Universities that are caught stealing software should be excluded from Cork 2008/2009 world's debate

In this final round, I am going to rebut the opposition's case, point out the major clashes in the debate, and then reaffirm the government's case. 1ST, Rebuttal: The opposition is doing one of two things in this debate. Either they are not reading what the government has written, or they are intentionally trying to misrepresent/misinform. This is a common tactic for the losing side. When they realize that there is no hope they try to muddle things up in the hopes of confusing people. Another tactic that the opposition has decided to use is "cutting and pasting" most of what the government has written, in an attempt to make their selves look more substantiated; but in fact, 70% of the opposition's second round came from "cutting and pasting" the governments words! This shows that the opposition is out of words, so they need to cut and paste from the government! 2ND, Rebuttal: Moving along, the opposition tries to falsely convince the reader that the people who are perpetuating the software theft, at the university, will not be punished by the government's proposal, but this is found to be lacking any type of logical analysis. If the same people, who are using pirated software, are also the ones paying for the debate club's expenses, and who will also be the ones to benefit from the association with such a prestigious event, such as the Cork Worlds 2009, then they will in fact suffer a blow to their reputation. Why does a university agree to fully finance a debate club in the first place? Is it because they have nothing better to do with the money? They send students to compete in order to garner more respect/prestige/bragging rights!! If they are banned from this competition, there will be no prestige! There will be no respect! There will be no bragging rights! 3RD, Rebuttal: Where is the opposition's proposal? They are attacking the government, but they don't provide any details on how they would deal with the continued use of stolen software. They say that they would fire and fine the guilty people, but as the government has shown, that is near impossible to accomplish in different parts of the world. The opposition's proposal of firing and fining, would only work in countries that have very little corruption. Not only that, but how does the opposition deal with the perpetrators when they are the ones in a position to ask questions, and fire people? The opposition has no idea how to fix the problem! 4Th, Rebuttal: The opposition misrepresented the government when they said "governments of some third world and developing countries steal software and are not held responsible." The government has never implied, directly or indirectly, that a third world government is stealing software, and the opposition goes onto say that an embargo from another country would be a better stance to take. How can the opposition claim that group-punishment will not work on a university, but then turn around and claim that it would work on the entire country, in terms of an embargo? This is a major contradiction from the opposition's side. The suggestion, from the opposition, that a country-to-country embargo would be a way to "properly resolve the issue," shows how completely out of touch they are. 5th, Rebuttal: How many students will actually suffer? The opposition claims that the entire student body will be punished, but this is 100% false. In order to make that assertion, it would have to be obvious that they all participated in debate, which they don't. If only 10 students participate in debate and will be going to Cork World's 2009, and the university has 10,000 students total, then how is it that the other 9,990 will suffer? The opposition has failed, miserably, to prove the damage done to the remaining student body. 6th, Rebuttal: The opposition fails to address the economic impact raised by the government. The government's position that students will follow the actions of their university and procure pirated software, which leads to economic loss for the manufacturers, must stand. It will be too late for the opposition to deal with the economic point in their whip reply. It should have come from the Leader of Opposition, or at the very least, the Deputy leader of opposition. 1st, Clash Point: Changing behavior The first clash in this debate is about whether or not sanctioning/isolating a group would be more affective at changing behavior. The government has shown from the very beginning that some countries are unreliable when it comes to holding people responsible. Isolating the university from a prestigious event would be a way to send the message that you cannot act with impunity. The opposition wants to fire the people who did it. That's a great idea for half of the world, what about the other half? Maybe the opposition would impose a country-to-country embargo just to stop one university? I can see the headlines now "The United Kingdom has decided to stop all trade, and will begin patrols effective immediately." The idea of group-punishment is as old, as time its self. It is used in the foreign policy of all UN Security Council members, and it is used by most militaries around the world. Isolating/sanctioning has worked in Libya and North Korea, just to name a few. This Clash Point clearly goes to the government! 2nd, Clash Point: Good for the many, or good for the few? The government has been saying that it is necessary to punish a few innocent people in order to achieve their ultimate goal. Yes it is sad that the innocence must pay a price, but that is life. Every time there is war, innocent people die. You can call it bad luck, collateral damage, bad intelligence, bad-Karma, whatever. There is no way of getting around it. In the opposition's perfect little world, they could just go around and arrest people, but the rest of us live in a place called reality. In reality, ugly things are sometimes necessary. In the government's case, nobody dies or gets hit with a phosphorous grenade; they are just prevented from attending a prestigious event. The world's debate is only one competition. There are plenty of other competitions that the university can still attend. The point that the government is trying to make is that the World's Debate is the MOST PRESTIGIOUS event of its kind, and being prevented from attending it would cause the people who are financing the debate club, stealing the software, and running the university, to reassess their behavior. It will send the message that you cannot act with impunity! For these reasons the second clash point goes to the government! Recap of debate: The government wants to use isolation as a way to change inappropriate behavior. The government has shown that it works at a global level. The government has also shown that the good of the many out-weighs the suffering of the few. The opposition wants to arrest everyone, and in places where they can't arrest anyone, they want to impose a country-to-country embargo that would destroy lives and cause people to go hungry! For all of the above, the government absolutely crushes the opposition!! There should be a 6 to 8 point margin in favor of the government. Peace out