The United States Federal Government should ban the sale or export of Microsoft products.

First off, I will clear up these "blips" I have created with unwarranted arguments. I will start with the corporate America "blip". . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://www.entrepreneur.com... . http://www.microsoft.com... These all show that buisness are growing more and more to rely on technology, and that without this technology, could not be as successful as they are, to link that to the case I will move on to my second "blip". You say that "that is doesn't matter if we destroy apple, and that new discourses will fill their void ". I asked you what companies would fill this void, to which i got no reply, on that note, I got no evidence for any of my presses, except for one broken link. Also I would like to make note that by destroying Apple and Microsoft, you will force countless companies to change there operating systems as they grow, which would be a huge cost, and would likely destroy the companies. You seem to have replied to all of my questions that "doesn't matter if we destroy apple, and that new discourses will fill their void -- non-homogeneous discourses. " and "getting rid of the giant allows for a plurality of discourses -- you COMPLETELY cold concede the Escobar alternative". I have not conceded the Escobar alternative, I have shown that it will not solve for problems, you also state that "This type of attack is only possible with a MASSIVE bot net" this furthers my point on the fact that if they can create that large, and effective of a bot, they can overcome the simple barrier of different operating systems. You also state that "Game over on solvency mitigation, the new discourses take the place of the old one", I don't know what "mitigation" is, but from what I have picked up, you believe that everyone who relies on Microsoft will simply be able to switch over to a new operating system, no questions asked, you don't consider the fact that when companies grow and buy new computers they cant have competently different operating systems, and need customer support for the systems that they do have, but all of that will be destroyed with the destruction of Microsoft, you also forget all of the government funding used to buy Microsoft products which we use in schools, do you expect we can change all of those over to a new operating system? Moving on to nuclear war, you state "the link between microsoft and nuke war is clear, just look at the first speech. I won't re-type all of it -- all the links are there. ", but in your first speech all you state about nuclear war is "e. The US Economy is key to the world economy; failure of the world economy leads to world war 3" and that isn't necessarily directly relevant to nuclear war, but you state that "because of this there is a 100 percent probability that the status quo will lead to nuclear war" you have NO EVIDENCE ON NUCLEAR WAR, I pressed for it, but you didn't bring it up. Moving on to your "voting issues" I will answer each individually and fully. 1. I control all the links to the harms -- they are probable. further, his case turns are extremely improbable and unwarranted -- he has to sever them. Just because you have links doesn't make you right, my analytical arguments have proven your arguments wrong, and what evidence you do have is either irrelevant, incomplete, or outdated. I have shown many harms in your case. Also, I don't have to sever my arguments, they are still directly relevant. 2. The case turns come too late, are unwarrnted, and fall per analysis in this speech I don't understand this, but I have stuck by my original arguments from previous speeches, which you had a chance to reply to. 3. I control the solvency debate with Escobar. You control solvency to the fact that a homogeneous network will destroy the infrastructure, but you don't prove it is actually a possibility, and you don't solve for the harms which are far more probable than the "problem" that you state. 4. I control timeframe -- it's now per Alexander. I don't understand. .. again, but I am assuming you are referring to the evidence you brought up by Alexander, which is only relevant to part, rather than all of the issues, and is only true, if in fact the infrastructure is in danger of a bot attack. 5. I control magnitude, his solvency takeouts don't even compare to the Nuke War impact You still HAVE NO EVIDENCE ON NUCLEAR WAR. I would normally NEVER, EVER critique anyone, but I would suggest that you don't claim victories until the votes are tallied, and the fat lady has sung, also, you shouldn't tell the other person how to debate, or what arguments to drop, because as I have shown, the arguments were relevant. I am not trying to insult you or your debating ability, but I too am a high school debater, and these are simply tips for debating out there in competition. Also, bring up all of the piece of evidence you quote, instead of bits and pieces, which may or may not have been taken out of context, then you can quote pieces afterwards, and check your links too.