query: Should net neutrality be restored?

positive: Network neutrality Some data should be allowed to move faster

positive: Network neutrality Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:

positive: Network neutrality Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem

positive: Net neutrality. I'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?

positive: ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.

positive: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Recently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a "new technology or business model" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to "partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this "monopoly" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a "regulatory regime". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs "pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: "Among our nation"s 12 largest internet service providers," he told the audience, "domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016." I ask him to elaborate. "As I"ve seen it and heard it," he says, "Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that "even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business." " By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren"t sticking it to the man. We aren"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from "Banksy" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search "If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: "The European Union"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply." In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will "throttle" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to "throttle" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were "pilloried in the court of public opinion" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. But with that said, let’s get down to business. In this Final Round, I will provide a final criticism of Pro’s arguments, helping to tie up some loose ends along the way, and also clarify a variety of points that I have made. In addition, I will also use this round to attempt to convince readers that they should vote for Con, rather than Pro. The FCCPro focusses a significant amount of his final round to focus on the FCC, and makes a variety of criticisms, many surrounding on the on the concepts of “principle” and “concept. ” Thus, it is important to clarify what exactly is a principle, or a concept. The Oxford English Dictionary (Kindle Edition) defines principle as:“A general idea of plan, although the details are not yet established. ”Also by the OED, concept is defined as: “An abstract idea”However, Pro argues that we should focus on current net neutrality proposals because “debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. ” But, given the definitions of “principle” and “concept” this is clearly absurd. As per the definition of principle, we are considering net neutrality in general, and considering it as if “the details are not established. ” As per the definition of concept, we are to focus on net neutrality as “an abstract idea”. Therefore, Pro’s rebuttal bears little relevance; by attempting to focus this debate on current net neutrality legislation, regardless of its immediate relevance, he is destroying the whole purpose of debating a principle, or concept. Previously, I gave an example of a scenario where Pro’s arguments that the FCC has no interest in representing freedom of speech are nullified – where the FCC regulates ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. Pro critiques this by questioning the possibility of the FCC acting in a “highly transparent and democratic manner” and argues that this is an “unachieved goal for decades” and that the whole point of government is “built around the concept of being transparent and democratic. ” This rebuttal misses the point of my hypothetical scenario. The feasibility of this scenario bears little relevance because the whole point of this hypothetical scenario is to be far-fetched, because in doing so, it shows that Pro’s freedom of speech argument does not apply in all scenarios, and thus, we can’t reject net neutrality as a principle, or concept – merely recent forms of its legislation. One final argument relevant to the FCC that Pro makes against my argument that TVs and radios can’t be compared with the Internet, because of the way information is transferred in each medium. Pro responds by citing Section 706 and Title II. But this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument was not to do with how the FCC oversees the various mediums, but how they act in regulating information. In addition, Pro has not elaborated at all on how net neutrality fails to take into consideration differences between such mediums, and how I have undermined my own case. ChinaBy the end of the debate, Pro concedes that he was only making a comparison. In contrast, at the beginning of the debate, he was adamant about the possibility of the US’s internet being similar to China’s, even invoking Negri’s statement that “Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day. ” Pro is correct in saying that we should note similarities between the two, and the outcomes of various policies in other countries. But it we only do this, then that leaves Pro with no real argument to enforce, and he does not sufficiently clarify his position on this issue, especially considering his change of view since Round 2. If he is still arguing that net neutrality would lead to Internet with similarities to that seen in China, then it still is a slippery slope. If he is arguing that we merely should be cautious, and take this into consideration, then there is no rationale for rejecting net neutrality; we could still accept it, but just be cautious. ISPsIt is important to note that a essentially of this section (as left by Pro in his final round) is based on the assumption that the FCC is against freedom of speech, and would set limits on what one would do on the Internet. This is an assumption that has been debated throughout this debate, but falls short of establishing that a net benefit would be reached without net neutrality. This is because – as I have argued for many times in this debate - it takes a narrow scope, rather than a broad scope regarding net neutrality – it is focussing on specific forms of net neutrality legislation, rather than net neutrality as a principle, or a concept. Once again, Pro has failed to show how the descriptive statement to the normative statement. He merely complains that my attempts to “philosophically analyse this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue. ” However, firstly, as Pro himself notes, I have conceded that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. However, it is completely false to say that I am “looking for a debate on economics” as Pro claims. It is also untrue that the real issue is “that content is priced differently as a result of product cost differential”. As a matter of fact, I argue that the real issue is to do with moral philosophy. This is because Pro is arguing that ISPs ought to be charging differently based on the type of content. Naturally, this leads into the realm of moral philosophy, because such a realm deals with what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be done, what ought not to be done; the normative aspects. Of course, positive economics is relevant to some extent. However, in this case, it is concerning the descriptive aspect of content, but not what ought to happen; the normative aspect. Pro hasn’t really addressed this problem; instead, he keeps trying to push us back to a debate on the descriptive statement. Pro appeals to the fact that prices should be varying because to make a profit because “it is common business practice”. However, this doesn’t lead logically to the conclusion that the prices should be varying. Simply because something is common business practice does not mean that this is right, or should be allowed in policy. Consequently, we have seen no compelling reason that ISPs should be pricing content differently, as per their bandwidth needs. We have merely seen that different content have different bandwidth needs. InnovationOne thing to note is that Pro has completely dropped his argument that there is empirical evidence showing that regulation of telecommunications companies in Europe leads to less innovation, and has negative effects, such as limiting consumer access to the Internet. Previously, I argued that this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence he has provided, because it does not show a causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, I provided a study by Chang et. al which shows that net neutrality has the opposite effect on innovation as Pro claims; it is actually beneficial in regard to innovation (especially infrastructure), rather than detrimental. Pro has not attempted to refute this evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no good reasons to believe that innovation will be negatively affected by net neutrality, only positively affected. HouseholdPro appears to concede that an ISP’s pricing plan as advocated by him is also dependant on the ISP’s actions. However, he still argues that network congestion is more likely to be solved without net neutrality than with net neutrality. His argument relies on the premise that “with net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems. ” Firstly, this is completely unjustified. It is also clearly false. In the previous round, I brought up McKay’s observation that network congestion is also due to the ISP’s method of data transmission between different servers. We can extend this to show that with net neutrality, ISPs have an incentive to upgrade this servers. This stems from the fact that because ISPs are not able to introduce their pricing schemes, they must find different ways to deal with net congestion, such as upgrading their systems. Conversely, if net neutrality was not introduced, and ISPs were to introduce a pricing scheme as advocated by Pro, they would have no incentive in upgrading their systems, because the problem is already solved. Thus, Pro’s logic falls back on him. ConclusionThis debate took an interesting direction (largely because I misread Pro’s Round 1 and thought that he had the sole BOP for a while), but nevertheless, as we are at the end of the debate, I contend that there are good reasons why the audience should vote Con. (1) Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof, because all of his arguments fail in one way or another. There are no successful arguments against net neutrality offered by Pro. (2) I have shown that by refuting Pro’s arguments against net neutrality, I am implicitly making a case for net neutrality, due to the way Pro presents his case. This remained undisputed by Pro by the end of the debate. (3) Pro has dropped many of his core arguments. For instance, his argument about Europe’s internet, and his argument that a rejection of net neutrality fuels competition (note that he never addressed this, after I called out his bare assertion in Round 2. ) (4) I have made positive arguments that have been unrefuted and untouched by Pro. For instance, net neutrality is beneficial towards innovation (from Cheng et. al) and that net neutrality helps dissipate monopolies and duopolies (Round 2). The resolution has been negated.

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. -My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as “a general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.” Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that “it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer,” an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition’s only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which “requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner,” with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition’s solution for corruption and the FCC’s blatant censorship is to make them “highly transparent and democratic,” yet doesn’t have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a “highly democratic” onto a ‘highly transparent’ does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition’s arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition’s solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition’s interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that “Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those.” Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that “there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content” directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition’s attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn’t change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition’s case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition’s exclusion of current legislation is the FCC’s history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition’s only proposed argument against the right of ISP’s to price their services freely is that “they can’t be trusted to govern the internet” and “it would hurt the consumer.” As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition’s attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld.

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Thanks, Pro, for your quick yet substantive rebuttals. Freedom of SpeechFirst, I would like to provide a general criticism of Pro’s argument that the FCC would through net neutrality, infringe upon freedom of speech. Note that the resolution of the debate concerns whether “the USFG should reject net neutrality.” But he has not specified exactly which form of net neutrality legislation the USFG ought the reject. Thus, we are left to concluding that he is arguing that the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; a concept - in effect, all forms of net neutrality. Pro too notes that he was quite interested in “the concept of net neutrality”. As a result, this debate should focus on net neutrality as a principle of a concept. However, his argument - the FCC would likely infringe upon freedom of speech through net neutrality – is not sufficient to reach the conclusion – the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; in effect, all forms of net neutrality. This is because Pro’s argument has a very narrow scope; it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer, rather than net neutrality itself. In effect, his argument does not take into consideration potential net neutrality legislation; for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. In this scenario, it may be that the FCC has a strong incentive in reinvoking the Fairness Doctrine, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Pro argues that because previously, the FCC has regulated content on TV and radio and was allowed to decide what was content-neutral, the FCC is likely to infringe upon freedom of speech on the Internet. But the problem is that the FCC was allowed to decide on their interpretation on what was content-neutral. As noted, the resolution is dealing with net neutrality as a principle. In legislation of net neutrality where the FCC was not allowed to define “content neutral”, this argument would no longer apply. In addition, Pro neglected to mention that structural differences between the operation of TV + Radio and the Internet. Leonhardt notes that:“the Internet “decouples” the strong link between transmission and content; therefore, there is nothing on the Internet that is directly analogous to a television or radio broadcaster. Television broadcasters both transmit data and control its content, so that when a person watches NBC, they are only seeing NBC’s programming. Conversely, on the Internet, the signal comes to a home from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as AT&T, Comcast, Road Runner, or Verizon.57 However, once a consumer has a signal, they can view any content at all—even content created by a competing ISP.” (1) Consequently, we also should by default reject Pro’s slippery slope argument regarding the possibility of net neutrality leading to censorship as seen in China, because it falls to the same “general criticism” I already made above. But even if we do not reject such an argument by default we could make a variety of criticisms. Firstly, I noted in the 2nd round that Pro’s argument is logically fallacious because it commits the slippery slope fallacy. Pro never responded to this, although he did indicate that he would eventually respond to all arguments, so I’ll wait for him to do so. I also argued that because of the socio-political differences between in America and China, it is unlikely that net neutrality would lead to censorship like seen in China. Pro does not dispute this point; he merely argues that government officials still have the intention of keeping in power. However, this is irrelevant, because I am arguing that regardless of the government’s will to stay in power, infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries. CompetitionPreviously, I argued that because there are legitimate uses of BitTorrent, Comcast should not have blocked BitTorrent traffic. Pro’s reply misses the mark. Firstly, he argues that the “site should solely be halted because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities”. However, Comcast was not solely blocking sites that hold pirated content available through BitTorrent, they were blocking BitTorrent traffic in general. In addition, there many examples of sites that use BitTorrent for solely legal purposes and have no pirated content. I provided the example of the Internet Archive in my previous round. To elaborate upon my last round, I also suggested that in order to download and update specific games, one would use a client that is dependent on BitTorrent technology. Furthermore, Pro shifts burden-of-proof. His argument is dependent on the assumption (aka. Hidden premise) that ISPs have the right to block out specific content ie. BitTorrent traffic, thus he is expected to defend the premise, just like any other premise. I don’t have to provide an argument against this assumption, I merely have to ensure that his hidden premise is not affirmed, and I can do this by providing arguments of my own, criticising his arguments for the hidden premise, or both. In the 2nd Round, Pro also notes that he is arguing that net neutrality would take steps towards a closed Internet, rather than an open Internet, and thus it should be rejected. I showed that in order for this to lead logically to the USFG rejecting net neutrality, Pro would have to assume that an open Internet is desirable, and that a closed Internet is undesirable. I noted that I too support an open internet. Thus, this debate is run on the parameters that an open Internet is desirable, whilst a closed Internet is undesirable. Recall that the definition of closed Internet that is applied to this debate is: “where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.”If Pro is willing to defend Comcast’s blocking of BitTorrent traffic/websites - which is a textbook example of “explicitly filter[ing] content” - he is in effect defending actions leading to a closed Internet. However, this makes his case inconsistent, because he is arguing that net neutrality leads to a closed Internet, and thus should be rejected while at the same time supporting other actions which lead to a closed Internet. Innovationa) Pro misread me; I was not affirming that the value of the examples to be intrinsic, I was saying that those were relative. For instance, I would place the highest value on the e-Book, then the online calculator, and next-to-no value on the funny home video. In contrast, somebody may else may have the exact opposite. If ISPs were to regulate content as Pro proposes, then the problem of how the ISP should discern the value of each of these examples is raised. b) I argued that Pro needs to show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. This is because descriptive statements only deal with how the world works, in effect, what is. However, a normative statement deals with how the world ought to be, in other worlds, what should be the case, and thus lack logical connection. (2) Pro has not shown how they logically do connect; he is merely restating the descriptive statement. To show how the descriptive statement leads to the normative statement, at the very least, Pro must assume that different entities ought to be treated differently because of their differences. Householda) The winner of this debate is determined on the basis of what would be “net beneficial”. Thus, I am essentially arguing that in the case of ISPs having to price content at different prices in the case of net neutrality being rejected, negative consequences will follow. So my question is relevant towards the debate, and thus must be answered. b) It was conceded last round that rejection of net neutrality nevertheless allows for solving the problem of network congestion. This is an important concession on behalf of Pro. Nevertheless, he makes the argument that “ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use” and “due to the enormous cost of doing so”. But Pro has not justified neither claims, so at this point, we can only conclude that both are conjectures. Pro also argues that “a rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on actions by ISPs independent of legislation”, and thus we should favour the rejection of net neutrality. But a rejection of net neutrality does not result in an immediate solution. ISPs would still have to deal with a variety of questions such as how they ought to discern the importance of different content; which ones to put in the “fast lane” and how what form of pricing they should offer customers. In addition, a rejection of net neutrality legislation only entails that data should not be treated equally, it doesn’t immediately lead to the ISP enforcing the particular pricing scheme that Pro advocates; they merely have the freedom to do so. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality offers no particular advantage to an affirmation of net neutrality in managing web congestion. ConclusionPro still needs to address several criticisms that I had made in the previous round. Many of the criticisms that he has supposedly addressed – as seen in this round – still ultimately triumph. Furthermore, a number of original objections were raised in this round, also rendering Pro’s counterarguments to be unviable. Thus, Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Sources(1) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Many thanks to my opponent for a great debate and prompt replies!-To confirm Opposition’s note that we are either accepting or rejecting net neutrality as a general principle/concept, this is correct-we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.-That said, Opposition argues that the logical connective cannot be made between the FCC infringing upon freedom of speech and the USFG rejecting net neutrality legislation because my arguments only address the FCC as the agency of said legislation. There are several flaws with Opposition’s argumentation here. First, Opposition overlooks the fact that ALL current network neutrality legislation would employ the FCC as the enforcer. Opposition’s sole example of legislation which does not require the FCC as enforcer is “for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner.” This, again, uses the FCC as enforcer; unless Opposition can produce an example to the contrary, this argument is irrelevant. My primary issue with this statement is that Opposition suggests that the FCC is not currently tasked with operating in a “highly transparent and democratic manner.” They absolutely are! Yet we constantly see with government a gap between what they are obligated to do, and what they do in reality. Unless Opposition presents examples of specific legislation spelling out exactly how such transparency is achieved and grants solvency, this is simply a hypothetical solution. Further, Opposition’s argument that a strong incentive to reinstate the fairness doctrine would be irrelevant in a ‘highly transparent’ organization is also making broad assumptions about the commission. Regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours, and their ideology will continue to influence their decisions regardless of whether we achieve the ‘transparency’ Opposition argues for.-I believe Opposition’s objections to the use of China as an example are unfounded for several reasons. First, Opposition argues that this is a slippery slope, that the US could never mirror China for internet censorship. Note that this was not the intent of my point; the use of China as an example is to show the similarities between censorship in China and what would be achieved by net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon states “The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar” in reference to SOPA and net neutrality [1]. Judging by the historical implications of the FCC I introduced in my last round, it is not unreasonable to suggest this as a possibility we should at the very least be wary of; as such, I reject Opposition’s argument of ‘slippery slope,’ for the reason that there is a very clear. Opposition then states “infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries.” It is this type of unguarded stance that allows our rights to become infringed upon. Regardless of socio-political differences between America and China, the characteristics inherent to human nature which cause the desire to influence the opinions of others in favor of self are clearly existent in both nations. Then of course there’s the fact that the FCC has already infringed upon our freedom of speech, something Opposition has yet to attempt to contradict.-A crux issue in this debate is the question of whether or not ISPs have the right to block out specific content, ie. decide what they make available to clients. I have already made it clear that I support this right for ISPs. Opposition has argued that this result in legitimate content being blocked from users; so what? ISPs as providers of a service should be able to decide exactly what their service entails. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I do agree that ISPs should be open with consumers about what they have access to-I simply believe they are within their rights to block sites if they wish. Secondly, even should each point in support of ISPs having this right be rejected, Opposition is still required to suggest reasons they should not have this right in order to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden Opposition has not upheld. I strongly urge Opposition to present reasons why this is outside the right of ISPs, as the only argument presented thus far is that it isn’t best for the consumer-this is why consumers change ISPs. This is where the free market comes in; if one company doesn’t satisfy the consumer, the market provides a new option to make a profit through satisfying this new market of consumers. -I apologize for omitting this from my first response, but I concede Opposition’s point that I never explicitly stated that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet. To clarify, my stance is that an open internet is more desirable, and further hold to my contention that net neutrality legislation will result in a net decrease in the openness of the internet. Opposition argues that allowing ISPs to restrict content access would result in a closed internet; I assert that this regardless is a net increase in the internet’s openness. First, with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options to emerge for consumers, the internet remains open, in contrast to net neutrality which introduces the FCC as presider over the internet, a clear introduction to a closed internet. Thus, net neutrality will result in a net reduction of internet openness, regardless of slight restriction by ISPs. We are, essentially, choosing the greater evil, which is government censorship/control of the internet. -I would also like to point out that net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members, as opposed to numerous ISPs and their corporation structures. I personally would choose option B any day. At a certain point, there is always someone choosing what is available to us for viewing; opting against net neutrality dilutes this into many, many more hands than the government, which is certainly preferable for the pursuit of freedom of speech and internet content availability.-For innovation: let me rephrase. These are different and are considered different by ISPs because they use differing amounts of bandwidth. Stipulating disconnects between descriptive and normative statements will not eliminate the technological differences between each of these; Opposition is essentially avoiding the recognition that there is a reason for ISPs to regard each uniquely. Just as we place prices on items in stores based off of the cost of production, ISPs place costs on types of data because of cost to supply it.-With regards to regulations in Europe: There most certainly are net neutrality regulations in place in Europe [3,4,5]. Further, by regulations in Europe, I am referring additionally to the European regulation framework that establishes public broadband as a public utility; the service-based competition system established by law has resulted in a system where no new investment or infrastructure is introduced into the system, causing a net loss in innovation. Broadband investment per household in the US is twice that in Europe; coverage is better; and basic broadband is cheaper in the US than in Europe [8,9]. The discrepancy between your statistics and mine can be found in the fact that the cost comparison of broadband in Europe is strictly for broadband, not a bundle of broadband, TV, and phone, which appears to be the focus of your cited statistics. France is the sole exception here; France actually has exceptional broadband services nd prices relative to the rest of Europe.Householda) ISPs may adopt any model of pricing they decide upon; they are independent businesses supplying a service to a consumer. I would contend that net benefits would be achieved in rejecting net neutrality, which I feel I have made sufficiently clear.b) My claims have been justified; the sources included in my last argument confirm this. Further, Opposition is being selective in quoting my arguments. I concede that both allow for lessening of congestion; I also state “A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.” Thus I hold net benefits here stronger than Opposition’s case does.-I feel I have sufficiently responded to each argument presented by the Opposition. However, I also feel the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win. Based off of the resolution, Opposition is tasked with arguing in favor of net neutrality; Opposition has failed to present any substantial arguments in favor of network neutrality, including why ISPs should not be able to engage in independent business models. Net benefits requires Opposition to create a clear image of how net neutrality is beneficial, not simply to attack the status quo. Should we not see this stance develop, it is impossible to assign net benefits to Opposition.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] https://gigaom.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.bbc.com... [8] http://www.nationalreview.com...[9] http://www.heritage.org...

