Be It Resolved That The Goverment Should Nationalize the Internet.

1. I'll begin by responding to my opponent's proposed "putrid hypocrisy" of my argument. He says that since this debate is taking place on the internet, that the internet must be a right. I stand in firm negation of this absurd and fallacious assertion. Rights are something that you are born with. Access to high-speed internet is not one of them! Regardless of how useful the internet may be or how often we might use it, the internet is not a right. Period. My opponent's attempt at trying to make it appear so by appealing to its function is ridiculous. He says, "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. " Fortunately, we don't live in a Socialist nation. The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights. Because Pro has not and can not prove that having the internet is a right, this is an embarrassing argument on his behalf and one that most definitely belongs to the Con. Further, I'll prove for economic and political reasons throughout this discussion why Pro's proposal would not be a good idea. 2. Next, Pro writes, "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. " For now, I'll ignore the fact that Pro completely misused the terms 'short-sighted' and 'contradiction' because this is not an English class, though you'll note that nothing about that statement demonstrated short-sightedness or a contradiction of any kind. Nevertheless, I'll demonstrate how Pro is wrong in this regard. In fact, his statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here he is trying to prove that simply because we have a debt, that the government is obviously not trying to make money. However, what do you think taxes are to begin with? Here in Illinois, they are seeking to raise prices on things like soda. They've already jacked the prices on cigarettes and other things. Now why is the government taxing these items? To profit, to help relieve some of the debt. So, here you'll note that Pro didn't prove a thing. Also, Pro says, "I don't agree with the size of the debt, I think that the government is right to provide us with more. " He wants to give us more debt? Interesting. Additionally, "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. " Ladies and gentleman, you'll note that in absolutely no way, shape or form did Pro prove how socializing the internet will decrease our government debt! Moreover, Pro has failed to detail what this "economic pay off" will entail. Therefore he has earned no credibility what these points and again this argument should go to the Con. 3. My 3rd point was about Comcast profiting less than other businesses, and barely making enough to have shareholders invest in their stock. Instead of responding to this reality, Pro claimed that certain things (like medicare and food stamps) shouldn't have a profit margin to begin with. This draws upon the hasty generalization that programs like this should even exist, let alone profit. Also, Pro is saying that the internet is just as important as health care and food. Before I respond to this accordingly, Pro must prove that this is the case. Also, please cite your sources so I can respond to the bit about the alleged oligopoly from an economic stand point. 4. Pro continues, "She tries to instill fear by promising that the government will take over the entire economy next. .. " Lol this was after he said in R1 "Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk. .. " lol and implied that our freedom was being threatened. Anyway, no, I did not imply that the government would take over the economy. What I said was that our capitalistic nation calls for there to be no government socialization in any market that the people don't deem to be a right. .. and again, the internet is not one of them. 5. Pro ignored my 5th point regarding competition and investment. 6. Pro says, "If they hike our rates, we'll vote them out of office; simple. " Now there's the idea! Except think of it this way: If private companies do that to us, we'll ditch them (boycotts, switch providers, etc. ). Here comes the fundamental difference in our ideologies: "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. " I completely disagree. I'm out of characters for now, and will conclude all final arguments in the next round from a location with free wireless internet :)