Controlling the Media is Necessary to Win and Prevent Wars (5 rounds)

I disagree with the dropping of the vietnam argument. It does not seem to be controversial to me, nobody has yet commented on this debate, and he has given no warrants. I think that just because I was able to give a very detailed and warrants that weren't just my personal analytics, that it should be dropped. His only reason is that it will distract from the true subject at hand, but I disagree. It is VERY adherent to the topic: is controlling the media necessary to win and prevent wars? My position is no and I have clearly linked Vietnam to the topic in the previous two rounds. My opponent then says that I have not provided any examples to support the CON's side. This is both true and untrue: Although it is true that I have not provided any examples of any other wars, I have used the examples he has provided and turned them to work for my position. This already turns the argument against him; if his examples are working for me then he has no examples, and if he's trying to use the argument that no examples = no vote, then you already have no reason to vote PRO. Regardless of that however, I do not need to provide any examples of my own. The burden of proof is on the affirmative to show that controlling the media is necessary to win and prevent wars, not on the negative to show that it is unnecessary. He has not done that yet, so the CON is already winning. "the response is that controlling the media is immoral and wrong. but why, i have argued with examples that controlling the media is a necessary component to winning wars. "(R4-Pro) I have explained on two levels why it is wrong, if not, impossible to vote PRO on this topic. The second level I talked about in R2, where I talk about a term in the resolution - "necessary". I explain that we cannot know if an action in a war was or wasn't necessary until the war has ended, as you cannot weigh the "more pro's than con's" meta-burden he attempted to place on me. I give an alternative way of weighing the debate: The effects on the people at hand at that time. Then I further extrapolated that the people are the only way to determine if a war is necessary or not, and if you affirm, you cannot weigh anything. The first level goes summarizes the argument I have presented, in portions of JFK's speeech I have cut out. He asks "but why", well, I have already done so. "i have given my examples how the Media was not controlled, when it was and when it was not. " He has not. For WW2, I have been waiting for HIS response since R2: I asked him to provide evidence to support his claim. Since he has not, his "example" is nothing more than an assertion. For the S-A war, I wrote, verbatim, "the governments of Spain and America themselves did not know what caused the war, and because of that the media is free to speculate. " Also, we did not control the media during the S-A war. .. . and whaddya know, we won that war! This example HE provided already kills his position, because this proves that it is NOT necessary to control the media to prevent wars, one of the two burdens BOTH of which he must achieve in order for you to vote PRO. "once again i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient evidence to state that when the media was controlled wars were lost, when the Media was not controlled unnecessary wars were not started. " Contrary to what he wants you to believe, his arguments on what my burden is has changed constantly: "i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient argument that if the Media is given free reign it will report accurately and relatively to the actual events to inform and not to just make money in times of war. " (R3-Pro) "i will admit defeat if you can provide examples where the power of the media was used for the greater good and not for the gain of profit in times of war. " (R2-Pro) I have refuted the R2 burden by saying that we can't weigh "greater good" until everything is over (an argument I've had since R2), and I have shown that the R3 burden is fallacious because all I have to do is prove that it is unnecessary to control the media. For this NEW burden he has just place upon me, it is also false. Again, I have no burden but to show that the PRO does not reach their burden, because in this debate he has the burden of proof. He has yet to achieve that. He gives me two prongs in the R4 burden, and I have already achieved one of them: We controlled the media during Vietnam, saying that the overwhelming majority of people there wanted democracy when they actually would vote Communist, and we LOST. The other one is easy and simple: We don't control the media today; we evaded war with North Korea. I'm winning, thank you very much. "the argument that controlling the media is immoral is hopeless. is not war immoral in itself? i agree that controlling the media is immoral. but i am arguing that it is a necessary part of winning wars. " He agrees that controlling the media is immoral, and that already proves the NEG/CON side true. He then talks about war, and I say that the value he supposedly accepted early on in this debate, security/saving lives, ("generally national/international security involves saving lives. " (R2-Pro)), is something he does NOT achieve, since he wants to win wars. War kills people. He already fails to achieve it. It doesn't matter if the value links to the topic or not; he accepted it and he's losing. His final arg is that controlling the media is a necessary part of winning wars. I have already disproved that.