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Network Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP’s (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn’t be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like “equal treatment” and “ending discrimination in transmitting content,” all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn’t accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to ‘end discrimination in transmitting content?’ Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let’s say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let’s expand this example to an entire community. ISP’s being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn’t because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it ‘protects freedom of speech’ through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn’t caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP’s to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don’t have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the ‘freedom of speech’ claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn’t exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn’t want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China’s strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen’s Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that “under the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day” [5]. Don’t misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast’s blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP’s to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP’s to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP’s pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn’t. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor’s content or specific sites it doesn’t want to give access to. In fact, it’s good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP’s actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn’t infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don’t have, they aren’t paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com...

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. (Note that I have neglected to mention a variety of arguments that have little or no bearing on the debate, 10000 characters are often not enough when debating a topic like this) IntroductionPro claims that he should be the winner of this debate because “the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win.” But it was stated very explicitly in my 2nd Round that my strategy in this debate is not to provide positive arguments for net neutrality; instead I was to undermine Pro’s arguments, by refuting all of his contentions, and thus show that there are exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. If I do this successfully, then Pro has not met his BOP. But in doing so, I inadvertently affirm a case for net neutrality because in his 1st round, Pro has essentially set out the case for net neutrality, as he has already specified arguments in favour of net neutrality, such as:• A rejection of net neutrality enables “broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content.”• Net neutrality enables “equal treatment” and “ends [ending] discrimination in transmitting content”, which is desirable. Pro then seeks out to refute them. But, if I successfully refute his criticisms, then these arguments for net neutrality are affirmed by default. So I personally do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, because Pro already has done so for me.In addition, in other areas of the debate, I have also implicitly made arguments for net neutrality such as:• “ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet.”Freedom of Speech1. FCCa) Pro accepts that net neutrality as considered in this debate will be focussing on the principle or concept of net neutrality – in effect, all forms of net neutrality legislation. Pro takes issue with the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. He claims that the FCC already is highly transparent and democratic. This contradicts his later statement; that “net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members.” [the FCC] I don’t see how that is transparent and democratic (especially) at all. b) Pro also argues that my solution is “hypothetic” and that I would need to present “examples of specific legislation spelling out how exactly transparency is achieved and grants solvency.” I don’t. No matter how hypothetical the scenario presented is, it still should be treated because we are dealing with net neutrality as a principle. c) Pro also argues that “regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours.” But I am not advocating for the FCC to merely act “transparently”, but also “highly democratically”. 2. Chinaa) Pro’s argument is irrelevant. Even if we adopt the view that net neutrality would lead to infringements of freedom of speech with parallels to censorship in China, it still is a slippery slope.Consider the format of a slippery slope fallacy: “If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually too, therefore A should not happen.”We can see that Pro’s argument doesn’t overcome the problem of a slippery slope, because Z is simply changed from “censorship that mirrors China” to “censorship that has many parallels to censorship as seen in China.” b) Pro misuses MacKinnon’s article. Never in the article did MacKinnon talk about net neutrality, as a Control+F search of “neutrality.” would reveal. Instead, MacKinnon was talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act, a separate issue. Pro attempts to treat the issue lightly, making an argument based on history to suggest that “it is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a possibility we should at the very least be wary of.”c) Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those. d) It is merely established that FCC’s supposed infringement upon freedom of speech is a “possibility”. But that alone is not enough to provide a reason why we should reject net neutrality. We could still have a rationale for implementing net neutrality, but merely be wary over the FCC ie. make their actions “highly transparent and democratic”. ISPs1. Blocking ContentPro claims that it is entirely reasonable that ISPs are able to block out legitimate content because they are the providers of a service, and thus it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to do what they want with such a service. Note that Pro has conceded the BitTorrent point, and shifts his attention to the rights of ISPs as a whole. a) This argument is that it entails a closed Internet, because ISPs “favour certain uses” and “explicitly filter out content”, even though it is presumed within the framework of this debate that a closed internet is not desirable. Thus, we should not grant them this right. b) Pro does attempt to address this argument, though. He argues that “with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options for consumers, the internet remains open.” This is true, when considering the internet from a wide scope. It should be noted that my argument looks at the openness of the Internet from the perspective of a subscriber of an ISP company choosing to filter out content. Thus, it is claimed that on balance, the Internet still remains more open if net neutrality were rejected, than if it were not, because the introduction of “the FCC as a presider over the internet” is “a clear introduction to a closed internet”. d) Pro assumes that the FCC will abuse their power and promote actions that lead to a closed Internet. This is essentially his “freedom of speech” argument repackaged. It should be discounted due to the fact that compelling replies have already been given to such an argument, as seen above. e) His argument – that net neutrality places the decision of what is available on the Internet into the hands of five commission members – fails due to the same issue. We are dealing with net neutrality as a principle rather than specific forms of its legislation. Pro’s argument does not address net neutrality as a principle – net neutrality does not require 5 commission members to be in control – rather, it addresses specific forms of net neutrality.2. Innovationa) Pro has not addressed the descriptive-normative gap argument satisfactorily. Critics of his position do not deny that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. The problem is how to link the descriptive statement (what is) to a normative statement (what ought). b) Merely restating the descriptive statement does not get anyone anywhere in bridging this gap. In order to get from an is to an ought, Pro must “combine the [is] with an ethical principle or assumption.” (1) c) Pro’s analogy of a store fails. Pro notes that different types of date have a different cost to be supplied. But this doesn’t mean that different pricing schemes for different types of data should be adopted, because this is not necessarily in virtue of the type of data transmitted, but rather the ISPs’ method of data transmission. Tom MacKay explains:“ISPs…need to deal with connections between content providers and their own networks. When Game of Thrones freezes up, the problem could be saturation at the select locations where data leaves HBO and intersects with an ISP…the ISP must upgrade their network to accommodate traffic that might be generated by a few high-data companies.” (2)3. Europe a) The net neutrality regulations in Europe are recent – only established this year - so we can’t make any judgements empirically.b) Pro needs to show that the reason that because Internet is lacking in Europe is a consequence of the establishment of broadband as a public utility. He, and the article he refers to, only cites a correlation between the two, not a causal relationship. There are other factors that should be taken into account eg. regarding broadband coverage, the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that the U.S is much richer than many European countries such as Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria.c) Cheng et.al in their paper The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective show that the opposite is the case. They use a “game theoretic model” to evaluate the impact of net neutrality, and conclude that “the incentive to expand infrastructure capacity for the broadband service provider and its optimal capacity choice under net neutrality are higher than those under the no net neutrality regime except in some specific cases. Under net neutrality, the broadband service provider always invests in broadband infrastructure at the socially optimal level, but either under- or over-invests in infrastructure capacity in the absence of net neutrality.” (3) Householda) I don’t see how I have been selective with Pro’s arguments, and Pro doesn’t specify how so. Pro doesn’t specify which source provides justifications for his claims, so I can’t possibly evaluate his argument, considering that several of the sources are extremely long and for the most part, seemingly irrelevant. His quotation from “the Comcast article” fails to justify both claims that I called out upon. b) I have addressed Pro’s argument. I argued that rejection of net neutrality doesn’t result in an immediate solution of network congestion, as with the case with an affirmation of net neutrality, so neither offers an advantage. ConclusionBy refuting Pro’s arguments, I am in effect, making a case for net neutrality. Pro’s major arguments have been refuted. Thus, I have implicitly made a case for net neutrality, as well as refuted Pro’s arguments against it. The resolution is negated. (1) http://v.gd...(2) http://mic.com...(3) http://papers.ssrn.com...

positive: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. I shall do this by refuting all his contentions, and in doing so, show that there are no exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. Pro essentially argues that the USFG should reject net neutrality because “net neutrality does not, [in fact], result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. ” Note that in order for him to use this kind of reasoning and reach the position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, he needs to make the assumption that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, which he has not done. Personally, I do believe that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, so I’m on his side on this, but I reject all contentions that he makes in attempting to show that net neutrality takes steps towards a closed internet. Let’s see his contentions. Freedom of Speech Pro argues that enforcement of net neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. According to him, “anyone claiming that new network neutrality regulations through the FCC will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying, or deluded. ” Given that he has made a very strong claim, one would expect him to give solid reasons, or evidence, in support of his claim. Unfortunately, he has not done so. Essentially, his argument amounts to that the FCC doesn’t support freedom of speech - as a matter of fact, it is against freedom of speech - and consequently, enforcement of net neutrality laws would, by giving the government more control of the Internet, thus stifling freedom of speech. Such an argument is problematic in several ways:(a) Regarding his claim that the FCC is not supportive, and never will be supportive of freedom of speech, he gives no reasoning or evidence whatsoever. Essentially, his argument amounts to a bare-assertion fallacy. (b) Enforcement of net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet. This is because the FCC does not seek to regulate the Internet, instead, it is regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services. Perhaps in anticipation of (b), Pro creates a slippery slope argument. He observes that the Chinese government strongly regulates telecommunication industries in China, thus promoting censorship and the rejection of freedom of speech. Thus, Pro argues, net neutrality regulation may be the first step further governmental control and restriction over the Internet. There are multiple things wrong with this argument:(a) Slippery slope arguments “[avoid] engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. ” Thus, they are fallacious (1)(b)There is a big difference between the way regulation of telecommunication industries as advocated by the supporter of net neutrality in the US and the way telecommunication industries are regulated in China. In China, actual website content is blocked, while enforcement of net neutrality laws only lead to the regulation of how the telecommunication industry can transfer information on the Internet. Thus, Pro needs to give reasons to how net neutrality regulation would lead to the type of censorship observed in China. (c) China and the U. S cannot be compared, because of the different socio-political situations between the two countries. For one, the Chinese government has a strong incentive/motive in committing acts of internet censorship and restricting freedom of speech - eg. to silence dissent and preserve the political system present in China by restricting knowledge of other political systems - while the U. S government does not. Second, the U. S is far more democratic than China - it’s citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy, for an example of Internet policy, look at SOPA. Thus, we should be skeptical over his claims that net neutrality would eventually lead to a closed internet in this sense. Net Neutrality and Competition Pro argues that Comcast’s blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified, and that “arguing this [Comcast’s actions] as a supporting factor of net neutrality is ludicrous. ”(a) Adherents of net neutrality do not use Comcast’s actions as a reason for promoting net neutrality. Rather, they use this as an example to illustrate the fact that ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet, thus acting as a reason against Pro’s position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, rather than a positive reason for net neutrality. (b) Pro cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast was blocking torrent sites housing pirated content. Rather, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, as his source indicates. (2) It is important to note that BitTorrent is not solely used for pirating content - there plenty of legitimate uses such as legally downloading game updates, and the Internet Archive - because BitTorrent is merely a means to spread information. (3) Thus, blocking BitTorrent traffic would also infringe upon legal uses of the technology. (c) Pro has not shown that it is the “prerogative” of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Indeed, it could be argued that the sole purpose of ISPs is to provide Internet access, and thus they should not be controlling what their clients are doing on the Internet, because it is out of their bounds. Pro also provides several reasons why rejecting net-neutrality laws do not promote monopolies. For instance, he argues that net neutrality will not end monopolies, instead it makes it harder to end monopolies. (a) Advocates of net neutrality do not argue that net neutrality regulation will end monopolies; instead they are arguing that rejection of net neutrality will promote the development of monopolies/duopolies etc, or that net neutrality regulation will make it easier to end monopolies/duopolies etc. Thus, Pro’s statement is non-topical. (b) Essentially all of this segment regarding competition is pure assertion. Pro has not justified any of the claims he makes here, and thus on this basis alone, all of his claims should be discounted until he provides justification. Innovation (a) Pro claims that Internet content such as “an online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book” should not be treated equally, because they are not equal in importance. But the importance of such content is not intrinsic, but relative to different people. Thus, the question of whose perspective discerns the importance of online content is raised. (b) Pro argues that because the various content on the Internet are different, they ought to be treated differently. However, he makes the jump from a descriptive statement (various content on the Internet are different) to a normative statement (they ought to be treated differently) arbitrarily, and does not show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. Pro uses an analogy of a household in order to illustrate why rejecting net neutrality would be beneficial, and extends this logic towards an entire community. Fundamentally, this is a question of how to deal with network congestion, and Pro argues that rejecting net neutrality would help solve this problem. However: (a) In the case that net neutrality is rejected, and ISPs are able to deal with network congestion through allowing in variation of pricing Internet access according to how one uses the Internet, Pro does not elaborate on which method ISPs are to do this. Do customers sign up to an Internet package which is optimised for what they are to do with the Internet (eg. a package optimised for watching Netflix)? Do customers sign up to a rather blank Internet package, and the pricing is determined later on how customers use their Internet? Both are in my view, problematic, and I would like Pro to elaborate on the specific details of his view. (b) The fact that the two people in the household are unable to complete simple activities on the Internet such as Google searches (this also applies when Pro’s argument is extended to the community) does not mean that net neutrality should be rejected. S. Derek Turner notes that net neutrality regulation as pushed for still “leave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management methods. ” (4) Thus, the benefit of being able to address network congestion effectively as argued by proponents of net neutrality rejection is not exclusive to their position, and net neutrality still allows room to fix these problems. Pro claims that “similar regulations are place in Europe”. However, what regulations are he talking about? Net neutrality regulations? His Source 4 states that there are no established net neutrality regulations in the European Union. So where in Europe is he talking about? Regardless of this, it is a factual mistake to claim that “broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US”, when in reality, broadband service is actually much more expensive in the U. S when compared to many areas in Europe (3 times more expensive than in the U. K and France) (5) Conclusion In this round, I have refuted the core of Pro’s arguments, showing that none of his 3 main contentions stand up to scrutiny, and as a result, show that there are no benefits (exclusive) in rejecting net neutrality. Thus, Pro has not affirmed his burden of proof, and the resolution is negated. Sources (1) . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2) . https://torrentfreak.com...(3) . http://www.makeuseof.com...(4) . http://www.freepress.net...(5) . http://www.bbc.com...

