Be It Resolved That The Goverment Should Nationalize the Internet.

My opponent certainly has a well thought out case, I think it would make Senator McCarthy proud. 1. There is an intense, putrid hypocricy in my opponent's argument that I hope everyone is reading into; without the internet, this debate would never take place. Or rather, without the internet, many debates would not be taking place. The internet is the world's larges town hall where anyone and everyone can participate in frank discussion. My opponent belittles this by saying that the internet is not 'needed', but I wonder how often has the requirement been in her life. Has she ever had a school assignment reliant on internet sources? Has she ever carried on a long distance relationship? Has she ever been in a teleconference? Has she ever donated to an online charity that builds schools in Uganda? I would be interested in the answer. It is for these social, political, educational, humanitarian and productivity reasons that the government should benefit the whole and not only nationalize, but -socialize- the internet. Not just take it over for the sake of its own being, but make it open the public for the sake of the public. 2. I would not only accuse the con side of being short sighted, but I can prove it! Herein, she contradicts herself in the span of two sentences; "When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars." It is quite evident that the debt, while unfortunate, is the evidence that the government is not in it for the profit, but for us. While I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more. One of the best ways to give the people more -and- reduce the debt over time is to socialize the internet and ensure an immediate social payoff and an eventual economic one. 3. My opponent here creates an a deplorable scarecrow from my argument. There is nothing wrong with profit; it can be a really great thing to keep our system going. However, should social security have a 59% profit margin? Should Medicare have a 59% profit margin? Should the food stamp program have a 59% profit margin? No! The internet is too important to our democracy and social order to be left to the fickleness of the market and corporate structure. Furthermore, my opponent says; "Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such." I will prove so right now; The top ten internet service providers in the United States own nearly 70% of the market. The top five own over 56%. Only 11 companies have over one million subscribers and most have no room to expand because they are purely local. Only 12 take at least 1% of the market share. This small group of companies provide internet to tens of millions of internet users, and they want you to pay more for it! By defeating network neutrality, this small groups wants to charge you more and restrict what sites you can go on. Who's to stop them? They have a stanglehold on the market. 4. My opponent's next fallacy is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next, which is flagrantly untrue. Perhaps if food in America cost double what it did in the rest of the country, was of vastly inferior quality and held us back in the world, I would advocate a nationalization of that industry. However, that is not necessary because we have a hugely competitive food market that gives our citizens high quality food for reasonable prices while still providing a profit to its shareholders. The ISPs would rather have half of America paying hand-over-fist for service than have everyone paying a reasonable price. 6. The government would never make uses pay per download because we have the tools at our disposal to stop them. If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple. As a conclusion, I have dropped -none- of Con's arguments. I have already established that the 'free' internet of our already underfunded libraries is inconvenient and the cost of the internet itself is burdening our libraries. Let's take another argument that I have apparently 'dropped' "Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools)" First, my opponent here agrees with me about the importance of the internet. My opponent doesn't understand that internet in the household is just as important as in businesses and schools as it is at home. Most people would rather, or have to, over-pay for internet than to not have it at all; this is not a decision that they should have to make. In closing, my opponent's case relies on the fact that people don't need internet. I ask that everyone think about their lives, then think about it without the internet. Thank you. ISP info; http://bi