BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government should ban the sale or export of Microsoft products.

Roadmap: obervation 1, 2, then 3 on observation I: 1. The article is still the only piece of evidence in the round regarding market saturation 2. Microsoft still controls a majority of the server and PC market -- even if that majority has declined. 3. Microsoft will continue to dominate the PC market, and this is critical per observation 2, which relies mainly on normal consumers. On observation 2: 1. The argument is that the bot bet destroys US infrastructure, which devastates our economy. the recession in the US then spreads throughout the world -- the US economy is key to the world economy. This threatens humanity, as economist Dr. Mead stated in 99. 2. Microsoft isn't key to the US infrastructure, nor cyber security. Furthermore, any mitigation of the harm of botnets by microsoft doesn't answer back market domination and homogenization. 3. The bots are able to spread so easily because of the homogeneous landscape of computing -- as I state in observation 3, allowing a plurality of discourses to share the market evenly solves best, because it deconstructs the market and destroys the homogenous landscape that is so potentially devistating. which takes us to observation 3: 1. destroying homogenization sends a message to companies: don't try it again or lose your wealth. This threat prevents re homogenization of the market by Apple or anyone else. 2. No warrant that destruction of microsoft -> destruction of apple. 3. Even if destruction of microsoft -> destruction of apple, it doesn't matter: new discourse will emerge, per Escobar. 4. the plan only kills microsoft: the supreme court can make no-precedence rulings, that is, their interpretation in a specific case doesn't set a precedent for future cases. But even if it does set precedence, that only proves long term solvency for the plan because it prevents rehomogenization of the market. 5. NOT destroying microsoft doesn't send a strong enough message. Underview: 1. All of the attacks are defense. Neg provides no offensive vote, no reason why plan passage would lead to a worse world. 2. No matter how unlikely, the harm of nuke war outweighs the harm of affirming the resolution, because there is no negative impact to affirming the resolution 3. when deciding who to vote for, you should assume the role of the Policy Maker, a member of congress, because the actor of the resolution is the United States Federal Government. 4. At the point at which you, as a policy maker, see the potential for nuke war if you negate the resolution, and no real harm in affirming it, you should vote affirmative.
The United States Federal Government should ban the sale or export of Microsoft products.

I will go over your arguments, in the order in which you posted them, starting with the idea that Microsoft controls the server market. First off, the article is from 2003, and the parts about 2007 are simply projections. Secondly, even if this was true, what harm does it do for them to control the market? I understand if there is only one company, which is having huge effects on the price of goods, and hurting the market, but I don't see what harm them controlling a majority of the market is doing. Your second piece of evidence stating that microsoft is a monopoly is from 1998, since then, APPL stock has risen nearly 200 points, showing that they are clearly growing, and taking back part of the market. I don't completely understand your second argument, because, if I am correct, you are stating that there are bots on the internet, and these bots will bring the demise of the world, starting with the US infrastructure, then US economy, then the world economy, this is completely foolish to assume that the destruction of the world's economy will be brought by bots. Also I would like to point out that these bots will exist regardless of if they do so on Microsoft, or Apple computers, and getting rid of Microsoft will not get rid of the bots, nor destroy there so called "ability" to destroy the US infrastructure. I would also like to make note, that if bots can in fact destroy the US infrastructure, the destruction of Microsoft would only be a catalyst to the problem, because Microsoft does a large amount of research which contributes to the destruction of these infrastructure destroying bots. I agree that monopolies should not be tolerated, but stopping the monopolies completely is not the way to control them, they should simply be restricted, where as your plan would completely destroy Microsoft, and probably Apple, because they would probably step up after Microsoft, then they would be destroyed, due to your plan.
The United States Federal Government should ban the sale or export of Microsoft products.

I. Microsoft is the Borg of computing a. Microsoft controls the server market http://www.news.com... b. Microsoft is a virtual monopoly -- they control 90% of the market. http://www.microsoft.com... II. Microsoft's market saturation threatens humanity a. Homogeneous systems fail because they are prone to viruses (Alteiri 1999) b. Viruses are used in bot nets http://arstechnica.com... c. Bot nets threaten infrastructure d. Infrastructure collapse threatens the country's economy e. The US Economy is key to the world economy; failure of the world economy leads to world war 3 (Mead, 99) III. Plan 1. Funding, Enforcement through normal means. Ask and I'll specify. 2. Mandates: Congress will ban exports of all products with microsoft code as well as any other operating system that has more than 50% market share at any point; the courts will rule that Microsoft is a Monopoly and ban the sale of any software with code that at one point belonged to Microsoft in the US. 3. fiat -- the resolution says should we only have to prove that the gov't should do this, not that congress or the courts will. IV. Let's defeat the Borg of computing a. de-developing the market allows a plurality of discourses to surface, including NIX based systems b. Nix based systems vary widely c. A plurality of discourses solves for homogeneous structures (Escobar)
The United States Federal Government should ban the sale or export of Microsoft products.