positive: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.

positive: Net neutrality Ok For the last time I never said Net Neutrality. (which I'm now just going to say NN for) has been a law. I said I was a founding principle of the internet. If in your last round you claim I said it was a law you're either intentionally using a straw man or your an idiot. Then you say ebay and amazon couldn't pay to have other online shopping sites block because of anti-trust laws. Also in your final paragraph you say I never addressed you anti-trust argument. Yes I did earlier I just got tired of doing it every round. I will say it again. Anti-trust laws don't work because regulation of ISP's are horrible. Then you say that FCC guy wasn't payed by ISP's and even if he does it doesn't matter. 1. Yes he was funded by version 2. You would trust people who are getting payed by people to talk their side. So if Bud light payed a scientist to say you should drink 10,000 of these every year because it's super good for you you would trust him? If you say no same principle applies here. And I already addressed you're final paragraph. Like I said either way NN passed the FCC. I'm happy about it. The internet will continue to be a awesome place. One more thing. You mentioned government regulation like it should never exist. However in some situations it should be there. You're for affirmative action on your big issues page. Government regulation. Am I saying NN is as important as minorities having equal rights, no. However in some situations government should have regulations.

positive: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Tim Wu, the guy who coined the term "net neutrality," notes the importance of "differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law." This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says "net neutrality stimulates competition" because, "if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing." First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that "big companies would be unable to compete with each other" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says "if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see." As a result, Con argues, "small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground." First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be "banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says "if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds." Again, those "fast speeds" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the "power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers." But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [6] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.

positive: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a "fast lane" mail service is "unfair," "undemocratic," or "bad for the economy." Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. The net neutrality debate turns on the distinction between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Net neutrality condemns both alike. Antitrust laws only condemn antitompetitive discrimination, so I for antitrust enforcement, which is more flexible, nuanced, and fact-based than a rigid net neutrality regime. It simply makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Antitrust laws allow these procompetitive benefits while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination. 1. An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. The Internet has always been a free and open market, shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Costs and consumer demand interact to set price, entry costs are low, and entrepreneurs have the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a free and open market, the Internet has thrived. In the absence of heavy government regulation, and "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1] Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation. Historical data backs these claims up, showing that the less regulated broadband platform out-performs. Cable modem service, unburdened by "open access" mandates, spurted out to an early advantage. Then, when network sharing mandates on telephone networks were abruptly reduced, DSL surged. When DSL was regulated, network growth stagnated, but as soon as it was deregulated, DSL deployment took off. [2] Network sharing mandates were also imposed, and then eliminated, on fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) technology. Prior to the FCC's decision to eliminate fiber network "open access" rules," there was virtually no FTTH technology in the US. After deregulation, substantial investments were made, and now more than six million households subscribe to the Internet through ultra-fast fiber connections [3] 2. Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritize network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. For example, Lariat Wireless, a small ISP in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality regime, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [3] There are other examples. Universities that don't allow peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks, for example. Or Virginia Broadband, which improves customer experience by prohibiting customers from "excessive" use of their network. Like Lariat Wireless, Virginia Broadband can offer quality Internet service at lower prices. The folks who benefit most are the "economically disadvantaged," and those who use the Internet sparingly. [4] Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. A net neutrality requirement is a bad policy because it categorically condemns all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. 3. Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. Over more than 100 years, antitrust laws have developed to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. The main development in the antitrust laws has been a movement away from categorical rules (stuff like "all monopolies are bad") towards a more nuanced case-by-case approach. Instead of condemning business practices per se, courts require proof of harm to consumers or competition first. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, as well as being better for the economy by giving entrepreneurs latitude to experiment. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under the antitrust laws, the above business practice would be illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. You don't need further regulation to deal with anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [6] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. -- Net neutrality goes directly against most American consumers' values, such as competition, freedom of choice, and less government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has been marked by intense competition and rampant growth as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data also suggests regulations stunt growth. All these reasons support antitrust enforcement over net neutrality regulations. References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 55 (2011) [5] http://www.ntia.doc.gov... and http://vabb.com... [6] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

positive: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. "This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. "Let's look at the Verizon example given" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. "Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality." Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. "dumb internet" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The "stupid" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. "consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use ." Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. "My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs." I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. "consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. "allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. "ISPs are profit motivated." Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. "who owns the Internet." I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. "Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. "the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network." If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. "we inhibit future improvements and adaptations." Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. "ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites." Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... "This is completely false and baseless claim." They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. "ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets." Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider.

positive: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...

negative: Network neutrality Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality

negative: Network neutrality Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace

negative: allow internet service providers to block access to extremist websites ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality

negative: The Illegality Of Recreational Drugs Does More Harm Than Good internet sales will increase if drugs are legalised.

