The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.

"Small chunks of arguments were taken." No. My quotation only serves to orient the reader to the relevant paragraph. If a reader wants to read the whole paragraph they can in your round. It doesn't serve my needs to undercut my character count by spamming your statements. "This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart." No. It's how I debate. Fallacies are called out for the fallacies they are. "had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument" You defined it round R1. Your definition was not 'all concerns I have about the Internet ever' - Your definition dealt with data transfer, "send and receive". I expounded the relevance of that, you never challenged that at all. The resolution includes USG, that means the FCC and what the FCC talks about in regards to net neutrality. I provided numerous sources that detailed what net neutrality actually is, especially as it relates to the FCC, and constitutional law. It is not my problem that you are apparently largely unaware of what net neutrality advocates actually propose. You are the one that went tangential to the definition into a number of irrelevancies relating to net neutrality such as data mining profiles. The definition didn't allow it. The FCC proposals have nothing to do with the tangential arguments you made, nor do net neutrality advocates when they talk of net neutrality. It is an issue of preferencing data transmission over other data. I suggest you read the FCC report itself aka "the solution in search of the problem". Turning net neutrality amorphously into 'all concerns' as you appear want, simply destroys any definition being valid at all. The definition you gave was fully compliant with the arguments I made, and what the FCC proposal was and is. The issue is you attempting to extend it beyond the scope of net neutrality. It is, in the FCC's own words, that "discrimination" should be barred. That means, the inability of ISPs to freely offer preferential services, to be freely paid for by consumers. hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf "send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets." Despite denying what I claim, and despite attempting to utilise that definition otherwise, it's quite clear that what it *does* detail is prohibition of preferential treatment. As explained numerous times already, preferential treatment relates the content access of the data being transmitted, or in the FCC's words "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice ... to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network". It is exactly the proposal, as argued, that net neutrality seeks to deny the ability of ISPs to tailor bandwidth priority. Corollary to that (that's why it doesn't need to be spelt out), is the prohibition for an ISP to offer services that lead to differential treatment of data (see your definition again) in relation to bandwidth speed and services. It absurdly clear what the intent is, because the FCC attempted to prosecute Comcast for exactly doing that. To state that that is not net neutrality requires a gross equivocation. "In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument." False dichotomy. The issue you consistently ignored is that it is *private property* which means any technical formulations must *first* be reconciled within that framework. It does not make your argument valid simply because I didn't argue 'technology will X' - if you read R1 & R2 I addressed the tech arguments separately anyway, namely, the concerns of protocols and data transfer issues is one in which an unregulated Internet has dealt with since its inception. Nothing about a regulated Internet will change that, other than the availability of the FCC to invalidate new protocols as it would by necessity related back to differential data transfer. Unregulated, the Internet is free to have developers change, advance, advocate and try to implement whatever new protocol procedures they please. Under net neutrality, it's questionable. All it does is bring us back to the infamous quip "a solution in search of a problem". "The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved" Contradicts your prior assertions they are free to develop then doesn't it? Again nothing about an ISP or developers is enhanced by reducing the availability of data access. Again, consistently ignored. "ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises" No they don't. They can afford to do both. Charge for both. Companies require servers, no matter the size, which means ISPs charging differentiated rates. Under net neutrality proposals, servers can't be charged differential rates i.e., property violation. "will be in the hands of a handful of large companies" Equivocation. Data is transferred across property, that is what the Internet is. Nothing about net neutrality changes that unless you wish to argue full nationalisation, which you didn't. "The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information." False. It is a system of interconnected private property developed by largely open source procedures. Try using the Internet without any recourse to private property. "when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on" Contractual issues are contractual issues. Net neutrality doesn't change the nature of what a contract is. What it does is deny an ISP to tailor them in certain ways. Again, the data was being transmitted across their property. The bandwidth hog meant that prioritisation needed to occur no matter, it's not an infinite resource, so of course they chose the small % who were the ones using >50% of availability. "I point to the definition of net neutrality" Which is irrelevant to whether net neutrality will stifle the ability of profit motives. Which it will. I'm not sure what about preferential data transfer, which you refer to numerous times in regards to bittorrent, being disallowed, doesn't relate to net neutrality being about preferential data transfer. "is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs." Irrelevant. A user being able to preference one service over the other is no where near analogous to an ISP offering premium bandwidth services to that user. Just like deciding whether to post a letter today or tomorrow isn't analogous to having an express mail service available or not. "This is the motivation of companies." If this was the case we would see see a vastly different Internet experience than the one we do. Asserting your position with no real relation to how the Internet is run at all doesn't help. Hence "the solution in search of a problem". "You ignored the giant pipeline" What about "infrastructure" evaded you? "more profit" Profit from denying profit making exercises? "we must protect the Internet from being exploited." The Internet is not a "thing" in this sense. Violation of contract is related to contract law. "buying that package from the ISP" You pay for access to their lines to transmit/receive - not a portion of their lines in the form of property. Government violating property for another citizen's 'good' is arbitrary. The grounds to do so are not valid just by crying 'exploitation' - there is nothing exploitative about valid contracts between user and provider. All it is is an attempt to ignore that an ISP is private property, validly so, and that right to use private property, including mutual agreement to mutual benefit, exists.