Be It Resolved That The Goverment Should Nationalize the Internet.

I would like to congratulate my opponent on the excellent debate, but would ask her to kindly replace Ronald Reagan's corpse back to whence it came. 1. My opponent continues to ignore the fact that access to the internet is a right. Perhaps it is not found within the bill of rights itself, but I would argue that it is a national progression. For example, the citizen has the right to a fair trail by a jury of his peers, does he not? So, naturally, the government simply ensures that there are enough private corporations to allow the citizen to pay for his trial and receive some form of justice. Correct? No. The government, to ensure this liberty, owns and operates the means of trial by jury, also known as the American legal system. So given this, what rights are made accessible by the internet? Freedom of press? Certainly. Freedom of expression? Absolutely. Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to petition; all made accessible and more powerful by the internet. And these rights do not apply only to those with the money, but to everyone. It is abundantly clear that the government recognizes not just the right of the concept but also of its accessibility and facilitation. For my opponent to deny this is two-faced; she supports the idea, but not the practice. I will use her own quote in support of my case; "The ONLY things the government should socialize, if anything, are that which are deemed rights." 2. My opponent goes on to argue that taxes are proof of a profit motivation. This is inherently false, and I explain so only for her benefit, as most people can instantly see through this. We pay taxes for stuff. That's right, we give the government money so that it may bring back to us a utility. Furthermore, we are to understand that the utility is usually in some way enforcing and strengthening our rights and privileges as citizens. What better than to digitize our more sacred and cherished liberties? My opponent goes on to take my argument out of context, accusing me of wanting more debt even when I was obviously arguing the contrary. I proved, with mathematical certainty, that socializing the internet will provide us with income. If my opponent failed to read this, that is not my concern. I want more services and less debt, isn't that true of every citizen? Everyone except my opponent, that is, who seems to want nothing for her money. 3. My opponent's 'refutation' of my claims relies only on her already established, already proven fallacious and incorrect points. I have identified that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights, therefore it is a mechanism of the bill of rights and therefore not open to private enterprise. My opponent ignores this and tries to force my into arguing that the internet is more important food, which I have never stated. My argument is that the internet, just as food stamps and medicare, helps us to realize our enshrined rights as citizens. Furthermore, my opponent attacks me for not providing a source that I did provide. 5. My opponent's avocation for competition needs no refutation because I agree with it; I have already argued for competition between the government and the other providers. Because the government has no real interest in attracting new people, merely with providing the option, it need not become mobile in the market. Therefore, the other companies will have the opportunity to provide specialized, and maybe even better services for those who want to pay. By my opponent's logic, Wal-Mart should not be allowed because it kills competition, when in fact there is a fierce crowd of companies who are locally competing quite strongly with the corporate giant. 6. My opponent returns to harping about the nice idea of voting with the almighty dollar. However, she forgets that in this oligopoly, there is no hope for the consumer to effectuate real change because almost every single comerical ISP is out to screw you. They are steadily making you pay high rights, more often and for less services. Where else are you going to go? My argument boils down to this, my friends; the internet provides us access to so many rights so easily that it, in itself, is a right. Therefore, just like the government provides the utilities and due process to, say, protect against illegal search and seizure, the government should be giving to us the ability to realize the highest possible level of free speech and freedom of expression. While the economic and educational (which my opponent has not refuted) benefits are multi-fold, the government -must- socialize the internet for the sake of the rights that we are born with. Thank you.