You state that the end of the infrastructure will come because of the fact that microsoft rules the market, and it is easy for bots to spread, I would like to see current evidence that the infrastructure of the United States is in danger of being destroyed because of bots. If this is true, the only explanation is that the infrastructure is to reliant on technology, and if that is the case, the destruction of Microsoft, and Apple (which I will discuss later) would do the same thing as bots destroying the infrastructure. Your whole case revolves around the fact that the infrastructure of the US will be destroyed leading to global problems, although I agree the infrastructure of the United States collapsing could lead to global problems, I don't, nor can I expect the judges, to believe that the end of our infrastructure will be brought around by bots, because of a monopoly. I would also like to note that to assume someone can make a bot capable of destroying our infrastructure, that but will only work on Microsoft products is completely foolish, if someone really wanted to take our time to bring our economy to an end by this means, and had the skills, and resources, I am sure that they would be able to do the same for any brand of technology. Moving on to the destruction of Apple, you state that Apple will no not to do what Microsoft did, but you don't consider the fact that they are currently the "Second Best" for lack of a better term, and the second that you destroy Microsoft, you will destroy Apple, unless you expect two other companies to rise up out of nowhere and take over at least 25% of the market, if so, I would like to see evidence that these companies exist, and are capable of doing this. You have stated that I have not given any harms to your plan, I would consider, destroying Microsoft a harm, since, after all, they do sell products to major Fortune 500 Companies, the government, individuals throughout the world, and apparently are now the only thing holding up the economy. So I would consider that a harm, and to expect all of these companies to change all of their operating systems is completely foolish, and could, bring the destruction of Corporate America. I would also like for you to clarify the link between Microsoft and nuclear war, and, again, I would like to see relevant, and current evidence. Regarding the evidence on Apple, I brought up evidence on the stock market, but I will give you exact numbers, since the ones I gave you don't seem to be good enough. September of 1998, the year, and month of your evidence, Apple stock was at 9.68, now, the cost is 184. There has clearly been an increase in Apple sales, showing that Microsoft may no longer be a monopoly. At the same time, Microsoft stock sold at 25, now it sells for about 35. Obviously there has been more growth in Apple than in Microsoft, showing that Microsoft may not be the monopoly. I would like to see all of the evidence which I pressed for above in your next speech, because some of your arguments are a little bit "extreme", and I honestly don't believe some of it.
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

List of people who can defeat superman--so? This list doesn't include Goku. Besides, Superman's cape has gotten in his way so many times he learned it's his weakness. However, I doubt Goku is smart enough to logically deduce that his cape is invincible, and even if he did, Superman would know about it and avoid getting captured by his own cape. Did I mention Superman can destroy a human's organ? Within his battle between this magician, he destroyed the source of the magic within the magician's brain just by using his heat vision! Although he barely uses this power, he could use it against Goku, overheating his already heated heart. Besides, how could Goku blow up the sun? I repeat, Goku is a fair man. He lets his opponents power up and doesn't take advantage of their weaknesses. As shown in the death battle video, he even helped Superman by destroying the Kryptonite. (Although the weakness was way overboard exaggerated) BTW your spelling STILL is horrible. No offense. I could barely read the last round!
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

You said it yourself "he has one year left to live". The battle would obviously take less than 365 days. -.-Within these 365 days, Superman can still gather enough energy from the sun to overpower even Goku's Super Saiyen level 4 state.As for Doomsday, Superman only got beaten because he was in the dark while battling his enemy, and they were practically equal in terms of strength, endurance, and agility. Because Superman was forced to store his energy, Doomsday simply wore him down. The storylines in the Superman family of comics that follow the Death of Superman story tells us that "Superman wasn't actually killed during this battle, but nearly was. Thanks to the Eradicator placing his body in a chamber that bombards his body with solar radiation, he was able to eventually recover." As seen here: http://scifi.stackexchange.com...It can be from this that even Superman's toughest opponent, another Kryptonian designed to be a killing machine, could not fully obliterate Superman's existence.When you said "superman is not a fighter" you are terribly wrong. He has defeated many many of his villains, and the villains he has not defeated, he fights constantly. The full list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org...Another good piece of evidence is a simulation of a death battle between these two: http://www.youtube.com... It can be seen that, after analyzing the two very carefully, and actually battling, Superman wins. If you truly believe Goku can win, disprove this video. BTW, please use quotes next time. Oh, and your grammar is still terrible. No offense.Good luck pro!
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

