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

First, something on top: A.The negative provides no warrants for some claims – we'll refer to these unwarranted claims as blips. B.An argument consists of a claim and a warrant. Without a warrant, there's no argument. C.negative must sever the unwarranted argument. When I tell you to cross apply blips, it's these three observations I'm referring to. and, botnets kill infrastructure: http://www.infoworld.com...'s-boss_1.html Let's first clarify the infrastructure argument. My argument here is that HOMOGENIZATION of the computing landscape allows for viruses to spread easily. The fact is that when Microsoft dominates the market, this homogenization makes it incredibly easy for one virus to do huge amounts of damage, because one hole in the piece of software makes millions of computers vulnerable. Right now is key, because terrorists are starting to employ technology -- if we don't adapt, we die (Alexander, 2007, in his "super terror" paper.) The harm isn't Microsoft specifically, but the control of the entire market by one piece of software/varients of that software. The plan gets rid of that homogenization. Now let's move to the alt cause: that infrastructure is the problem. This isn't true. A DDoS attack or other coordinated attack against infrastructure will destroy it, regardless of how awesome the infrastructure's security is, or how little it depends on technology. This type of attack is only possible with a MASSIVE bot net, and that type of a bot net can only occur in a homogeneous environment. The destruction of Microsoft doesn't turn case: Escobar proves that getting rid of the giant allows for a plurality of discourses -- you COMPLETELY cold concede the Escobar alternative. Game over on solvency mitigation, the new discourses take the place of the old one. furthermore, these new discourses CAN'T exist now because of Microsoft. Getting rid of Microsoft allows for these discourses to emerge. That's the point of Escobar. And when we have dozens of discourses, which we will, that MASSIVE bot net needed can't exist because there is no homogeneous environment in computing. Cross apply blips to every call for evidence (I warrant with analysis and some evidence, he just makes counter-claims) and all attacks on links I haven't touched yet. At the point at which these claims are severed, there is no attack on my access to solvency for impacts -- and because of this there is a 100 percent probability that the status quo will lead to nuclear war. AGAIN, it's not the monopoly that causes this, it's the homogenization said monopoly creates. Extend blips to the "you destroy apple" argument, as well as the argument I made last round that is doesn't matter if we destroy apple, and that new discourses will fill their void -- non-homogeneous discourses. Extend blips to the "Corporate America" claim -- no warrant. Plus, they will be able to adapt to one of the many discourses that occur after the plan. Getting rid of Microsoft doesn't end computing. 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. Finally, even if Microsoft isn't a monopoly, they still create a near-homogeneous environment. Squo still links. the only thing that is extreme is your use of unwarranted arguments. All my claims have warrants and links, while yours don't. which takes us to voting issues: 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. 2. The case turns come too late, are unwarrnted, and fall per analysis in this speech 3. I control the solvency debate with Escobar. 4. I control timeframe -- it's now per Alexander. 5. I control magnitude, his solvency takeouts don't even compare to the Nuke War impact. And, don't let him bring up anything new in his next speech -- I never get to respond to it and that's abusive.