The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

First off, I'd like to point a couple reason why your specific plan would fail. 1. It seems to me that you're main argument for reasons as to why minorities are not voiced and racism is growing is simply b/c of ACCESS to broadband networks. Your specific plan only outlines to action by the FCC to increase investment in the National Broadcast plan. It makes 0 sense that a government agency investing in a broadband plan would in turn spillover to these said minorities to a. have acces to them b. have access to them by bypassing the reasons they werent able to access them before c. solving racism seeing as broadband networks don't really allow people to "voice" their voice any better. d. to actually use the broadband to "voice their opinions" 2. Because racism/giving people "a voice" isn't exactly a prioritized pragmatic action in the USFG, where would the funding come from? Even if the government decides that this plan does have practical value to it, what is the brightline in which we cross to determine how much money will be needed to solve for your "advantages"? 3. Nowhere in any of your sources does it say that "radio and Tv increase racism" but in fact, they simply connect violent crimes with minorities more often. There are no studies that this in turn leads to racism Now a separate reason as to why increasing broadband is a bad idea. Assuming a world in which your plan of action does go through (free, faster broadband available everywhere to anyone), we would be facing a world in which we are investing more time/money into technology. In "Speed and Politics" Paul Virilio writes about the "integral accident" and the "war machine". Virilio argues that we are in a "pure war" which means that everything that humans do is naturally in the name of increasing militaristic strength i.e. faster car=faster tank, faster phone connection=faster communications for an air strike. The term "war machine" stems off of this as it is the power of the military that Virilio says that we as citizens are constantly striving to make it bigger, better, faster, etc. He argues that this is in human nature, to make something the fastest/best it can be to always outsmart and outgun the "bad guy". The term "integral accident" is an crisis level scenario that is caused by this great war machine. Virilio says that as our natural tendency as humans, we will continually make the war machine more destructive and faster to the point where in the future, the "fastest" war machine will be one w/o human consent b/c an overwhelming number of studies point to artificial intelligence suprassing humans in terms of brainpower and speed. Once this happens, an example Virilio gives is a nuclear response system. A possible threat will be analyzed by the computer. If a 51% risk is detected, the computer will automatically fire a nuclear warhead in response to the 51>49 risk. Even if the risk (in reality) is false and overhyped, it will be too late, the integral accident has already happened due to the lightning quick decision of the machine. After all that, the way broadband ties into this is quite simple. Obviously my opponent's plan is to increase the efficiency/speed/universality of the broadband system. However, this is just another example of feeding the "war machine". Examples that links this to it would be a faster processing super computer, faster quick response system to contingencies, etc. The fact that we are trying to better our technology is an example of us furthering its capacity in terms of speed/efficiency/power. Even if this specific instance of technological increase doesn't persuade you as the judge, vote con on the pure basis that my opponent's attempt to further a technological concept ties back to the "integral accident". When weighing the significance of both our cases, you are ultimately looking at an analysis between racism and the integral accident. Obviously the ACT of racism doesn't cause deaths and as i have proved, the integral accident does. Unless (for some reason) my opponent decides to stray from the defaulted "death count" framework (which is simply whoever saves the most amount of people in the end) that most policymakers use, you will vote con on the simple fact that the number of deaths negated from voting con substantially outweighs the number of deaths negated from voting pro.