nation’s money, creating debt and instability along the way while they rob the middle class with income tax, my opponent still sticks up for the Fed as a benevolent institution that acts in the best interest of the country. I’ll start out by rebutting many of his arguments presented last round. Even though it was ruled to not be a government agency, the Fed is "..... a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect 2/3 of each Bank's 9 member board of directors…The Fed is not privately owned by malicious filthy rich bankers liek the Pro is trying to suggest” Isn’t that what the facts you just presented point to? Just because they don’t physically own it doesn’t mean that the bankers don’t exercise a significant amount of control over the day-to-day affairs of the Fed banks. Plus, these are “stockholding banks”, which essentially amounts to combined ownership by the commercial banks. The main point I make by bringing up the Lewis case is to demonstrate that the Fed is most definitely an unregulated agency, unlike what Con tried to suggest earlier. This complete lack of regulation lends itself to the stockholding banks having relatively unrestrained power to enact whatever policies they wish. The commercial banks have the power to elect the majority of each Fed branch’s board members. Common sense dictates that the banks will naturally select individuals who will serve the bank’s self-interest, which is usually at odds with what benefits the general citizenry. On the topic of regulation, I’ll bring up a glaring inaccuracy in one of my opponent’s points. He states that “Congress has the power to coin money and determine its value, the Fed does this for them because it is their job assigned to them by Congress.” First off, our money has no value since we have a paper currency backed by nothing. In the days of the gold standard, a dollar was 1/20 of a gold ounce, which is not the case anymore. Also, “coin” essentially means “print” in today’s system, which is the sole power of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, Congress has none of these powers. My opponent is trying to contend that Congress still technically has these powers just because they have delegated the responsibility to the Fed. If the Fed had some degree of regulation by Congress, then this argument might be valid. However, as the Lewis case determined, the Fed is so independent that it cannot be considered a federal agency. If Congress were to allow individual states to declare war (a power of Congress outlined in A1 S8) without having any say at all in the process, this would indeed be unconstitutional. The same principle applies to the Fed. Also, Con claims that I am trying to unfairly use the Great Depression to “prove him wrong” about the pre-Fed era panics. If he recalls, he stated in Round 2, “Imagine the bank closures of the great Depression happening once every ten years and that was what it was like prior to the Fed's creation.” I merely proved that this was a patently false claim with bank failure statistics. Indeed, none of the panics before the Fed ever approached the conditions of the Great Depression’s 5,000 failures, which occurred under the Fed after it had been solidly established. “The Con is trying to argue how the Fed was the sole cause of the Great Depression which is a glorified lie if Ive ever seen one…there are many other causes of the Great Depression…” So the opinion of a Nobel-prize winning economist (Friedman) is just a glorified lie? Plus, I never said it caused the Great Depression to initiate. I realize that all the factors you listed caused it to initiate. The Fed had nothing to do with it starting up. Friedman’s contention is that the Great Depression would have just been the Panic of 1929 if the Fed hadn’t made some poor monetary policy decisions that did nothing to control the rapid contraction of the money supply from bank failures. In other words, without the Fed’s existence, private clearinghouses could have done what the Fed didn’t do, and the worst economic depression in US history would have been much more mild like the panics before the Fed’s creation. Chairman Bernanke himself has accepted this explanation. The Great Depression disproves the notion that with the Fed in place, the US will automatically see more economic stability. We had the worst-ever crisis under the Fed’s existence, and are currently in the midst of a crisis that could surpass it. I also find it astounding that my opponent finds no objection to the immoral and secretive actions of the Fed. Not being able to question economic policy is something that fascist societies have possessed, but not the US. After all, the Fed’s decisions affect all of us. Why is it justified for them to have absolutely no transparency and accountability to the American people, under the guise that secrecy is necessary for them? Secondly, the massive conflicts of interest that I mentioned are clear examples of cronyism that were meant to help out Wall Street while Main Street suffered. To put the $16 trillion the Fed loaned out into perspective, that amount is more that the US total GDP during the previous year. For them to create all this money to bail out banks that had made bad decisions in lending is definitively wrong, due to the MASSIVE debt created by printing an amount of money that exceeds the GDP. There were alternative solutions, but the bankers who had so much willpower in the Fed didn’t want these solutions since they wouldn’t benefit them. Finally, the audit that I mentioned revealed vast amounts of AMERICAN MONEY being lent out to EUROPEAN banks. They have their own central bank: why should the US be put into debt in order to bail out banks that aren’t even in the US? Glaring injustices were revealed by this audit that the Fed didn’t want. Unfortunately for them, it has exposed their cronyism and unchecked power, aspects that only end up benefitting the elite bankers and CEOs on Wall Street. Regarding the interest rate graph, I never said that an increase in interest rates automatically leads to immediate depression. The graph does show a clear trend of major interest rate hikes leading to depression; sometimes the depression was just delayed slightly. Let it be noted that my opponent dropped the income tax argument. It seems that he has accepted that this gorging of hardworking Americans’ incomes goes only to serve a central bank that is infiltrated with banking interests rather than a prerogative to preserve economic stability. He also says that eliminating the Fed would force us to borrow even more money. This is unjustified and incorrect. If the Treasury were able to print interest-free US notes that belong to the US government, the debt could be paid off quite easily. Compare this to using the current system under the Fed, where the govt. must go into further debt every time it needs money. There are no positives to a system that facilitates oppressive income tax and a debt that is becoming mathematically impossible to pay off. Many cannot imagine life without the Fed, but there are numerous alternatives to ending its corruptive domination of the economic policy. Think about it: people could keep a larger percentage of their income, the government could pay off the national debt with interest-free currency, and the corrupt bankers of Wall Street would not have a stranglehold on monetary policy. We wouldn’t be free from economic cycles (this is a natural part of a true free-market society), but ending the Fed would not be the end of the world: it would merely be the end of mutant capitalism that has festered since its establishment.