negative: Should immigrants in the United States illegally who are parents of us minors be deported Border Terror DA Links Border Border surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorism Wilson 2/26 (Reid Wilson, covers national politics and Congress for The Washington Post and author of Read In, The Post"s morning tip sheet on politics. He's a former editor in chief of The Hotline, the premier tip sheet on campaigns and elections and a graduate of The George Washington University, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border", February 26 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com...) A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. [Drone strike kills senior al-Shabab official in Somalia] Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Border surveillance is k2 preventing terrorism Smarick et al. 12 (Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. 11/12 "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants" START, http://www.start.umd.edu... CCC) An essential step in this project was determining the frequency and dynamics of border crossings by individuals who conducted or who wanted to conduct terrorism-related activities in the United States. Towards that goal, the project built upon the existing holdings of the American Terrorism Study (ATS) in this effort. The ATS, housed at the University of Arkansas, catalogs and systematically codes information on more than 300 Federal court cases involving Federal terrorist charges since 1980 and, following a review of other possible resources, proved to be the most useful starting point for compiling open-source, quantitative data on terrorist border crossings. Since 1989, the American Terrorism Study (ATS) has received lists of court cases and associated indictees that resulted from an official FBI terrorism investigation spanning 1980 through 2004. Housed at the University of Arkansas" Terrorism Research Center in Fulbright College (TRC), the ATS now includes almost 400 cases from the FBI lists. Of these, approximately 75% of cases have complete court documentation, and almost all of those collected have been coded into the ATS database, while the ATS team continues to track new cases by collecting, reviewing, and coding new and additional court documentation. The ATS includes terrorism incidents and attacks, thwarted or planned terrorism incidents sometimes referred to as preventions, material support cases for terrorism, general terrorism conspiracies, and in some cases, immigration fraud; the common denominator among all ATS events is that the FBI investigated these events as terrorism-related incidents. During preliminary research for this project, court records from 378 terrorism cases found in the ATS dataset were reviewed for information on potential border crossing events related to terrorism cases. The documents for each court case were manually reviewed by researchers to determine whether the collected records reported that one of the defendants or accomplices in a case crossed a U.S. border at some point. Thirty-eight percent of the reviewed cases"145 cases"from 1980 through 2004 were found to either have: " direct mention of a border crossing in the court documents, or " a link to a terrorism incident that involved a known border crossing, either before or after an incident. After compiling this list of court cases for inclusion, each identified court case was then linked to a criminal incident involving terrorism charges. Initial reviews revealed a connection to a border-crossing event in a total of 58 successful terrorist attacks, 51 prevented or thwarted attacks, 26 material support cases, 33 immigration fraud incidents, and 4 general terrorism conspiracies. Additional reviews of relevant information on indictees and their activities resulted in a reduction in the number of successful terrorist attacks associated with these individuals to a total of 43. Appendix 2 provides more details on the data collection process and how a reliable collection methodology was established to create the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing Dataset (USTBC), using the ATS as a starting point. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 12 Systematic evaluation by the research team revealed that the American Terrorism Study is a reliable and useful resource for identifying individuals associated with terrorist attacks or terrorist criminal cases (such as conspiracies) and for determining which of these individuals crossed U.S. borders in advance of or in the wake of their terrorism-related behavior. This is largely because the ATS is based on court documents, which among sources of data on terrorism are the most likely to reference relevant border crossing activity. The Global Terrorism Database, which is based primarily on media sources, can serve a supporting role in this research, but the ATS is the primary source allowing for construction of a new, relational database on U.S. Terrorist Border Crossings (USTBCs). That being said, it is important to recognize that the ATS is not a perfect data source. As noted above, its contents are limited to individuals and information related to court cases in which one or more defendant was charged with Federal terrorism charges. As such, the contents of ATS clearly represent a subset of all terrorists or attempted terrorists in the United States, as it systematically omits those who: " were never arrested or faced any charges, " were charged with offenses not directly related to terrorism, " were charged at the non-Federal level, or " were engaged in dangerous activity that does not meet the FBI"s definition of a terrorism case. Throughout this project, the research team was careful to respect the limitations of this data collection and to draw conclusions that recognize that the border crossing events included in this project likely represent a non-representative subset of all border crossing attempts by terrorists or intended terrorists. Despite these limitations, though, the data that was built upon the baseline of ATS provides important insights into the nexus between border crossings and terrorism. The U.S. Terrorism Border Crossing Dataset The final versions of the codebooks used to develop the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing (USTBC) data collection are presented in Appendix 3. Based upon knowledge gained from pilot efforts (as discussed above and in Appendix 2), the project resulted in two codebooks"one focused on dynamics of a bordercrossing event involving someone associated with a Federal terrorism court case, and another focused on the characteristics of the individuals associated with Federal charges who were involved in the bordercrossing event. Data collection for the USTBC lasted for approximately one year and was primarily conducted by research assistants at the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.3 The resultant data that comprise the USTBC are available in Appendix 4. Table 4 provides a snapshot summary of these data, which include detailed information on the location of an attempted crossing, the timing of a crossing relative to attempted or actual terrorist activity, the origin or destination of an attempted crossing, and more. The data also include specific information on border crossers, including their citizenship status, their criminal history, and key demographics (including level of education, marital status, etc.) Appendix 5 provides descriptive statistics from the border-crossing and border-crosser data. 3 Special thanks to Kim Murray and Summer Jackson of the Terrorism Research Center for their efforts in combing through the courtcase material and assembling these data for the USTBC. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 13 Border Crossings Identified in USTBC Attempts to Enter the United States Of the 221 border crossings identified in this project as involving individuals who were indicted by the U.S. government in terrorism-related cases, the majority (129 crossings) involved an individual attempting to enter the United States, while the remainder (92 crossings) involved an individual attempting to exit the United States. Eighty-seven percent of the attempted border crossings were successful, rather than being thwarted by law enforcement or foiled by some other events or developments. Additional discussion on the nature of successful crossings versus those who were apprehended at the border is presented below. Among those attempts to enter the United States, the most frequent origin for these crossing efforts was Canada.4 But, as Figure 2 illustrates, such attempted entries originated from all corners of the world. US Border Patrol proves that surveillance is key to anti-terror efforts Stamey 14 (Barcley; DOMESTIC AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY: SHOULD AMERICANS FEAR THE EYE IN THE SKY; March 2014) The leading national agency currently using drones to combat a wide range of domestic threats is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. With its fleet of seven MQ-1 Predators and three MQ-1 Guardians"Predators modified for marine surveillance"CBP 26 is at the forefront of large-scale drone operations. With an annual budget exceeding $11 billion, CBP is well equipped for protecting our national security while combating potential terrorist threats.55 But how efficiently are those funds being used, and what is meant by effectiveness? According to Merriam-Webster, effectiveness is "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect or result."56 Ultimately, that desired result is safe international borders. Accomplishing this result involves the apprehension of illegal immigrants, interdiction of illicit drugs, and prevention of terrorist infiltration, which CBP does quite well, but with respect to UAS, effectiveness must be viewed on a much broader scale. This section takes into account the size of CBP, its operational budget, and couples it with published results. According to CBP, the primary mission of drone use is "anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal cross-border activity."57 CBP uses its Predators and Reapers to accomplish this goal through human detection and tracking, surface asset coordination, and threat detection through IR sensors in multiple scenarios. Previously mentioned sensor suites allow the Predator to detect movement along the border, identify actual personnel numbers, and track the location of threats all while being unobserved to the individuals on the ground. With their long loiter times, Predators allow officials to monitor gaps along the border while maximizing the efforts of ground personnel in actual interdiction missions. After witnessing the functionality of actual Predator operations in Afghanistan, this author realizes the value in having high definition video sensors overhead during dangerous operations. This type of technology certainly has a place in homeland security missions, and future capabilities will provide a clear advantage to U.S. personnel in combating border security. This force multiplier mindset is one CBP has adopted and publicizes regularly to justify the success of its drone program. Long loiter times, remote area access, and flexibility during National Special Security Events are common claims. Border security stops terrorism Zuckerman, Bucci, Carafano, no date (Jessica Zuckerman, Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policyj and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, 13, 7-22-2013, "60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org... CCC) Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser"April 2013. Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser were arrested in April 2013 for attempting to carry out an attack on a Via Railway train travelling from Canada to the U.S. The attack, authorities claimed, was supported by an al-Qaeda element in Iran, although there is currently no evidence that it was state-sponsored.[205] The exact route of the targeted train has not been identified, and Iranian authorities vehemently deny that al-Qaeda is operating within Iranian borders. Esseghaier and Jaser have been charged in Canada with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group, participating in a terrorist group, and conspiring to interfere with transportation facilities for the benefit of a terrorist group. Esseghaier has also been charged with participating in a terrorist group, and both men face up to life in prison.[206] The two men are awaiting trial. Chiheb Esseghaier wants to represent himself, basing his defense on the Quran instead of on the Canadian criminal code, which has caused delays in the proceedings.[207] Continued use of border surveillance technology is crucial to the detection of and response to threats on the border Haddal 10, Specialist in Immigration Policy, 8/11/10 (Chad C. Haddal, Congressional Research Service report, August 11, 2010, "Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol" https://www.fas.org..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) Perhaps the most important technology used by the Border Patrol are the surveillance assets currently in place at the border. The program has gone through several iterations and name changes. Originally known as the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS), the program"s name was changed to the America"s Shield Initiative (ASI) in FY2005. DHS subsequently folded ASI into the Secure Border Initative (SBI) and renamed the program SBInet Technology (SBInet). Once it is beyond the pilot phase, SBInet will, according to DHS, develop and install "new integrated technology solutions to provide enhanced detection, tracking, response, and situational awareness capabilities."19 The other program under SBI is the SBI Tactical Infrastructure program, which, according to DHS, "develops and installs physical components designed to consistently slow, delay, and be an obstacle to illegal cross-border activity."20 In the late 1990s, the Border Patrol began deploying a network of Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems (i.e., camera systems), underground sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-faceted network designed to detect illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. This Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) attempted to ensure seamless coverage of the border by combining the feeds from multiple color, thermal, and infrared cameras mounted on different structures into one remote-controlled system with information generated by sensors (including seismic, magnetic, and thermal detectors). When a sensor is tripped, an alarm is sent to a central communications control room at a USBP station or sector headquarters. USBP personnel monitoring the control room screens use the ICAD system to re-position RVS cameras towards the location where the sensor alarm was tripped (although some camera positions are fixed and cannot be panned). Control room personnel then alert field agents to the intrusion and coordinate the response. Information gathered from surveillance activities is key to any effective response to terrorist threats along the border Fisher 12, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief, 5/8/12 (Michael, Department of Homeland Security, "Written testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security hearing titled "Measuring Border Security: U.S. Border Patrol"s New Strategic Plan and the Path Forward."" http://www.dhs.gov...; accessed 7/15/15 JH@ DDI) Information gathered from reconnaissance, community engagement, sign-cutting and technology together provide situational awareness and intelligence and helps us to best understand and assess the threats we face along our borders. Information and intelligence will empower Border Patrol leadership and front line agents to get ahead of the threat, be predictive and proactive. Integration denotes CBP corporate planning and execution of border security operations, while leveraging partnerships with other federal, state, local, tribal, and international organizations. Integration of effort with these organizations will ensure we bring all available capabilities and tools to bear in addressing threats. Lastly, through rapid response, we will deploy capabilities efficiently and effectively to meet and mitigate the risks we confront. Put simply, rapid response means the Border Patrol and its partners can quickly and appropriately respond to changing threats. Goal 1: Secure America"s Borders The 2012 Strategic Plan has two interrelated and interdependent goals. In the first goal, the Border Patrol will work with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners to secure America"s borders using information, integration and rapid response in a risk-based manner. There are five objectives within this goal: Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States Manage Risk Disrupt and Degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) Whole-of-Government Approach Increase Community Engagement I. Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States The current risk environment is characterized by constantly evolving threats that are both complex and varying, and the Border Patrol must strategically apply intelligence to ensure that operations are focused and targeted against the greatest threats. The Border Patrol"s ability to prevent and disrupt such threats is enhanced through increased information sharing and operational integration, planning, and execution with our domestic and foreign law enforcement partners. Integration with our federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners" intelligence and enforcement capabilities into the planning and execution of CBP operations is critical to our ability to secure our nation"s borders. The use of necessary surveillance technology is key to the identification and prevention of terrorist threats on the border Office of Border Patrol 4, September 2004 (THE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, "National Border Patrol Strategy" http://www.au.af.mil..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) The Border Patrol currently uses a mix of agents, information, and technology to control the border. The Border Patrol"s ability to establish situational awareness, monitor, detect, respond to, and identify potential terrorists, instruments of terrorism, and criminals relies heavily on interdiction and deterrence-based technology. Having the necessary technology to support the Border Patrol priority and traditional missions cannot be overstated. In the future, there must be continued assessment, development, and deployment of the appropriate mix of personnel, technology, and information to gain, maintain, and expand coverage of the border and ensure that resources are deployed in a cost-effective, efficient fashion. Technology which enhances operational awareness and effectiveness includes camera systems for day/ night/infrared work, biometric systems such as IDENT/IAFIS, processing systems like ENFORCE, sensoring platforms, large-scale gamma X-rays, and aerial platforms, and other systems. Technologies requiring modernization include wireless and tactical communications and computer processing capabilities. Coordination between Border Patrol and inspectional personnel at the ports of entry ensures the most efficient use of trained personnel and technology. In the future, the Border Patrol will take advantage of the targeting and selectivity tools made available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the National Targeting Center. The continued testing, evaluation, acquisition, and deployment of appropriate border enforcement technologies will be pursued vigorously so that the maximum force-multiplier effect is achieved in support of both the priority and traditional missions. Any gap in security on the border allows international terror groups to come into the United States Wilson 15 [Reid Wilson, 2/26/15, covers national politics for the Washington Post, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com... jf] A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Maximized surveillance on the border is key to stopping terrorism Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., jf] One of the unexpected results of our study was recognition of the importance of networked intelligence in elaborating objectives for and measuring effectiveness of border security.11 This came about for many reasons. First, all of the focus missions are best understood in national terms: Border security contributes significantly to several high-level national objectives, but results depend sensitively on interactions with and the performance of other federal and local agencies, as well as economic and demographic conditions outside of DHS"s control. Second, national-level effectiveness depends not just on individual component or agency effectiveness but also on components" ability to share information and work collaboratively, i.e., to network. This is perhaps most obvious with respect to preventing terrorism, in that individuals might enter the country who are vaguely suspicious but who cannot reasonably be arrested at the border. Responsibility for follow-up then transfers to, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, the FBI"s ability to follow up"either immediately or when further information emerges"might depend critically on information collected and effectively transferred by border agencies to the FBI. The word "effectively" is key because all agencies are deluged with data. The 9/11 Commission"s report dramatized the consequences of ineffectiveness: It is not that information for apprehending the perpetrators did not exist, but rather that the dots were not connected and the relevant agencies did not cooperate well (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004). Third, national-level law enforcement also depends on the effectiveness of the justice system, including the ability to convict and punish. That, in turn, often depends on authorities being able to construct an extensive, fact-based story of criminal behavior from which, cumulatively, guilt can reasonably be inferred by a jury. Fourth, the nature and quality of information collected by border-security components, the consistency with which it is collected, and the effectiveness with which the data are both transferred to national databases and"where appropriate"highlighted in cross-agency actions, are leverage points for improved national-level effectiveness, especially in relation to terrorism- or drug-related functions. Border-security eff orts sometimes will query detected travelers against data sets of known or suspected terrorists or criminals. This is especially relevant at ports of entry, ports of egress in some modes, and in cases in which border enforcement detains an illegal crosser. In other settings, border-enforcement agencies collect as much information as possible on individuals, their conveyances, license plates, accounts, and other records of persons detained for crossing illegally but for whom no prior records exist. The same is true in the maritime regions when individuals are arrested for illegal drug smuggling or illegal migrant smuggling. The collected information can become future tactical intelligence (and used in prosecutions) if the detained person becomes involved in criminal or terrorist functions at a later date. Discussions with component agencies indicate that this is an important capability to measure. Technologically, it is even possible to tag individuals so that subsequent surveillance within the United States (or another country) is possible.12 Border surveillance prevents terrorist groups from attempting attacks Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., pg 19, jf] The principal contributions that border security makes to counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on flows into the country of people or materials. These contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and orchestrated. Through a number of planning efforts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events (DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security programs contribute to terrorism security efforts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). This decomposition of attack planning provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security eff orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative, and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when border-security measures are perceived to be effective, terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all. This could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture. For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of fingerprints as part of the normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. This effort makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more difficult for terrorists to evade border-security efforts. Drones Drones are critical to combat bio- and chemical-terror Koerner 2015 (Matthew R, Duke University School of Law, J.D. expected 2015, "DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: REDEFINING EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY", 64 Duke L.J. 1129) Senator Dianne Feinstein, a staunch advocate of governmental surveillance n1 and Chairman of the 113th Congress's Senate Intelligence Committee, n2 recently found herself, rather ironically, as the target of surveillance. n3 One day at her home, Senator Feinstein walked to the window to check on a protest that was taking place outside. n4 Much to her surprise, a small drone n5 hovered on the other side of the window, only inches away, spying on her. n6 The drone immediately flew away. n7 Senator Feinstein's experience is just one example of drones being used for surveillance within the United States. But her story and others like it n8 have sparked significant controversy over the use of drones for domestic surveillance, which falls within a broader debate [*1131] on privacy and governmental surveillance programs. n9 Advocates of robust federal surveillance policies champion governmental surveillance as the only way to prevent terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States. n10 President Barack Obama defended these surveillance programs as ""modest encroachments on privacy'" that "strike the "right balance' between national security and civil liberties." n11 In comparison, privacy advocates envision these surveillance programs leading to a dystopian, totalitarian government watching over its citizenry - undetected but omnipresent. n12 References to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four n13 abound. n14 [*1132] Apart from the surrounding privacy-concerns debate, drones currently provide many practical benefits and their projected applications seem limitless. n15 Based on their obvious advantage of being unmanned, drones have the capability to conduct missions previously considered too risky, dangerous, or impracticable. These applications are also provided at continuously decreasing costs and with the latest technological sophistication, such as the capability to see through physical obstructions, to detect various chemical and biological agents in the air, to recognize human faces and license plates, and to fly in strategic, coordinated formations. n16 Drones provide effective surveillance of the borders Spagat 2014 (Elliot, "Drones replacing officers in Mexican border surveillance", Nov 13; www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20141113/drones-replacing-officers-in-mexican-border-surveillance) The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border. It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled " to surpass 18,000 " and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles. Under the new approach, Predator B aerial drones, used in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials with direct knowledge of the effort said on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts, who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes " perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or perhaps a drug-laden Hummer, they said. About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, while the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity " footprints, broken twigs, trash. About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as "change detection," since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol"s parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there"s not traffic, whether it"s tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." If the video shows the terrain unchanged, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher calls it "proving the negative" " showing there isn"t anything illegal happening there and therefore no need for agents and fences. The strategy was launched without fanfare and is being expanded as President Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order by the end of this year to reduce deportations and enhance border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, applauded the approach while noting surveillance gaps still remain. "We can no longer focus only on static defenses such as fences and fixed (camera) towers," he said. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who coauthored legislation last year to add 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 350 miles of fencing to the southwest border, said, "If there are better ways of ensuring the border is secure, I am certainly open to considering those options." Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and from between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The first step is for Border Patrol sector chiefs to identify areas least likely to attract smugglers, typically those far from towns and roads. Analysts scour the drone videos at operations centers in Riverside; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Sierra Vista. After an initial survey, the drones return within a week for another sweep. Privacy advocates have raised concerns about drones since Customs and Border Protection introduced them in 2006, saying there is potential to monitor innocent people under no suspicion. Lothar Eckardt, the agency"s executive director of national air security operations, said law-abiding people shouldn"t worry and that cameras are unable to capture details like license plate numbers and faces on the ground. He looked on one September morning as a drone taxied down a runway in Sierra Vista, lifted off with a muffled buzz and disappeared over a rocky mountain range into a blue Arizona sky. About a dozen computer screens line the wall of their trailer, showing the weather, maps and real-time images of the ground below. Eckardt said there is "no silver bullet" for addressing border security but that using drones in highly remote areas is part of the overall effort. If there"s nothing there, he said, "let"s not waste the manpower here. Let"s focus our efforts someplace else, where they"re needed." Drones are necessary to protect the border Ingram 2013 (David, How drones are used for domestic surveillance, Jun 19, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0619/How-drones-are-used-for-domestic-surveillance) The U.S. government has made no secret of its use of drones to monitor the United States border with Mexico. The Obama administration has been defending its surveillance tactics since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden released secret documents revealing a massive database of daily telephone records, as well as coordination between the NSA and social media companies. The programs are designed to target militants outside the United States who are suspected of planning attacks, but they inevitably gather some data on Americans, U.S. officials said. In a May speech, Obama defended the use of armed drones abroad but said the United States should never deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. The Justice Department had disclosed that two domestic law enforcement agencies use unmanned aircraft systems, according to a department statement sent to the Judiciary Committee and released on Wednesday by Grassley's office. The two are the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday asking why the Justice Department did not earlier mention the FBI's use of drones. At Wednesday's hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said she was concerned about the privacy implications of drone surveillance. "The greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today," Feinstein said. Mueller reiterated that drone use is rare. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs," he said. Mueller is due to retire when his term expires in September. Border drones effectively and efficiently monitor the border RussiaTimes "14 (November 13, 2014, http://rt.com..., 7-3-15) Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States" border with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in desolated areas the government agents can"t realistically patrol. The unmanned aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy R10; known internally as "change detection" R10; since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence R10; like footprints, broken twigs, trash R10; of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights, with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The program is expected to expand the the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "It"s not a comprehensive immigration solution or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people R10; plus maintenance staff R10; to operate, coming out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPB"s Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. "Instead, the question is: Why can"t we have more of them in my district?" Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the US-Mexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in the first half of the year. "Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones," McNeal said. "This is the kind of crisis where, if you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress." The agency"s "unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations," a CBP official told Nextgov. The president"s request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of agency drones to only nine. Domestic drones k2 solve for terrorism Bauer 13 (Max Bauer, of ACLU of Massachusetts 9-11-2013, "Domestic Drone Surveillance Usage: Threats and Opportunities for Regulation," https://privacysos.org... CCC) Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, are an emerging and rapidly-expanding development in domestic surveillance technology. [4] On Valentine"s Day 2012, President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, legislation authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop regulations to facilitate the growing usage of drones in domestic airspace. [5] Drones are best known for their use in military operations [6] including the use of weaponized drones for targeted killing. But drones have been used for domestic surveillance purposes for years [7] and their usage is expected to grow exponentially. [8] The FAA has issued 1,428 drone operator permits since 2007 (as of mid-February) and predicts there will be 10,000 drones deployed within the next five years. [9] A public information request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed that numerous universities and law enforcement agencies have been approved to use drones by the FAA. [10] Of course, the widespread use of drones for domestic surveillance raises serious privacy concerns. [11] Drones can be outfitted with high definition [12] and infrared cameras, [13] and even license plate readers. [14] Drones "present unique threats to privacy," in the words of one privacy advocate. [15] Why? They are smaller " potentially insect-sized, [16] can fly longer " perhaps soon in perpetuity, [17] and are not bound by the historical, practical check on law enforcement excesses we've had as a result of limited police resources. [18] In a seminal 1890 law review article aptly-titled The Right to Privacy, future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized that "instantaneous photographs" have invaded the secret precincts of private and domestic life"Of the desirability " indeed of the necessity " of some such protection there can, it is believed, be no doubt." [19] Brandeis and his co-author Samuel Warren were ahead of their time when they wrote that article but even they couldn"t foresee anything like the domestic surveillance schemes that have arisen over a century later. Drones Used in Massachusetts and Response to Boston Marathon Bombings. Late in 2012, the Boston Globe reported that a SWAT team in Massachusetts had filed an application with the FAA for a drone. [20] As of April 2013, there were no police drones yet in Massachusetts but Waltham-based defense contractor Raytheon was flying many of them in testing capacities. [21] Surveillance and war contracting companies hope to expand their market from military to domestic law enforcement. [22] Following the explosion of two bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, parts of the city shut down as the search for a suspect continued, prompting Ron Paul to write: "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself." [23] Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told the public shortly afterward that he seeks more surveillance cameras (there are already hundreds) in downtown Boston. [24] And further, he said, he wants to have drone surveillance for next year"s marathon. [25] Drones K2 stop terrorism Byman, 13 (Daniel L. Byman, Director of research at Center for Middle East Policy, 8/2013, http://www.brookings.edu... CCC) The Obama administration relies on drones for one simple reason: they work. According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban"top figures who are not easily replaced. In 2010, Osama bin Laden warned his chief aide, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who was later killed by a drone strike in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in 2011, that when experienced leaders are eliminated, the result is "the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced as the former leaders" and who are prone to errors and miscalculations. And drones also hurt terrorist organizations when they eliminate operatives who are lower down on the food chain but who boast special skills: passport forgers, bomb makers, recruiters, and fundraisers. Drones have also undercut terrorists" ability to communicate and to train new recruits. In order to avoid attracting drones, al Qaeda and Taliban operatives try to avoid using electronic devices or gathering in large numbers. A tip sheet found among jihadists in Mali advised militants to "maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts" and "avoid gathering in open areas." Leaders, however, cannot give orders when they are incommunicado, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible when a drone strike could wipe out an entire group of new recruits. Drones have turned al Qaeda"s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders Drones take out terrorist leaders Al-Haj, 15 (Ahmed Al-Haj, writer for the Stars & Stripes and AP the big story, 7/10/2015, http://www.stripes.com... CCC) Yemeni security and military officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike killed four al-Qaida members travelling by car in the coastal city of Mukalla. The officials say the airstrike took place on Friday night in Mukalla, the capital of Yemen's sprawling eastern Hadramawt province. The explosion was heard in some parts of the city. Al-Qaida's Yemen branch, considered to be the most dangerous offshoot of the terror network, has made gains in the province and captured Mukalla earlier this year. The officials say at least five other militants were wounded in the airstrike. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to reporters. Al-Qaida has profited from the turmoil that has engulfed Yemen, and U.S. drones have continued to target top al-Qaida leaders there. AT Retaliation AT: Retaliation Ayson flips neg- terrorism is not an existential risk Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, "After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects," Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33.7, Francis & Taylor) A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the @257;rst place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in signi@257;cant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-@257;rst century might bring would fade into insigni@257;cance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. No US nuclear retaliation Neely 13 (Meggaen Neely, The George Washington University Master of Arts (M.A.), Security Policy Studies 2012"2014 (expected) Baylor University Master of Arts (M.A.), Public Policy and Administration 2010"2012, Richard D. Huff Distinguished Masters Student in Political Science (2012) Baylor University Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science and Government, Research Assistant, Elliott School at George Washington University, Research Intern, Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Communications Intern at Federation of American Scientists Graduate Assistant at Department of Political Science, Baylor University, "Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism", March 21, 2013, http://csis.org...) Because of the difficulty of deterring transnational actors, many deterrence advocates shift the focus to deterring state sponsors of nuclear terrorism. The argument applies whether or not the state intended to assist nuclear terrorists. If terrorists obtain a nuclear weapon or fissile materials from a state, the theory goes, then the United States will track the weapon"s country of origin using nuclear forensics, and retaliate against that country. If this is U.S. policy, advocates predict that states will be deterred from assisting terrorists with their nuclear ambitions. Yet, let"s think about the series of events that would play out if a terrorist organization detonated a weapon in the United States. Let"s assume forensics confirmed the weapon"s origin, and let"s assume, for argument"s sake, that country was Pakistan. Would the United States then retaliate with a nuclear strike? If a nuclear attack occurs within the next four years (a reasonable length of time for such predictions concerning current international and domestic politics), it seems unlikely. Why? First, there"s the problem of time. Though nuclear forensics is useful, it takes time to analyze the data and determine the country of origin. Any justified response upon a state sponsor would not be swift. Second, even if the United States proved the country of origin, it would then be difficult to determine that Pakistan willingly and intentionally sponsored nuclear terrorism. If Pakistan did, then nuclear retaliation might be justified. However, if Pakistan did not, nuclear retaliation over unsecured nuclear materials would be a disproportionate response and potentially further detrimental. Should the United States launch a nuclear strike at Pakistan, Islamabad could see this as an initial hostility by the United States, and respond adversely. An obvious choice, given current tensions in South Asia, is for Pakistan to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear launch on its territory by initiating conflict with India, which could turn nuclear and increase the exchanges of nuclear weapons. Hence, it seems more likely that, after the international outrage at a terrorist group"s nuclear detonation, the United States would attempt to stop the bleeding without a nuclear strike. Instead, some choices might include deploying forces to track down those that supported the suicide terrorists that detonated the weapon, pressuring Pakistan to exert its sovereignty over fringe regions such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and increasing the number of drone strikes in Waziristan. Given the initial attack, such measures might understandably seem more of a concession than the retaliation called for by deterrence models, even more so by the American public. This is not an argument against those technologies associated with nuclear forensics. The United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue their development and distribution. Instead, I question the presumed American response that is promulgated by deterrence advocates. By looking at possibilities for a U.S. response to nuclear terrorism, a situation in which we assume that deterrence has failed, we cast doubt on the likelihood of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike and hence cast doubt on the credibility of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike as a deterrent. Would the United States launch a nuclear weapon now unless it was sure of another state"s intentional sponsorship of nuclear terrorism? Any reasonable doubt of sponsorship might stay the United States" nuclear hand. Given the opaqueness of countries" intentions, reasonable doubt over sponsorship is inevitable to some degree. Other countries are probably aware of U.S. hesitance in response to terrorists" use of nuclear weapons. If this thought experiment is true, then the communication required for credible retaliatory strikes under deterrence of nuclear terrorism is missing. The threat of a nuclear retaliation is exaggerated " even stolen material can be easily traced Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) This gloomy picture overstates the difficulty of determining the source of stolen material after a nuclear terrorist attack. In the wake of a detonation, the possibility of stolen fissile material complicates the task of attribution"but only marginally. At the end of the Cold War, several countries"particularly in the former Soviet Union"confronted major nuclear security problems, but great progress has been made since then.40 Although no country has perfect nuclear security, today the greatest concerns surround just five countries: Belarus, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa.41 In addition, not all of those states are equally worrisome as potential sources of nuclear theft. Substantial concerns exist about the security of fissile materials in Pakistan and Russia (the latter if simply because of the large size of its stockpile), but Belarus, Japan, and South Africa would likely be quickly and easily ruled out as the source of stolen fissile material. Belarus has a relatively small stockpile of fissile material"approximately 100 kilograms of HEU42"so in the wake of a nuclear terrorist attack, it would be easy for Belarus to show that its stockpile remained intact.43 Similarly, Japan (one of the United States" closest allies) and South Africa would be keen to allow the United States to verify the integrity of their full stocks of materials. (In the wake of a nuclear terror attack, a lack of full cooperation in showing all materials accounted for would be highly revealing.) Iran is not believed to have any weapons-usable nuclear material to steal,44 although that could change. In short, a nuclear handoff strategy disguised as a loose nukes problem would be very precarious.45 No retaliation " international cooperation and limited suspects solve Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) There are at least five reasons, however, to expect that attributing a nuclear terrorist attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack. First, no terrorism investigation in history has had the resources that would be deployed to investigating the source of a nuclear terror attack"particularly one against the United States or a U.S. ally. Rapidly attributing the attack would be critical, not merely as a first step toward satisfying the rage of the victims but, more importantly, to determine whether additional nuclear attacks were imminent. The victim would use every resource at its disposal" money, threats, and force"to rapidly identify the source of the attack.47 If necessary, any investigation would go on for a long time; it would never "blow over" from the victim"s standpoint. The second reason why attributing a nuclear terror attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack is the level of international assistance the victim would likely receive from allies, neutrals, and even adversaries. An attack on the United States, for example, would likely trigger unprecedented intelligence cooperation from its allies, if for no other reason than the fear that subsequent attacks might target them. Perhaps more important, even adversaries of the United States"particularly those with access to fissile materials"would have enormous incentives to quickly demonstrate their innocence. To avoid being accused of sponsoring or supporting the attack, and thus to avoid the wrath of the United States, these countries would likely go to great lengths to demonstrate that their weapons were accounted for, that their fissile materials had different isotopic properties than the type used in the attack, and that they were sharing any information they had on the attack. The cooperation that the United States received from Iran and Pakistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks illustrates how potential adversaries may be motivated to help in the aftermath of an attack and stay off the target list for retaliation.48 The pressure to cooperate after an anonymous nuclear detonation on U.S. soil would be many times greater.49 Third, the strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities stemming from an attack and the rate of attribution (as depicted in figures 1 to 3 above) suggests that the probability of attribution after a nuclear attack" with its enormous casualties"should be even higher. The 97 percent attribution rate for attacks that killed ten or more people on U.S. soil or that of its allies is based on a set of attacks that were pinpricks compared to nuclear terrorism. The data in those figures suggest that our conclusions understate the actual likelihood of nuclear attribution. Fourth, the challenge of attribution after a terrorist nuclear attack should be easier than after a conventional terrorist attack, because the investigation would begin with a highly restricted suspect list. In the case of a conventional terror attack against the United States or an ally, one might begin the investigation at the broadest level with the U.S. Department of State"s list of fifty-one foreign terrorist organizations. In the case of a nuclear terror attack, only fifteen of these FTOs have state sponsors"and only one sponsor (Pakistan) has either nuclear weapons or fissile materials. (If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that number will grow to two, but there is no overlap between the terror groups that Pakistan supports and those that Iran assists.) Finally, any operation to detonate a nuclear weapon would involve complex planning and coordination"securing the weapon, learning to use it, planning the time and location of detonation, moving the weapon to the target, and conducting the attack. Even if only a small cadre of operatives knew the nuclear nature of the attack, the planning of a spectacular operation would be hard to keep secret.50 For example, six months prior to the September 11 attacks, Western intelligence detected numerous indications that al-Qaida was planning a major attack. The intelligence was not speci fic enough"or the agencies were not nimble enough"to prevent the operation, but the indicators were "blinking red" for months, directing U.S. attention to al-Qaida as soon as the attacks began.51 Turns Case Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance " empirics prove and turns case Haggerty and Gazso 2005 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005), pp. 169-187 "Seeing beyond the Ruins: Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats" JSTOR; accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However, a great deal of organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals adopted in the days after the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts. In previous incarnations these proposals had often been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs" or to address other crimes, such as money laundering. The September 11 th attacks gave the authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation for long-standing legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities, justifying existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against terrorism. Ultimately, the police, military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of increased funding, new technology and loosened legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism. Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the development of new "secret search" provisions. Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillance-related measures including legal enhancements to their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of cryptography, and provisions for governmental agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on their customers (Burnham, 1997). All of these proposals were recycled and implemented after the September 11th attacks now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions requiring banks to exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities as a means to counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an RCMP Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker gangs" [emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by the development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized record of information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be made available to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate. Such provisions raise the specter of informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has already indicated that this ostensible anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch domestic criminals. It will also be used to scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try and determine whether they might be a pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable goals, they also reveal how a host of other surveillance agendas have been furthered by capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse. Lone wolf terror attacks are used to justify disproportionate increases in surveillance and military operations abroad Lennard, Senior News Analyst for Vice News, 10/27/14 (Natasha Lennard, Brooklyn-based Senior News Analyst for Vice News, VICE News, October 27, 2014, "'Lone Wolf' Terrorist Acts Will Be Used to Justify the Surveillance State" https://news.vice.com..., accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) The phenomenon of individuals committing violent and murderous acts in the name of an ideology is nothing new in the US. The FBI's Operation Lone Wolf investigated white supremacists encouraging autonomous violent acts in the 1990s. Why, then, are we seeing pundits and politicians newly focus on the "lone wolf" category? There's no simple answer, but we can at the very least see that the old binary, distinguishing terror as the act of networked groups versus lone madman mass killings " a distinction that has tacitly undergirded post-9/11 conceptions of terrorism " doesn't serve the latest iteration of the war on terror. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, suggested that "the Internet, as well as certain specific Muslim extremists, are really firing up this lone-wolf phenomenon." Whether intentionally or not, the Senate Intelligence Committee chair performed a lot of political work with that one comment. Crystallizing "lone wolves" as a key threat domestically helps legitimize the US's current military operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. With or without established connections, the Islamic State's far-reaching tentacles of online influence encouraging individuals worldwide cement the group as a threat to the homeland " which is always useful for politicians struggling to legally justify another protracted war. In this way, attributing attacks to homegrown "lone wolves" is more useful for current US political interests than attributing them to madness alone. The assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Which is not to say that "lone wolf terrorist" is a flawed designation for attacks by ideologically motivated individuals. In many ways it seems apt, and any challenge is welcome to the all too basic distinction that imbues group terror with motive while dismissing individual acts as madness. The "lone wolf" straddles the ill-conceived gap between madman and terrorist node. It's an intersection all too complicated for the inexpert punditry of Fox News: "They are terrorist acts, to be sure," Megyn Kelly said about Canadian gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, adding "but this guy was also a nutcase." Furthermore, the assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Under the premise that terror networks ran like arteries through US Muslim communities enabled an era of profile-driven preemptive policing that has been nothing short of racist. Entire mosques in New York were designated terrorist organizations to enable police surveillance. The NSA's meta-data collections claim justifiability on the premise that terror was locatable by tracing networks of communication. The "lone wolf" phenomenon should at least prompt the questioning of the sort of profile-based counter-terror efforts that assumed terror lurked in any network of Muslims, and that the mass hoarding of communications data was vital to national security. However, the rhetoric surrounding this type of domestic threat already bodes ill for civil liberties. If the hunt for terrorist networks has been plagued by ethnic profiling and overreaching spycraft, an established threat of "lone wolf" attacks gives a defensive imprimatur for unbounded NSA-style surveillance " anyone can wield a hatchet with ideological ire. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul said on This Week, finding such lone actors in advance of attacks is like "finding a needle in a haystack." And as Feinstein said the same day, "You have to be able to watch it, and you have to be able to disrupt them." As such, the era of the "lone wolf" terrorist does not only spell the end of the bunk distinction between motivated group and deranged individual. It ushers in the dawn of a new era of justification for our totalized state of surveillance and national security paranoia. Surveillance would increase after a terrorist attack Feaver 1/13/15 (Peter D., 1/13/15, Foreign Policy, "10 Lessons to Remember After a Terrorist Attack," Peter is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow @ Duke University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy, http://foreignpolicy.com..., 7/16/15, SM) In particular, it is striking how some of the things that were "obvious" in the days and weeks after 9/11, but then were gradually forgotten, have become obvious again:W06; Terrorists succeed when they are abetted by intelligence failures. Or, put another way, terrorists only need to get lucky once to "succeed," whereas counterterrorism has to be lucky all the time to "succeed."W06; Even robust intelligence and law enforcement may not guarantee 100 percent safety and security. By global standards " certainly by the standards of Western democracies " France has a particularly formidable counterterrorist structure. But it failed in this instance.W06; When terrorists succeed in an attack, citizens demand that the government do more to protect them " even if they have already been doing a lot. And steps that would have seemed heavy handed before the attack, say aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorists or visible demonstrations of presence by the security forces, are deemed not just tolerable but necessary. Moreover, savvy political leaders will understand that one of the benefits of a stronger official response is that it is a hedge both against dangerously stronger vigilantism and also against additional pressure from some segments of the public to do more than is wise. Terrorism leads to crackdowns History.com, Reaction to 9/11, http://www.history.com..., 2010 "Today," the French newspaper Le Monde announced on September 12, 2001, "we are all Americans." People around the world agreed: The terrorist attacks of the previous day had felt like attacks on everyone, everywhere. They provoked an unprecedented expression of shock, horror, solidarity and sympathy for the victims and their families. Citizens of 78 countries died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11, and people around the world mourned lost friends and neighbors. They held candlelight vigils. They donated money and goods to the Red Cross and other rescue and relief organizations. Flowers piled up in front of American embassies. Cities and countries commemorated the attacks in a variety of ways: The Queen Mother sang the American national anthem at Buckingham Palace"s Changing of the Guard, while in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro put up huge billboards that showed the city"s famous Christ the Redeemer statue embracing the New York City skyline. Meanwhile, statesmen and women rushed to condemn the attacks and to offer whatever aid they could to the United States. Russian president Vladimir Putin called the strikes "a blatant challenge to humanity," while German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder declared that the events were "not only attacks on the people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people." He added, "We will not let these values be destroyed." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien denounced the "cowardly and depraved assault." He tightened security along the border and arranged for hundreds of grounded airplanes to land at Canadian airports. Even leaders of countries that did not tend to get along terribly well with the American government expressed their sorrow and dismay. The Cuban foreign minister offered airspace and airports to American planes. Chinese and Iranian officials sent their condolences. And the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, visibly dismayed, told reporters in Gaza that the attacks were "unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable." "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack," he said, "and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration." But public reaction was mixed. The leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas announced that "no doubt this is a result of the injustice the U.S. practices against the weak in the world." Likewise, people in many different countries believed that the attacks were a consequence of America"s cultural hegemony, political meddling in the Middle East and interventionism in world affairs. The Rio billboards hadn"t been up for long before someone defaced them with the slogan "The U.S. is the enemy of peace." Some, especially in Arab countries, openly celebrated the attacks. But most people, even those who believed that the United States was partially or entirely responsible for its own misfortune, still expressed sorrow and anger at the deaths of innocent people. On September 12, the 19 ambassadors of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of the member nations. This statement of solidarity was mostly symbolic"NATO did not authorize any specific military action"but it was still unprecedented. It was the first time that the organization had ever invoked the mutual defense section of its charter (intended to protect vulnerable European nations from Soviet invasion during the Cold War). NATO eventually sent five airplanes to help keep an eye on American airspace. Likewise, on September 12 the United Nations Security Council called on all nations to "redouble their efforts" to thwart and prosecute terrorists. Two weeks later, it passed another resolution that urged states to "suppress the financing of terrorism" and to aid in any anti-terrorism campaigns. But these declarations of support and solidarity didn"t mean that other countries gave the United States a free hand to retaliate however, and against whomever, it pleased. Allies and adversaries alike urged caution, warning that an indiscriminate or disproportionate reaction could alienate Muslims around the world. In the end, almost 30 nations pledged military support to the United States, and many more offered other kinds of cooperation. Most agreed with George Bush that, after September 11, the fight against terrorism was "the world"s fight." Terrorists Hate US Al Qaeda Al Qaeda is expanding and plotting attacks against the West Hubbard 6/9/2015 (Ben, Al Qaeda Tries a New Tactic to Keep Power: Sharing It, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/middleeast/qaeda-yemen-syria-houthis.html) BEIRUT, Lebanon " After they routed the army in southern Yemen, fighters from Al Qaeda stormed into the city of Al Mukalla, seizing government buildings, releasing jihadists from prison and stealing millions of dollars from the central bank. Then they surprised everyone. Instead of raising their flags and imposing Islamic law, they passed control to a civilian council and gave it a budget to pay salaries, import fuel and hire teams to clean up garbage. The fighters receded into the background, maintaining only a single police station to arbitrate disputes. Al Qaeda"s takeover of Yemen"s fifth-largest city in April was the most direct indication yet that the group"s most potent regional affiliates are evolving after years of American drone strikes killing their leaders and changing to meet the challenge posed by the Islamic State"s competing and land-grabbing model of jihad. While the image of Al Qaeda has long been one of shadowy operatives plotting international attacks from remote hide-outs, its branches in Yemen and Syria are now increasingly making common cause with local groups on the battlefield. In doing so, they are distancing themselves from one of Osama bin Laden"s central precepts: That fighters should focus on the "far enemy" in the West and not get bogged down in local insurgencies. In recent weeks, the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has allied with armed tribes to fight Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, putting that alliance on the same side of the country"s civil war as the United States and Saudi Arabia. In Syria, Qaeda-allied fighters are important members of a rebel coalition against President Bashar al-Assad that includes groups supported by the West. This strategy has clear benefits for a group that has long been near the top of the United States"s list of enemies by allowing it to build local support while providing some cover against the threat of foreign military action. But despite Al Qaeda"s increased involvement in local battles, American officials say the group remains committed to attacking the West, a goal that could be easier to plot from sanctuaries where it enjoys local support. Cooperating with others could also give Al Qaeda a long-term advantage in its competition with the extremists of the Islamic State, analysts said. Since its public break with Al Qaeda last year, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has stolen the jihadist limelight by seizing cities in Syria and Iraq and declaring a caliphate in the territory it controls. This has won it the allegiances of other militant cells from Libya to Afghanistan. The Islamic State has insisted that other groups join it or be considered enemies, a tactic that has alienated many in areas it controls. And its public celebration of violence, including the beheading of Western hostages, helped spur the formation of a United States-led military coalition that is bombing the group. Al Qaeda"s branches in Syria and Yemen have taken a different route, building ties with local groups and refraining from the strict application of Shariah, the legal code of Islam, when faced with local resistance, according to residents of areas where Al Qaeda holds sway. When Al Qaeda took over Al Mukalla in April, it seized government buildings and used trucks to cart off more than $120 million from the central bank, according to the bank"s director, Abdul-Qader Foulihan. That sum could not be independently verified. But it soon passed control to a civilian council, giving it a budget of more than $4 million to provide services, an arrangement that made sense to local officials seeking to serve their people during wartime. "We are not Qaeda stooges," said Abdul-Hakeem bin Mahfood, the council"s secretary general, in a telephone interview. "We formed the council to avoid the destruction of the city." While the council pays salaries and distributes fuel, Al Qaeda maintains a police station to settle disputes, residents said. It has so far made no effort to ban smoking or regulate how women dress. Nor has it called itself Al Qaeda, instead using the name the Sons of Hadhramaut to emphasize its ties to the surrounding province. One self-described Qaeda member said that the choice of name was deliberate, recalling that after the group seized territory in southern Yemen in 2011, the country"s military had mobilized to push it out with support from the United States. "We were in control for a year and six months, we applied God"s law, we created a small state and the whole world saw it, but they did not leave us alone," the man said in an interview with a Yemeni television station. "So we came here with the name the Sons of Hadhramaut, but the people here know who we are." American officials have long considered the terrorist group"s Yemeni branch, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous to the West. It has sought to carry out attacks against the United States, and it retains sophisticated bomb-making expertise. Now, Yemen"s civil war has given the group an opportunity to expand, analysts said. Can"t deter Al-Qaeda Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") The third type of terrorist who might prove undeterrable were they to acquire these weapons is Al Qaeda itself. Unlike terrorists who serve the liberation claims of a particular group of people, Al Qaeda does not depend for its support on a particular population who could be subjected to revenge or retribution following an attack. Thus the attackers on Afghan soil. Once Afghanistan had served its function as a base, it was dispensable as far as Al Qaeda was concerned. Since their goal is not the acquisition of power itself but the punishment of the United States and its strategic allies, they cannot be stopped by political negotiation, concession, or appeasement. Nor are they susceptible to the incentives that make some armed groups conform to the laws of war in order to achieve international recognition or legitimacy. This indifference to incentives and sanctions applies not merely to Al Qaeda but to any cult with charismatic psychopaths at its head. It is hard to see what political action a state could have taken to deter the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo before it released toxic agents in the Tokyo subway system. 9 Unlike political groups seeking liberation or national territory, these cults cannot be engaged politically, and since they are closed and conspiratorial, they are difficult to infiltrate and neutralize. The logic of deterrence that once kept state violence in some kind of check has no traction with loners and the cult leaders of global terrorism. Since they promise their followers eternal life, they create a cadre of undeterrables. Standard rationality doesn"t apply to Al-Qaeda " they cannot be deterred Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") In the examples considered so far, it has become clear that where armed groups have a real prospect of obtaining recognition and statehood, they may be persuaded to abstain from terrorism. Where their success in this struggle depends on retaining the support of local populations, they may also conclude that restraint pays better than atrocity. But these incentives and restraining factors do not apply to all terrorist groups. No such factors discipline the conduct of Al Qaeda. They have no aspirations to statehood and therefore no incentive to play by any known rules. They do not serve a determinate population and are therefore unconstrained either by their supporters" moral code or by their vulnerability to reprisal. They even appear indifferent to casualties inflicted on Muslim populations who live or work in proximity to their targets. This is what makes them so dangerous. This is also why they cannot be engaged politically and must instead be defeated militarily. Al Qaeda is therefore a distinctive kind of terrorism, no longer in the service of a people"s freedom or in the name of the overthrow of a given state. The apocalyptic nihilists who attacked the United States on September 11 did not leave behind justifications, noble or otherwise, for their actions. They directed their propaganda and their justifications not at a specific state denying a claim to self-determination, but at the United States as the hated imperial capital of a materialistic, secular, and alien civilization. The so-called martyrs defended their actions in the language of Islamic eschatology, not in the language of rights. 33 Moreover, their intentions were apocalyptic, not political: to humiliate the archenemy of Islam and secure martyrdom in the process. It is difficult to see, in principle, how acts unaccompanied by demands can be accommodated politically. If the goal of terrorism is neither territory nor freedom, if its purpose is to strike a blow that asserts the dignity of Muslim believers while inflicting horror and death upon their enemies, then it is difficult to envisage a political response of any kind. Such an attack cannot be met by politics but only by war. Generic Biological realism explains terrorism " means it"s impossible to stop it Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Yet, even if al-Qaida is diminished, Islamic fundamentalist suicide attacks will continue to be executed by al-Qaida-inspired groups, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Taliban because they are an effective asymmetric tactic against some of the world"s most hardened security forces. Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorists have penetrated British, French, Israeli, and U.S. defenses, among others. Moreover, only suicide terrorists could have executed the September 11 attacks or penetrated the Israeli security corridor bordering the Palestinian Authority, because they alone could navigate the countless security obstacles and be capable of self-destructing at a precise location and time while causing the greatest damage. As Mustafa Alani puts it, "It"s what we call a thinking, walking bomb. He watches the whole scene [and] chooses the best time and best location."4 Suicide terrorism is the ultimate smart bomb, demonstrating unparalleled political commitment and personal resoluteness. Scholars have examined Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism primarily through the lens of international politics, economics, and cultural studies, and each offers important insights into the motivation and recruitment policies of groups that practice it. There is, however, another discipline that can make a useful contribution"the life sciences. We argue that the application of concepts and approaches from the life sciences yields new insights into (1) the causal context of Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism, (2) the motivation of suicide terrorists, and (3) policy approaches to subvert this form of terrorism. A consilient approach, incorporating ideas from the life sciences and the social sciences, can aid social scientists and policy analysts in addressing the problem of Islamic suicide terrorism.5 The life sciences can be a source of new analogies and examples that might help scholars and analysts to approach the problem in fresh ways and derive effective policies.6 Our argument is important for three reasons. First, understanding the motivations of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is critical for creating policies to stop them, ideally before they become terrorists. Second, our approach helps to illuminate why few Islamic fundamentalist terrorists defect and how policies may be crafted to promote defections. Finally, it advances the goal of consilience"that is, using insights from human evolution and ecology, as well as from the social sciences, to create a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of human behavior. In essence, consilient approaches bridge the gap between the life sciences and the social sciences. For the advancement of knowledge concerning human behavior, there may be no more important task than removing the barriers between the life sciences and the social sciences, which we believe will revolutionize both fields of study.7 The evolutionary structure of terrorist organizations makes them impossible to deter Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Alpha males try to resolve this inevitable tension through male bonding. By persuading non-alpha males that they are all "family," alpha males may be able to dampen intragroup tensions. Evolutionary psychology also helps to explain why this strategy will be effective. Humans evolved in small-group dominance hierarchies"principally the family and extended family hunter groups. Accordingly, the human mind is well suited for comprehending and bonding with small groups of dozens or, at most, 100 or 150 people.24 To be sure, humans may bond with larger units (e.g., a country), but that requires an extensive effort by the state (e.g., years of nationalistic education). In mimicking the family bond, male-bonded groups often assume the task of educating young males, providing another family-like service. Young people often embrace indoctrination into a belief system through a religion or an educational system, or the combination of the two, such as in madrassas.25 Emulating the family also makes the male-bonded group more resilient"harder to penetrate and to destroy"similar to the family or the mafia and suggests they must be targeted in unique ways. The dynamics described above are found among all societies, not only those of the Islamic world. Alpha males will seek to co-opt non-alpha males into male-bonded societies in which violence is controlled by alphas and guided toward out-groups, not in-groups (and especially not targeted toward the alphas). In this study, however, we limit ourselves to examining factors that we argue contribute to Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism. Of course, even within the Islamic world, individuals will possess other motivations to conduct suicide attacks. For example, there is evidence that at least some Iraqi male teenagers have been forced to train as suicide bombers under fear of reprisals against their families. Terrorism"s engrained in Islamic societies " it"s the only way for non-Alpha males to achieve status Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Baldly put, polygyny means mates for some men and none for others. And who will not obtain mates? It will not be those with advantages, but rather those who lack them. Non-alpha males will be the reproductive losers, and this gives them great motivation to use force, the sole area in which they possibly hold a reproductively relevant advantage over alpha males. Alpha males and non-alpha males understand the ramifications of polygyny for their relations: polygyny will heighten in-group violence against alpha males by non-alpha males absent a mechanism that directs this violence to an out-group. From the perspective of alpha males, suicide terrorism offers some interesting possibilities. A non-alpha male in a polygynous society with high levels of gender differentiation wants to find a way to project power, preferably through violence. In this way, he hopes to obtain greater social status and thus greater reproductive success. An alpha male in the same society wants to find a way to channel that violence to out-groups without allowing the nonalpha male to achieve social status through violence, which ultimately could threaten the interests of the alpha males. Suicide terrorism, sanctioned and applauded by religious belief, represents an attractive strategy in this context. If alpha males can persuade non-alpha males that (1) their violence should be directed to out-groups, (2) that thereby these non-alpha males will greatly increase their social status and make their families proud, but (3) they will have to die and experience their reproductive success vicariously through their kin, or in the afterlife, then the threat of in-group violence can be decreased. For some non-alpha males, becoming a shaheed is the most effective response to the human evolutionary conundrum produced by male dominance hierarchies, high levels of gender differentiation, and the scarcity of females resulting from polygyny.40 In 2003 Robert Pape found that among Islamic suicide terrorists, 97 percent were single and 84 percent were male. If one excludes the Kurdistan Workers" Party, which promotes gender equality, the gender ratio rises to 91 percent.41 These young men come predominantly from lower socio-economic strata of society than those involved in nonsuicide terrorism, despite the somewhat anomalous case of the September 11 attacks. Evolutionary psychology would predict that this subpopulation would be most susceptible to the lure of suicide terrorism. Islamic religious texts promise the shaheed seventy-two virgins in the afterlife. 42 Miller and Kanazawa note, "It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivate many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single."43 Failed suicide bombers may not admit to this temptation as motivation for their action, perhaps considering it too vulgar or impious. Nevertheless, it can be a key draw for a male contemplating poor reproductive prospects in this life. In March 2004, Husam Abdu (also Abdo), a sixteen-year-old failed suicide bomber captured at an Israeli checkpoint in Gaza, explained to Israeli intelligence officials that his dwarfism made him the object of ridicule at school, and he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with virgins in paradise. 44 Another captured would-be suicide terrorist, a Moroccan man, aged twenty-six, suffered from facial disfigurement.45 A study of suicide bombers in Iraq conducted by the U.S. military found that they were almost always single males from eighteen to thirty, with a mean age of twenty-two and no children. 46 The study concluded that most are "alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark."47 Immigration DA (WIP) tag Levy 6-3 (Gabrielle, Capitol Hill analyst at US News, "Signs of Life For Immigration Reform," June 3 2015, http://www.usnews.com...) With comprehensive immigration reform essentially dead on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future, Republicans appear poised to advance a series of incremental measures to address the hot-button issue amid political pressure to tackle the broken system. W06; GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have proposed potential areas of compromise they hope can help the party handle the delicate balance between appeasing the demands of the base in beefing up border security while addressing the practical economic need for foreign labor.W06; The moves come amid almost no progress on immigration legislation since the then-Democratically controlled Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. The impasse led President Barack Obama to issue executive orders protecting some groups of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation " infuriating Republicans in the process.W06; With the unilateral moves halted by a federal judge, congressional leadership has been content to sidestep the thorny issue after losing a faceoff in March in which they unsuccessfully tried to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to a rollback of the Obama actions. But the looming presidential race has increased the sense of urgency among some of the rank and file eager to see the party raise its standing among Hispanic voters.W06; "If you"re a Republican [running for president], you at minimum want the immigration issue neutralized, and maybe gain votes where Mitt Romney was unable to get them" in 2012, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Foundation for American Policy.W06; While any of the the piecemeal proposals faces long odds to passage and even less chance of cooperation with the White House, one area of focus appears to be on guest worker programs that would increase the number and accessibility of visas for both high- and low-skilled workers. The reform already has bipartisan support.W06; "When it comes to illegal immigration, what"s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. "From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let"s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program."W06; Some studies have suggested that, instead of taking away jobs from Americans, those workers help spur economic growth. It"s a position immigration advocates hope to use to sell the issue to a broader constituency.W06; "If you don"t have a restaurant worker working in the kitchen " you"re not going to have good jobs, waiter jobs, management jobs in restaurants for Americans," says Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. "So we need to connect with the middle class and show that immigration is good for the middle class."W06; NOGALES, AZ - JANUARY 21: The U.S.-Mexico border fence on January 21, 2014 in Nogales, Arizona. (Photograph by Charles Ommanney/Reportage by Getty Images)W06; RELATEDW06; Tracing the 2016 Fault LinesW06; Aguilar"s organization has suggested setting up guest worker programs for low-skilled workers that would allow the number of visas to fluctuate based on the needs of businesses. The system, particularly suited to the needs of the agricultural industry, would allow workers to come into the U.S. for a few months of the year, then return to their home countries.W06; A more narrowly tailored bill from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also gained some interest from advocates on both sides of the aisle. The measure, which has yet to move in committee, would increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields, and make it easier for those workers to stay in the U.S.W06; "Just like in business, I don't want the smart people working in my competitor's business, I want them working in mine," Johnson said. "The same thing should be true for a national economy: If we use American resources to educate the brightest people from around the world ... we should provide every incentive for the brightest minds to be working here to grow our economy."