Goku is a fair man, never cheating and always wanting to see his opponents at their full powers. (Which is kind of annoying, watching Goku watch his opponent yell for half of the episode) Nevertheless if Superman and Goku has a death fight, and they went far from the sun, Superman would obviously interject and say "well I have no power without the sun". Goku would respect Superman and choose to fight him on a planet near sun, possibly the moon. Super man is invincible. No matter what Goku does, no matter how much levels of super saiyen Goku reaches, Super man cannot be harmed on the least basis. He seems vincible only to Kryptonite and Psycological warping powers (his eyes bled, he was dying on the inside and the outside). However, I don't think Goku has and Psycological warping powers that can make superman's eyes bleed and make superman unable to move, talk, and think! (The psycological warping powers I mention are the fifth dimensional magical abilities of Mr. Mxyzptlk. Goku does not have these powers.) And even with these vulnerabilities, Superman can resist them. He has thrown a planet of Kryptonite away in order to save earth, and even after getting an eye-bleed from Mr. Mxyzptlk, he somehow survived and got his revenge. Although is is not explained, it is apparent Superman can ignore his vulnerabilities when he needs to. Finally, Superman is much much smarter than Goku. Goku may be an intelligent man, but Superman possesses super genius-level intelligence and an eidetic memory. Even if Goku decided to fly away to a place with no sun or lots and lots of Kryptonite or somehow found some magic to use against Superman, Superman could outwit Goku with a clever plan to trap him. Onto you con. (BTW your grammar is horrible. No offense.)
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

Ok. Let's say I belive you, okay? Let's assume Goku WILL stomp Superman if Superman plays fair using his current powers. But what if Superman DOES NOT play fair? he has undiscovered potential super powers, shown here: . http://io9.com.... if Superman used any of these unfair tactics, there is NO way Goku can win. your horrid spelling last round gives me no chance of a rebuttal, as I cannot even read your argument. Please have better spelling next time. I extend all previous arguments upon this new one, and ask the voters to vote fairly.
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

goku stomps mad crazy goku a guy from dragon ball z curb stomp Web definitions An act of curb stomping; To stomp on someone's head, forcing it into a street curb - often while they are positioned with their teeth biting the curb the normal person to be curb stomped cant do any thing about it and that superman cant do anything about it mad mad mad/Submit adjective 1. mentally ill; insane. "he felt as if he were going mad" synonyms:insane, mentally ill, certifiable, cer"ti"fi"a"ble G2;sərtəG6;fīəbəl/Submit adjective 1. able or needing to be certified. "encephalitis was a certifiable condition" carzy extremely enthusiastic. "I'm crazy about stomping superman" said goku synonyms:passionate about, (very) keen on, enamored of, infatuated with, smitten with, devoted to; More like he wants to really bad and like I said I have show goku to stomp superman in a fight so bad that it in fact it is insane how bad superman is stomped and would be extremely enthusiastic. wile stomping superman head in to a planet that he would blow up with how hard the stomping is so have I show goku to stomp superman and the universe yes con last words
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

"goku stomps mad crazy"? WTF does that even mean? That goes against your title "goku stops mad carzy". Goku Stomps mad crazy definition:STOMPS: a dance to this music, usually marked by heavy stamping of the feet.http://dictionary.reference.com...MAD: mentally disturbed; deranged; insane; demented.http://dictionary.reference.com...CRAZY: mentally deranged; demented; insane. http://dictionary.reference.com...Goku cannot dance, he's not insane, or mentally deranged. He doesn't fit the definition put by your poorly contructed phrase.As for your title "goku stops mad carzy" definition:STOPS: to cease from, leave off, or discontinuehttp://dictionary.reference.com...MAD: see aboveCARZY: NOT A REAL WORDOf course Goku is ceasing from being metally disturbed! But your argument in the last round only disproves that.And even if Goku is versing Superman he would not "stomps mad crazy" (or, heavily stamping while being mentally disturbed times two, based on my definitions)Your last round argument was especially weak. It seems apparent you have lost.Vote con!BTW How many times do I have to say this, better spelling and grammar please. I can barely tell what in the universe you're trying to say.
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy 2 someone for real

