Universities that are caught stealing software should be excluded from Cork 2008/2009 world's debate

My opponent is one of the few people I have debated recently who has not yet forfeited a round. I am proud of him. My opponent has clarified the debate: "When the university steals software what does that say to the students? " Therefore, I am now assuming that it is a debate saying if the faculty has stolen software, then the students should not be able to go to the tournament. 1. My opponent has agreed with the notion that punishing the one's responsible instead of the whole University, except for a certain type of situation. My opponent has brought up a point that governments of some third world and develping countries steal software and are not held responsible because of the government, etc. However, my opponent has also gave the proper solution to that issue, too. "The United States finally came to their senses and began trade embargos, and other types of isolation tactics that have resulted in the current cooperation, and the intended de-listing from the countries that sponsor terrorism. " This is in essance the correct way to pressure such countries into signing onto the international copyright laws, which make this illegal. Countries that sign and do not enforce these laws will face the economic burden of an embargo. And this, as opposed to preventing students of the world from participating in this prominent debate, is another way to properly resolve this issue. There are other ways to resolve this issue other than punishing the group, as my opponent has conceded. 2. My opponent seems to be arguing my case. "The government concedes to the opposition that some of the students will suffer, but you must ask the question, good for the many, or good for the few? There are three teams, comprised of two debaters a-piece, on average, that competing universities will send to Cork Worlds Debate 2009. If a university has 10,000 students, and only ten of them can't go, please explain how the other 9,990 students will suffer? Even better than that, who many students at that university would even know that a debate club exists? " The topic is whether the University, which is a body of students, should be excluded from a prominent debate tournament because people on the team were stealing software. My opponent seems to think that only ten of these students woud not be able to attend should the resolution stand. However, should the resolution stand, it would be the whole student body that would not be able to go shoud the resolution stand. It would be, ". .. and none of them can go". In addition, my opponent is arguing my case: "Debate is not something that every single student participates in, and the message that not being allowed to attend the most prestigious debate event, in the world, would certainly register on the radar of the same people stealing the software, financing the debate club, and running the university. For these reasons, the opposition's second point fails! " Exactly! There is a great chance that this punishment would not effect those guilty, but those those innocent. The debate team would suffer and it is unfair to them when they are not the one's responsible. My second point stands and has been conceded. To my opponent's points: "As I clearly stated in my opening arguments, this debate is about universities that continue to violate the rules after they have been found guilty, and should be excluded from a prestigious event like the Cork worlds 2009 in an attempt to change their behavior. " Yes, this is the debate. As my points stand, there are other ways to punish the University and this particular proposal is harmful to the students. So, my opponent's arguments against stealing: "The job of a university is to educate its students. That education includes good morals and ethics. When the university steals software what does that say to the students? It says that stealing is ok! What happens to a society that teaches its students that stealing is ok? " This stand is void to my opponent's case because we agree that stealing is harmful to society and the world. However, this does not defend the resolution. "The economic impact is incalculable. Let's ask ourselves some commonsense questions. If one country teaches its students that stealing software is wrong, and another country teaches them that it is ok, which one is more likely to steal software? Stolen software hurts the manufactures, and can lead to massive layoffs as a consequence. " Same here as above. "For these reasons, the government's case stands strong! " Those reasons did not support your case, they supported both cases and they are neutral arguments. The proposal that a University be banned from this prominent debate is an improper way to punish thieves and is not the best way to punish software pirates.