negative: Should colleges be free Should colleges be free, I think they should because then it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you can still have an education. Or just be free just for the 4 years of college.

negative: Fairness Doctrine Fairness Doctrine would counter conservative domination of radio

negative: Net neutrality laws. I understand but it's just annoying for me, since I was trying to look for a serious debate.

negative: Net Neutrality Thanks to my opponent, WhiteFlame, for participating in this debate with me. I really enjoyed it! http://www.youtube.com...

negative: Net Neutrality Actually, you have changed my mind. Now I gotta figure out how to concede. Good job!

negative: Net Neutrality I enjoyed it. I hope you did as well.

negative: block access to websites that deny the Holocaust The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality

negative: Net neutrality laws. I'll give you a real debate. invite me to a new one and then I'll get serious

negative: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin!

negative: The American Indepenence was net harmful If the rebellion did not start, or failed to find enough popular support (both of which were very likely possibilities for failure). The U.S.A. would have been unable to gain independence, and thus would have become in essence, a richer, more populated, and less cold version of Canada.For the purpose of this debate, I am assuming that the USA becomes a constitutional monarchy, with a liberal democracy and the English monarch as head of state. The USA would be a part of the Commonwealth, and international affairs would be guided by London, much as Canada and Australia were and are today.Since Canada is in North America, in a setting similar to the USA, it is reasonable to conclude that American society would develop much the same way as Canada did in OTL.Canada today is a positive force on the world, and most importantly, is not a negative force on the world.My argument assumes that OTL USA has many negative traits and actions that could have been prevented by following the path of OTL Canada and Australia.The world would have greater net benefits if the USA were a British dominion for the reasons that:I. Less imperialism, less aggression, less unnecessary violence leads to less net harmsII. Canadian/Australian-type societies are more liberal and produce more net benefits.I will concentrate on I. and move into II. on my next round.I. Conflicts that would have been avoided1. Manifest DestinyBritish dominions rarely took aggressive expansionist actions towards fellow western countries, Certainly not on a large scale when they did.Britain would very rarely use its colonies to seize the colonies of others. The one exception being French Canada. In East Asia, Africa, and Latin America, British colonies halted all expansion once they reached the borders of a fellow European colony.Thus, it can be extrapolated that if the USA were a dominion, it would not have had a reason nor the authorization to invent and execute the idea of “Manifest Destiny” and wrest large portions of North America from Mexican and Spanish hands.This means the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars would have been prevented.R32;Also, Dominions have never declared war on each other, and thus the War of 1812 could never have occurred as the USA could not possibly attack Canada in order to occupy North America.The land wrested from Mexico in the war already had Mexican nationals living on that land, and their descendants continue to live there. Today, Mexican-Americans are treated as second-class citizens in a country that, if history had gone a little differently, would be theirs. (1a)2. Pacific colonial empireBritain did not have great ambition towards the Pacific ocean. The only real pacific powers of OTL were the USA, Russia and Japan. Japan and Russia both competed with America in the Pacific in that respective order.America’s Pacific ambitions led it to snatch a great many strategic islands, and then build massive navies to project American power across the Pacific. This prompted West-facing Japan to turn east and match the power of America. The resulting naval arms race helped justify and spur Japanese imperialism in east Asia, which led to Japan waging several wars in order to capture strategic pacific bases, just as America had done. This face-off culminated in the Pacific War of 1941-1945, as Japan and America’s navies wrought destruction upon each other and hundreds of islands caught in the crossfire, including densely populated places such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and the Japanese home islands themselves. (2a,2b)After the Japanese defeat, the Soviet Union rose as the next contender against the USA in Pacific strategic dominance, characterized by a large nuclear-capable submarine fleet. The threat of nuclear war between the SU and the USA led to yet another arms race, this time not only in fleets and bases but also in nuclear weapons.If the USA were a dominion of Britain and thus had not become a Pacific power, these conflicts would have been avoided. Japan and Russia would not have needed such large navies, and thus the military ambitions of all parties would have been reduced, leading to less conventional war in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, as well as less threat of nuclear war in the mid to late twentieth century.3. Latin America hegemonyBritish dominions were democratic countries that did not forcefully exert their influence on neighboring countries. If the USA had not had its own hegemony, Latin America would not have spend a century and half being bullied by the “Northern Giant”. The cost incurred during this time period is incalculable. Military and economic interventions in Latin America crushed the people there and rendered them down to mere tools for the American market.Later, especially during the Cold War, the USA would outright depose governments that it did not deem likable enough and replaced them with USA-friendly dictatorships in exchange for economic boons, such as the drug trade. Countless hundreds of thousands have been killed by the strongmen that the USA has hired in Latin America. (3a,3b,3c)If America were a dominion, the USA would not have had the ability to develop it’s own hegemony under the supervision of London, and thus the countries of Latin America would not have been stomped under the American heel. To this day, thousands flow our of South American countries to flee the terrible economic conditions and repressive political conditions. Both are results of American hegemony that could have been avoided.4. Cold War interventions in Asia/AfricaThe continued desire for global domination, the need for expansionism and economic imperialism meant that the USA would mercilessly compete against other countries to secure a slice of wealth for itself, at the cost of the people living on exploited land.Britain, when it was a world power, did not aggressively antagonize nor vilify their political rivals. It is clear that if the USA were a British dominion, it would have been unable to justify violence with "it hurts the communists". Thus, tragedies such as the Vietnam war(4a), the Cambodian (4b) and Laotian genocides(4c), the East Timor genocide(4d), the Afghan wars 1979-present(5e), the Iranian Shah(5f), the Second Gulf War(5g), and countless other political conflicts in Africa all would not have been supported and thus would have had either a much smaller negative impact, or not even have started at all. (5h,5i).5. Involvement in EuropeSince the USA was not directly linked to any European power, it pursued an isolationist policy vis a vis Europe. This meant that American involvement in European affairs, especially conflicts, was severely limited.It is undeniable that if America had remained a dominion like Canada, it would have supported Britain through thick and thin, as Canada did through all of Britain’s conflicts.Thus, if the entirety of American industrial might were available for Britain during times of need right from the beginning, the most destructive wars in history could have been ended much more quickly, if not prevented completely.If the Allies had full access to American men and materials from the first day rather than only during the final year, WW1 the war would have ended sooner, resulting in fewer deaths and far less destruction. If WW1 had ended more favorably due to early USA participation, Russia might not even have had the Russian Revolution, which is an entire can of worms on it’s own.If the Allies had full access to American men and materials from the first day rather than only starting from halfway into the war, the Nazis would have been defeated much earlier, and their genocidal plans would have been foiled before they could go into full motion.This is even ignoring the fact that the enemies of democracy would have been much more wary of starting war if they were not assured American neutrality. The Central powers and the Axis were only so bold because they thought that the USA would not join the Allies, the side of democracy.Conclusion of Argument I.The USA as a dominion of Britain would not pursue imperialism, would not pursue an aggressive approach to the Cold War, would not support dictators all over the world and would not ferment violence and conflict for the sake of profit.By not having a completely independent USA, there could have been many less harms incurred against the people of the world.Less harms means more net benefit for the entire world.Sources:1.a)http://www.economist.com...2.a)George W. Baer, One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U. S. Navy, 1890-1990 (1994) pp. 108-9b)Harlow A. Hyde, Scraps of paper: the disarmament treaties between the world wars (1988) p 2393.a)http://www.zompist.com...b)http://www.globalresearch.ca...c)http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com...4.a)http://en.wikipedia.org...b)http://worldwithoutgenocide.org...c)http://legaciesofwar.org...d)http://en.wikipedia.org...e)http://en.wikipedia.org...f)http://rt.com...g)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Warh)http://en.wikipedia.org...i)morallowground.com/2013/01/20/us-supports-brutal-dictators-in-4-of-7-least-free-nations/

negative: Technology remains insecure and a security risk. The internet remains at risk. Cybersecurity is a key concern, and the prevalence of hacking events across Africa identifies the need to promote security for the new digital users. Cyber-crime costs the Kenyan government around Ksh.2 billion (Mutegi, 2013); and affects around 70% of South Africans. In order to encourage more users in technology their safety, against fraud, hacking, and identity theft, needs to be prioritised. Without security technology can’t help entrepreneurs as customer details, business plans etc can’t be kept private.

negative: Net neutrality laws. Ok i'll forfeit I don't care. Everytime I see a debate where someone says it's impossible to accept and I can I always do cause it's funny to me.

negative: China is in trouble China suffers from a myriad of economic, social, political and geopolitical problems, and is in a fragile state as it advances into the 21st century, fraught with complex danger and uncompromising enemies. This round will center on China's economic strength and China's economic woes. Since the late 1970s and with the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, China has moved from a closed, centrally planned system to a more market-oriented one that plays a major global role - in 2010 China became the world's largest exporter and the IMF estimates China will become the worlds largest economy by 2016. Xiaoping's reforms began with the phasing out of collectivized agriculture, and expanded to include the gradual liberalization of prices, fiscal decentralization, increased autonomy for state enterprises, creation of a diversified banking system, development of stock markets, rapid growth of the private sector, and opening to foreign trade and investment. China has implemented reforms in a gradualist fashion, phasing "5-year plans" in and out. The restructuring of the economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978, currently estimated at $11.44 trillion USD at PPP prices. The dollar values of China's agricultural and industrial output each exceed those of the US; China is second to the US in the value of services it produces. However, per capita income is below the world average at $8,400 USD at PPP prices (122nd worldwide). The Chinese government currently faces numerous economic challenges, including: 1. reducing its high domestic savings rate and correspondingly low domestic demand; 2. sustaining adequate job growth for tens of millions of migrants and new entrants to the work force; 3. reducing corruption and other economic crimes; 4. managing the increase in wages and inequality properly and 5. containing environmental damage and social strife related to the economy's rapid transformation. Economic development has progressed further in coastal provinces than in the interior, and by 2011 more than 250 million migrant workers and their dependents had relocated to urban areas to find work. One consequence of China's population control policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world, which is having its own effect on China's economy. Deterioration in the environment - notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table, especially in the North - is another long-term problem. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development, and is starting to become a serious problem. With only 7% of the world's arable land, China must feed 22% of the world's population. Moreover, China continues to lose farmland through soil erosion, decreased soil fertility, and steadily expanding urban encroachment. The Chinese Bureau of Statistics estimates that as of 2009, China's arable land stood at 1.83 billion mu (approximately 122 million hectares). This figure represents a significant decrease in amount of available arable land. One researcher, reviewing the reduction from 1996 to 2005, estimated the total reduction to be 7.96 million hectares. This is despite an increase in population of 90 million people. As compared with other developed nations, China has a lower ratio of arable land to population. China is estimated to have .10 hectare of cropland per capita while the US maintains .47 hectare per capita and EU maintains .69 hectare per capita. Rapid growth has also attributed to increased land pollution. As agricultural land use has decreased, the need for high grain output has increase. As a result, Chinese farmers have developed an over reliance on the input of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The consumption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has shown a pronounced increase over the last few years. Indeed, China's consumption of pesticides far exceeds the average level worldwide and China's consumption of fertilizers per hectare far exceeds safety limits of developed countries for agricultural application. This overuse of fertilizers and pesticides could result in a serious decline of agricultural production. Additionally, industrial pollution has contributed to the arable land destruction, some estimate up to one sixth of China"s arable land is polluted by heavy metals. China is the world's number one consumer of coal, number one producer of greenhouse gases, and produces more sulfuric dioxide and particulate matter than all of Europe. These compounds contribute to acid rain, which damages crops, changes soil composition, and pollutes waterways. China also faces high corruption and low economic freedom. In the 2012 Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, China ranked 138th of 179, with a score (51.2, mostly unfree, just above repressed) lower than both global and regional averages. According to the Index, "Economic freedom in China rests on fragile foundations. The judicial system is vulnerable to political influence and Communist Party directives, and corruption is perceived as widespread. The party"s small leadership group holds ultimate authority, and direct control is exercised over many aspects of economic activity. The pace of genuinely liberalizing economic reform has slowed or stopped. The government has tried to counter the slowdown in global demand with expansionary fiscal and monetary interventions." According to the 2011 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, China scored 3.6, ranked 75th of 182, or "highly corrupt", and from 2001-2006, China's score averaged 3.4, placing it in the bottom third of corrupt nations. According to a study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, though the Chinese government has over 1,200 laws regarding corruption, the odds of a corrupt official being caught and punished is less than 3% out of 100%. The amount of money stolen through corruption scandals has risen exponentially since the 1980s. Corruption in China is concentrated in sectors with extensive state involvement, such as infrastructure projects, real estate, government procurement, and financial services. The absence of competitive political process and free press make these high-risk sectors susceptible to fraud, theft, kickbacks, and bribery. The direct annual cost of corruption in China is estimated at $86 billion USD, though the cost of indirect costs of corruption (efficiency losses; waste; and damage to the environment, public health, education, credibility and morale) could be much, much higher. Corruption both undermines social stability (sparking tens of thousands of protests each year), and contributes to China"s environmental degradation, deterioration of social services, and the rising cost of health care, housing, and education. Besides corruption, inequality in both wages and wealth distribution plagues China. According to the CIA, China's Gini Coefficient, a measure of income inequality, was 48, (100 perfectly unequal, 0 perfectly equal) in 2009, ranking it 52nd of 136, and in 2010, the International Institute for Urban Development in Beijing calculated China's Gini Coefficient at 43.8. Zhu Yinghui, a researcher at the institute, said that China"s wealth gap raised concerns about China"s development path. "The income gap between urban and rural, between communities, and lack of middle class are factors that could affect social stability," she said. Separately, an academic survey of more than 8000 households across China conducted in 2011 suggests a much greater level of inequality, with the top 10% controlling 56% of income. "That makes China more unequal than the United States and even more unequal than African societies" said Gan Li, a Professor at China's South Western University of Finance and Economics and Texas A&M University in the U.S., who led the survey. That commences my argument. I await your response.

