The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

Even if the gestures do count, you as the audience have to take into account my opponent's original plan of action and that it is through a government agency. Substantially increasing investment in the National Broadcast Plan won't be perceived as an attempt by the government to solve racism or for humanitarian purposes. Rather, it will be perceived (like other governmental actions) as an act of pragmatism. You have once again conceded my point B that it doesnt make sense that a governmental investment would knock down any barriers that prevented minorities to "voice their opinions". Even if you are right that government action in this instance is for the purpose of eradication, you forget that there are two parts of the perception. You (as the policymaker) might think that it is an obvious connection to make between increasing broadband and erasing racism, but the victims of the racism could simply see it as another act to increase communications/technology and not connecting it to racism at all. You have still not provided as solid reason on HOW increasing broadband cures racism. Even if you are right in saying that "the gesture is what truly counts", gestures don't solve racism, practical plans of action do. That being said, remember you're conceded subpoints C and D still stand strong that it deosn't make sense that using broadband solves racism. You have also completely conceded my second contention that funding for this seems non existent because in the eyes of Congress and the FCC, "solving for racist ideals" isnt exactly a prioritized action of pragmatism. Contention 3: cross apply from above that you have started to defend that a "gesture" would act as a cure, but in reality that is not true (see above for details). Take a closer look at your Amajor evidence, there isn't a specific line in that article stating racism roots from T.V. and radios. Crime+minorities=doesnt necessarily equate in racism. Virilio: Just because your evidence doesnt outline steps to a nuclear war via broadband increase doesnt mean that I don't link to your argument. Remember that any act of increasing technology for the purpose of making it faster/stronger/efficient is a reason as to why it will proliferate into the integral accident via the "pure war" status that we are in. Also extend the fact that in this specific instance, increasing broadband speed/availability will only make military satellite tracking faster, uav's faster/more efficient, and military communications better. This will inevitably lead to the great accident because as we make our military/weapons more efficient/faster, humans will be taken out of the equation in war/nuclear response threats. The great accident is one that a machine reacts so fast, that it doesnt consider moral consequences/body counts, that it just does whatever is "statistically correct". My opponent as just started arguing that racism is a more significant issue than death based on the justification that "many people would rather loose their lives than live in a society where they are persecuted and hated upon simply because the color of their skin or their ancestors heritage. Death is final and absolute, where as persecution will continue until something is done" However he ignores the fact even if "death is final and absolute", one person is not the only person who can die. What if your father or you mother died. Isn't that "final and absolute" and you have to live with that the rest of your life? He tries to go for a more "value to life" impact as opposed to my utilitarianism framework but the integral accident can access both frameworks. Remember that machines will eventually put us out of the equation because they are so much faster/powerful than us. The reason why racism is bad is because it causes subjugation and the perception of superiority over someone else. How is a world in which we are subjugated under technology any different. This being said, cross apply from above that broadband doesnt really solve for racism which means that you aren't going to grant my opponent a solid claim to racism. However, in the event that you do grant him this (for some reason) and grant me my machine subjugation claim, we are then considered equal in analysis in the "value to life" debate but my opponent doesnt have a solid extinction level scenario he can solve for which means you default to con. Remember that even if all his claims on racism are true, broadband simply won't be able to solve for it. Con 4 Life