Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

I am affirming that the government should BE ABLE to regulate the government. Observation 1: Having the ability to do something is different from doing the action. For example, the ability to own a gun is different from the ability to shoot it. Let's begin. Contention 1: the government needs the ability to regulate the internet in case of emergency. In the case of cyber terrorism, the government needs to have the ability to regulate the internet for the safety of the people. In recent years, cyber attacks have exponentially increased in quantity and magnitude. President Obama himself cites cyber terror is this country's greatest threat. The oil industry, one on which we have great dependence, is often the target of these attacks. For this country to thrive, we will need to defeat cyber terror. In order to combat this threat, the government needs to have the ability to regulate the internet, even if it doesn't constantly regulate. [1] Impacts: 1: Saving the oil industry 2: By not constantly regulating the internet, but simply having it as a stand-by option, all of my opponent's impacts can be flowed to my side as well, Contention 2: Promoting economic equality. Government regulation can make the internet free. This is called net neutrality. In the status quo, the internet is set up so that it provides much more to the rich than the poor. When in just a year, the richest 1% will own 99% of the wealth, reducing the areas where the rich have more access can make for a more balanced society. In addition, online education is more accessible to the rich, furthering the gap of potential future income. The internet needs regulating to reverse the great economic inequality of our country. [2] Impacts: 1: Reviving economic equality, reversing the current trend Contention 3: Maintaining what is important about the internet. The internet is a place of ideas and a place of learning, not a business. In order to maintain this Net neutrality, government regulation is needed. As large corporations intend to turn the internet into a business, the internet becomes a matter of money instead of a place for sharing ideas. Whichever idea had the most money behind it is seen by more people. This is not what the internet is for! In a world where companies have more power than some countries, the last thing that would be beneficial is letting them steal money via the internet. Regulate to prevent this! [3] Impacts: 1: The internet goes back to what it was supposed to be. 2: People have an easier time using the internet. This includes cheaper and not being overshadowed by large companies. 3: Maintaining Net neutrality. Contention 4: Maintaining privacy. Privacy to information is important to many people. The only way to prevent large companies from stealing information from people is internet regulation. Companies have many more incentives to steal information than the government, so we need to trust our privacy in the hands of our government. This is especially important as large companies and other individuals are this day stealing information from people nationwide. Regulate the internet, have our privacy protected. [4] Impacts: 1: Privacy is maintained. Instead of large corporations making money off peoples' information, privacy can be maintained through internet regulation. What we're seeing in this debate is two things. First, there are a wide array of benefits that are accessible by regulation that outweigh any potential harms. Second, even if my opponent convinces you that the harms are worse, I still win this round. This is because having the ability to do something and doing it are different. The government should have the ability to regulate in case of cyber terror emergencies without needing constant regulation. Through these two points, I either access all of my impacts or all of my opponents, depending on how you view the round. thanks and good luck to my opponent. 1: http://www.ibtimes.com...... 2: http://reason.com...... 3: http://www.whitehouse.gov...... 4: http://www.economist.com......