negative: Internet access is a responsibility not a right Matt Asay. "Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?" CNET. May 6th, 2009: "I'd therefore turn this discussion on its head, and suggest to Reding and the European Commission: we may choose to shoulder the responsibility for delivering Internet access to Europe and the rest of the world, but let's term it as a 'fundamental responsibility,' and not as a 'fundamental right.'"

negative: Trans fat ban Govt should protect consumers when consumers aren't fully informed.

negative: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate.

negative: Net neutrality To conclude, I'll do a short rebuttal, and then I'll do a recap of the whole debate. == Rebuttal == (1) Pro says that net neutrality was a "founding principle" of the Internet. First, Pro's simply wrong: "net neutrality" is a recent phrase, coined by Tim Wu in 2003. [1] Second, Pro offers no source for his claim, so it's unreliable (and again, wrong). Third, even if Pro's right that net neutrality is a "founding principle," that's irrelevant to this debate. The issue we're debating is whether to require net neutrality, or whether to allow entrepreneurs to experiment (e.g. Lariat Wireless, discussed in Round 2 and dropped by Pro). (2) Pro says antitrust laws "don't work because regulation of ISPs are horrible." But that makes no sense. Regulations aren't relevant to how the antitrust laws work. Antitrust laws apply in the absence of regulations. Antitrust laws prevent Amazon from blocking other online sites because the antitrust laws explicitly prohibit the "attempt to monopolize" and the "abuse of monopoly power." There's no other way to characterize "paying to block your competitors" than an "abuse of monopoly power" or an "attempt to monopolize." Both are illegal under our antitrust laws. (3) Pro continues to assert that the "FCC guy" was "funded by version," but he provides no source for that claim. There's no reason to think FCC commissioners are funded by ISPs. (4) Pro says the FCC passed net neutrality rules. Yes, that's true. But that's also completely irrelevant to the debate, which is about whether there should be net neutrality laws, not whether there exist any net neutrality laws. And if the debate's about whether there exists net neutrality laws, then Pro still loses because the FCC rules haven't gone into effect yet, they're being challenged in the courts (and the last couple net neutrality rules the FCC approved were struck down by courts), and a change in administration could reverse the FCC's rule. (5) I agree with Pro that government should regulate some things, including some aspects of telecommunications. But there's no need to regulate net neutrality. == Recap == The argument against net neutrality is simple: net neutrality doesn't distinguish procompetitive discrimination from anticompetitive discrimination. Pro never challenged that argument. Instead, he claims that net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent anticompetitive discrimination. But as I explained throughout the debate, that's simply untrue. Our antitrust laws -- which have developed over the past 100 years -- are enough to protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination. The antitrust laws also allow entrepreneurs like Lariat Wireless (see Round 2) to experiment with procompetitive forms of data discrimination. The idea is to cater to the consumer, and in doing so, lower prices. The net result is that more people can get online than if we had a rigid net neutrality law, because prices are lower. It also leads to creative business models, which spurts growth and innovation. Pro never contests the substance of my argument. His only points throughout the debate focus on showing that ISPs can harm consumers and competition in the absence of net neutrality. But Pro offered no sourcing for any of his claims, even though I asked multiple times. The reason is because most of his claims aren't true. Moreover, I showed throughout the debate that Pro's wrong, because the antitrust laws already -- and the keyword there is "already" -- stop ISPs from harming consumers and competition. Pro never argues otherwise. Thus, there's simply no reason to displace our antitrust laws, which are flexible and fact-based, with a rigid net neutrality law that doesn't distinguish the procompetitive from the anticompetitive.

negative: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. "A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting "network testing" and that net neutrality rules permit "reasonable network management practices"" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for "quick awnsers" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. "Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.

negative: Net neutrality laws. The implication behind making the debate impossible to accept, asking you to comment if you're interested, was to exercise discrimination in choice of opponent. I think taking the debate without commenting is bad conduct and constitutes a forfeit (at least based on the standards on this site). That said, the debate isn't about net neutrality as principle. Net neutrality "is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org... The debate is about net neutrality laws. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate anticompetitive business practices through other means (e.g. antitrust laws). The problem with requiring net neutrality -- with a net neutrality law -- is that it doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [1] Moreover, current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers from anticompetitive practices. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under current antitrust laws, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, that's illegal if it harms consumers and competition. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [2] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. References: [1] http://judiciary.house.gov... [2] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

negative: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. What Pro is failing to understand is that you can either have or not have net neutrality. There is no 'in between'. So therefore by not requiring net neutrality, it is the same as banning it, for you will still have less competition, small businesses, innovation, and privacy without REQUIRING net neutrality. REFUTES 1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. My opponent was stating that a good internet is "shaped by intense competition and rampant growth". But judge, as I mentioned, net neutrality will HELP! It will lead to more competition, innovation, and small businesses. This will help our economy and the growth of the Internet, which therefore turns this point invalid. 2) Net Neutrality doesn't distinguish between pro competitive and anticompetitive practices. Judge, this point is basically that it will be harming all discriminatory practices. But here is why this is not a concern - we have been working with net neutrality for years, and it has increased the global market and been beneficial for our economy and businesses . So whether or not there is no difference between the quoted 'discriminatory practices' there will be a benefit for the people, and therefore it is worth it. 3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. They are NOT! Not having net neutrality would actually harm competition, because by giving big ISPs the power to block their competitors' websites, people would not have access to more than one big service without paying more r,many therefore there would be no need for competing. According to Forbes, if there was no net neutrality, many businesses would not exist die to the lack of competition. And it would hurt the consumers to not have this as well. Without net neutrality, your internet providers will be able to charge you EXTREMELY high prices for a free and open Internet, which is one of the greatest privileges of our time. So by having much higher prices, and lower quality service, not having net neutrality will hurt us, the consumers. Therefore, this point is false and invalid. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) http://www.latimes.com... CONCLUSION Seeing as I have refuted all of the Proposition's points, I will now weigh this debate. Here is why I should win: Who I agreed with before: This is up to you, so I cannot influence that decision. Who I agreed with after: I hope this is me, because my arguments were the most understandable and impacting to the average American. Spelling and Grammar: Tie Conduct: Tie Best Arguments: I believe that this should be me as well because unless you are an extreme techie, you probably could not understand Pro's arguments. However, I did my best to put my information into short, easy to understand arguments that should be easily comprehended, also, I gave impact analysis for every one of my points, showing you as a judge why my points should effect you, therefore leaving my points more convincing than Pro's. Sources: Finally, most of Pro's sources were simply without a link, leaving them valid. Also, she used Wikipedia, which is invalid and unreliable, seeing as anybody can edit it with false information, showing that my sources are more reliable. NYT, Forbes, The Guardian, are all reliable and highly acclaimed sources, unlike Wikipedia. Thanks to Pro for a very interesting and informative debate, and I strongly urge a Con vote for this motion.

negative: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered "no" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org...

negative: Net neutrality == Definitions ==Net neutrality: "the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org...Antitrust laws: "a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers ... restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade ... restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition ... [and] prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power." http://en.wikipedia.org... == Rebuttal == Pro claims that net neutrality is necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. But the reality is much different. ISPs could only do that if there were no competition. That means they'd have to collude with each other, or have a monopoly (and abuse that monopoly power). Both of those are illegal under current antitrust laws (Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act). So net neutrality isn't necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. If an ISP did slow down the Internet while charging monopoly prices, another company would provide faster service at a competitive price, and consumers would buy their Internet from the company providing faster service at a competitive price. That's how a free market works. We don't neet net neutrality laws to regulate an area that's already regulated by antitrust laws.== Argument ==The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local company has a monopoly in Internet access and blocks subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate that sort of anticompetitive practice through other means (i.e. antitrust laws).The problem with requiring net neutrality is that net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Under a net neutrality regime, networks can't favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. Or worse, networks can't restrict downright harmful traffic, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Instead, all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Antitrust laws, on the other hand, allow procompetitive discrimination while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination.(1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet.The Internet has always been shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Entrepreneurs have had the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a result, in the absence of heavy government regulation, and "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1]Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation.(2) Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices.Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [2]Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. But a net neutrality requirement would categorically condemn all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the good, procompetitive ones from the bad, anticompetitive ones.(3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition.Antitrust laws protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. Under these laws, courts ask whether there's been actual harm to consumers or competition before condemning a business practice. If there's been a showing of harm to consumers or competition, then the company harming the consumer or competition faces heavy fines and even prison. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, and it's better for the economy because it gives entrepreneurs latitude to experiment.Pro says that ISPs could slow down the Internet and force content providers to pay for so-called "fast lanes." But if that actually harms competition or consumers, it's already illegal under current antitrust laws. An FCC Commissioner, Robert McDowell, even notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [3] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime.Sources:[1] http://transition.fcc.gov...[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...[3] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

negative: Net neutrality. One thing I have noticed since net neutrality began in 2015 was that conservatives were ostracized in a lot of social media platforms, which is why they have turned to sights that they pay for where they are not interfered with at all. In a way net neutrality has opened it up for large social media sites were able to almost block conservative content without anyone having a say in it. Which is why they support it so much as well as why they show the negative to net neutrality so often. Finally, net neutrality just prevents companies from charging you for certain items like giving YouTube unlimited power to ISPs without having to pay.

negative: Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet "Net Neutrality is Simple, Conservative Consumer Protection." Public Knowledge on Opposing Views.com: Net Neutrality "is not regulating the Internet. It is regulating the companies which provide access to the Internet – a traditional function that the FCC has largely abandoned to the detriment of the country."

negative: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting "network testing" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit "reasonable network management practices" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.

negative: Net neutrality Ok you say ISPs wouldn't slow down websites because in a free market people wouldn't buy their service and his is only a valid argument if they have a monopoly or talk to other companies. That would be true expect for one problem in many places you only have one option. In many places you only have Comcast or you only have time Warner. Also these companies do talk to each other. In fact these to companies have talk about which territory they get plus Comcast bought out Time Warner so people often only do have one option. You say it's against the law so they won't do it. Well A. people do nothing about because they are bought off and B. there are many loopholes. Then you say another problem is if it's pro or anti competitive discrimination. Good there should be no discrimination unless the contest is illegal. Your next argument is if we put in net neutrality laws it would kill competition and investments. You're problem is net neutrality isn't knew the internet has been that way for years and the internet is great I don't want to change it you want to. Also net neutrality doesn't kill competition but ISPs blocking competitors does. I not bothering with you're last two because the first I already addressed and the other one is based on the idea net neutrality doesn't already exist which it has for years.

negative: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come; Whether it will remain an open platform for advancement, or a platform for the advancement of three or four large corporations and their partners. Let's look at the Verizon example given, they spent 18 billion on fiber optics. This statistic is supposed to make the point that these companies spend money, and that were net neutrality put into practice, this investment would be somehow become terribly unprofitable. I want to point out two aspects of the source given though. First, "they are expected to start turning profits on their new offerings in 2009." 3 years, only 3 years to turn a profit on an 18 billion dollar investment. We can see the wild profitability of controlling such a large portion of our nations communication infrastructure. Net neutrality does not make this a bad investment, it doesn't make expanding a network's reach, or increasing it's capacity something that loses money, but it does ensure that while a company is expanding they don't screw the customers that are already connected. Faster connections can be bought, and people will want them. Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality. Second, "Because many companies offer package-deals to customers which include telephone, internet and cable TV service,..." This bundling, this use of the same infrastructure for a variety of data types, illustrates the end-to-end principle that the Internet was built on. The Internet relies on intelligent terminals, and a dumb network. By having a network that can facilitate all types of data we allow for a network like the internet. The "smart network" is not a positive, once the network starts telling the data what to do, we limit what the data can do. Look to the telephone network as an example. It was built to facilitate one type of data transfer at one rate that was the main of transmitting voice. Once a new way to transmit voice was found though, this network, that would make"intelligent" assumptions about what that data needed to do, prevented this better form of communication. Once we dethrone data as king of the network, we permanently impair the Internet's ability to adapt and improve. http://www.wordiq.com... Yes, ISPs are profit motivated. Does this mean that they will seek the best consumer experience, or that they will seek the consumer experience that best benefits themselves? The negation says that with net neutrality, consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use. This isn't true, and again I turn to the end-to-end principle. If you've ever looked at your router settings, you'll find the ability to prioritize your traffic, to put Skype over firefox, to put one router port or device over the rest. This is the intelligent terminal of the end-to-end network. And you may say or think that this takes a high degree of technical know-how, but it doesn't, ISPs offer to guide you through this set-up already. -------- 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition. There is a difference between unregulated, and decentralized. Regulation preventing the Internet from being centrally controlled is in no detrimental to the end of a decentralized network. My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs. The ability of ISPs to tailer shape consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet. Which do you think is more profitable - allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition? Microsoft, at $224.75 billion, or Linux. Google, $163.2 billion, or askjeeves. ISPs are profit motivated. Beyond this, look at who owns the Internet. Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies, the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2) IP Standards I point again to the end-to-end network design, the way ISPs handle data transfer is the foundation of these protocols. The TCP protocol is responsible for error checking, the application controls the preference of accuracy over speed or vise versa, and that protocol depends on a neutral network. Once the network starts making assumptions about how to treat data, we inhibit future improvements and adaptations. http://www.wordiq.com... (specifically the IDIOT SAVANT BEHAVIORS FOR DIFFERENT DATA TYPES section) 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer "They have no reason to censor information." ISPs are profit motivated, as you said yourself. Teaming up with multi-billion dollar companies is profitable, and ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites. "The FCC under net neutrality however can." This is completely false and baseless claim. "As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality" ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets. Without net neutrality, we leave the Internet open to attack. We need net neutrality to prevent the Internet from becoming and Invasive and biased service provided and controlled by large corporations. We need net neutrality to protect the open and innovative nature of the Internet.