you have nothing to debate all you have is death battle that was proved wrong many times go back an check the links Superman's cape has gotten in his way so many times he learned it's his weakness. However, I doubt Goku is smart enough to logically deduce that his cape is invincible, and even if he did, Superman would know about it and avoid getting captured by his own cape. this is wrong straight wrong dude superman has a bio-electric aura that gives him his flying his powers the cape has nothing http://www.supermanhomepage.com... Did I mention Superman can destroy a human's organ? Within his battle between this magician, he destroyed the source of the magic within the magician's brain just by using his heat vision! Although he barely uses this power, he could use it against Goku, overheating his already heated heart. ssj4 superman heat vision is form the sun goku said ssj4 was immune to the suns rays when fighting nova shinron I repeat, Goku is a fair man. He lets his opponents power up and doesn't take advantage of their weaknesses. As shown in the death battle video, he even helped Superman by destroying the Kryptonite. (Although the weakness was way overboard exaggerated) Goku is a fair man. yes but superman is not in the video you (all you have) superman power from the sun was needed to destroy earth goku does not need this power is own power can do on his own superman was shown goku would not need to use his weakness becouse goku is far stronger than doomsday zod and the list superman killed 8 billion people i am not trying to goku would win i am trying to show goku stomps mad crazy bro your turn http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
The United Stares of America is an empire.

Hello and thank you for accepting to my opponent. I believe that the US fits the very definition of an empire: "Lands ruled by a single authority: Groups of nations ruled by a single authority, usually by an emporer or an empress. " Definition of "nation": "People of same ethnicity: A community of people who share a common ethnic origin, culture, historical traditions, and frequently, language, whether or not they live together in one territory or have their own government. " So by these two definitions, this proves that the us is indeed an empire, as it comprises multiple nations that are united by the US constitution.
The United Stares of America is an empire.

"The Native Peoples are given tax breaks. "Definition of Native:Born or originating somewhere in a particular place. This means that anyone born in a certain area is native to that place, therefore, anyone born in America is a Native American, and not all of them get tax breaks. But, as to what you are talking about, the Indians, the lakotah people are in a state of poverty much worse than in an area like Mississippi. "There is no such thing as a benevolent empire. "Definitions of benevolent and empire: Benevolent: Kind: showing kindness or goodwill. Empire:A group of nations ruled by a single authority. As you said, the US is being much more kind to the Indians by giving them more rights and land. Most of them, that is. And the US is a country of multiple nations, so it fits the very definition of a benevolent empire. Plus the Indians only gt those extra rights, free land and tax breaks if they live on the reservations permentally .
The United Stares of America is an empire.

What you seem to not understand is that the US doesn't have to be evil to be an empire. It is a benevolent empire that gives rights and land, for the most part, to all the minorities it conquered, as long as, of course, they remain in the empire and follow their rules.Sorry there is no such thing as a benevolent empire. That is a well-recognized oxymoron. An empire has to be with greedy and ruthless intentions. Britain and Denmark were vicious and ruthless empires in their day. Denmark ruthlessly mistreated the native Greenlands (raped their women as a form of controling the natives), and Britain, well everyone knows, looted from them. The USA has another type which was expanding settlement. The USA soliders were ruthless as well.I will be honest, there is no proof of this. This was something that I had heard, and I thought I might as well mention it. But as to the Rest of the Middle East, yes, some politicians have said that we should just annex it, make them/it a state(s), and then move on. The reason for this is so the US can get the oil in the Middle East.It may have been the will of the people of those countries, but the government of Austria did not want to be annexed, for obvious reasons. There was not a sense of democracy back then in Europe, so most peoples fully depended on their governments to make decisions, so it was not a union, it was an empire.First of all, Hitler was Austrian, so the Austrian government did want to be in a union with Germany. There was no government in exile there.http://en.wikipedia.org...But back to the civil war: when the south seceded, it formed a true union, also known as a confederation. This form of government was very similar to the European. Union. The US, however, has gained land by conquest, automatically making it an empire. We can give all the rights in the world to the peoples of these lands, but they still must obey the laws set by the federal government instead of being independent. If the US were to give full independence to these nations, and those nations asked ( asked, not forced,) to rejoin the US, that would be a true union. In the beginning of these territories, they had no option to join or not join the US. They were owned by the US, but with less rights, similar to Puerto Rico and Guam today. (Although most people believe that Puerto Rico is another country, it is still a territory.)The Native peoples are given tax breaks. The Native Nations have autonomy for the most part. They almost don't need to follow the laws of the USA. When we were an empire, we drove them off their land and emprisoned them in reservations. That was no freedom.With Puerto Rico and Guam it's a bit more complicated. But make no mistake, the situation with Puerto Rico and Guam is nothing compared to the mistreatment Denmark imposed on Greenland.No there is no such thing as a benevolent empire. The USA is not an empire in any sense. It was back then, but not anymore.