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

Contention I.On the books and articles my opponent cites without summary as alleged proof of his arguments, I would disagree that it is the responsibility of the Con to read them on his own and that Pro has no responsibility to at least summarize the arguments he is using. The point of a source is to corroborate the debater's argument, not serve solely as their argument. Obviously we do not allow arguments to be posted which only contain a link to an argument written by someone else on a third party website. If we did then there would be no reason to actually present one's own argument. Even if my opponent is basing his argument off of the articles and books cited, this does not excuse the fact that he did not actually say anything about them himself, a clear violation of basic conduct and etiquette.Ignoring this point however, my opponent has himself admitted that the idea that giving minorities increased access to Internet would lead to them setting up their own Tv and radio is "far fetched". And he rightly says this. For my opponent has not shown any reason why minorities would use increased Internet to do these things anymore than they would use increased Internet to watch Netflix, surf Wikipedia, or do any other seemingly infinite number of Internet related activities.Besides this however, my opponent has also made another unwarranted claim in his R2. My opponent claims that "we as an American people, have the moral obligation to help those who feel as though they are being excluded from society". Of course my opponent shows no reason why (A) moral obligations even exist and (B) why they exist in this sense. Seeing as my opponent has not done so he has not upheld his burden as Pro and instigator of this debate. This takes the debate into a more philosophical direction and my opponent has not upheld his burden to show sufficient obligation.Contention II.On my opponent providing sources of evidence as arguments in themselves without actually making an argument by himself, I refer my opponent to my refutation of this viewpoint in my refutation of Contention I. Secondly, the rest of my opponent's case is mostly ambiguous (referring again to his idea that providing a link is the same as providing an argument. Also remember that my opponent never attempted to refute my point that simply providing more of a voice doesn't guarantee an end to racism. All it does is allow for a platform filled with more potential racists. Conclusion.To conclude this debate, the main problem with my opponent's case is that he never actually attempts to explain or argue the specific contents of his plan, but instead simply provides links which are supposed to do so. My opponent fails to understand that in argument, throwing up a source is not by itself sufficient to prove a point. If it were I would simply post a link to an article refuting my opponent's case with him following in suit and no actual argumentation unique to both of us would ensue. Besides this, even if my opponent's arguments sourced (but not elaborated on) were not a violation of debate etiquette, they are insufficient to actually justify the resolution. For my opponent never responded to my point that the NBP doesn't necessarily give minorities an actual voice in Tv or radio (my opponent himself admitted this to be a long shot) and even if it did, that doesn't actually provide a genuine plan to stop racism. All it does is give racists who are also minorities a platform to spread their hate. Stopping racism has to do with education, not giving everyone a microphone.