The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan
Debate Rounds (3)
http://www.stanford.edu......, )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org......)
1. It seems to me that you're main argument for reasons as to why minorities are not voiced and racism is growing is simply b/c of ACCESS to broadband networks. Your specific plan only outlines to action by the FCC to increase investment in the National Broadcast plan. It makes 0 sense that a government agency investing in a broadband plan would in turn spillover to these said minorities to a. have acces to them b. have access to them by bypassing the reasons they werent able to access them before c. solving racism seeing as broadband networks don't really allow people to "voice" their voice any better. d. to actually use the broadband to "voice their opinions"
2. Because racism/giving people "a voice" isn't exactly a prioritized pragmatic action in the USFG, where would the funding come from? Even if the government decides that this plan does have practical value to it, what is the brightline in which we cross to determine how much money will be needed to solve for your "advantages"?
3. Nowhere in any of your sources does it say that "radio and Tv increase racism" but in fact, they simply connect violent crimes with minorities more often. There are no studies that this in turn leads to racism
Now a separate reason as to why increasing broadband is a bad idea.
Assuming a world in which your plan of action does go through (free, faster broadband available everywhere to anyone), we would be facing a world in which we are investing more time/money into technology. In "Speed and Politics" Paul Virilio writes about the "integral accident" and the "war machine". Virilio argues that we are in a "pure war" which means that everything that humans do is naturally in the name of increasing militaristic strength i.e. faster car=faster tank, faster phone connection=faster communications for an air strike. The term "war machine" stems off of this as it is the power of the military that Virilio says that we as citizens are constantly striving to make it bigger, better, faster, etc. He argues that this is in human nature, to make something the fastest/best it can be to always outsmart and outgun the "bad guy". The term "integral accident" is an crisis level scenario that is caused by this great war machine. Virilio says that as our natural tendency as humans, we will continually make the war machine more destructive and faster to the point where in the future, the "fastest" war machine will be one w/o human consent b/c an overwhelming number of studies point to artificial intelligence suprassing humans in terms of brainpower and speed. Once this happens, an example Virilio gives is a nuclear response system. A possible threat will be analyzed by the computer. If a 51% risk is detected, the computer will automatically fire a nuclear warhead in response to the 51>49 risk. Even if the risk (in reality) is false and overhyped, it will be too late, the integral accident has already happened due to the lightning quick decision of the machine.
After all that, the way broadband ties into this is quite simple. Obviously my opponent's plan is to increase the efficiency/speed/universality of the broadband system. However, this is just another example of feeding the "war machine". Examples that links this to it would be a faster processing super computer, faster quick response system to contingencies, etc. The fact that we are trying to better our technology is an example of us furthering its capacity in terms of speed/efficiency/power. Even if this specific instance of technological increase doesn't persuade you as the judge, vote con on the pure basis that my opponent's attempt to further a technological concept ties back to the "integral accident".
When weighing the significance of both our cases, you are ultimately looking at an analysis between racism and the integral accident. Obviously the ACT of racism doesn't cause deaths and as i have proved, the integral accident does. Unless (for some reason) my opponent decides to stray from the defaulted "death count" framework (which is simply whoever saves the most amount of people in the end) that most policymakers use, you will vote con on the simple fact that the number of deaths negated from voting con substantially outweighs the number of deaths negated from voting pro.
Contention 1 - The increase in broadband is to allow minorities to set up their own radio shows and allow for more radio hosts to be heard instead of the few that are full of racist ideals and spew them into a mic. A) we do not specify an internal link to giving minorities radio, it is merely the gesture we defend. B) Certain areas of the US are so lacking in technological broadband, XT our inherency, that even though many do have radios, all they have to listen to is the racist garbage strewn at them by many racist radio hosts. C) We as a collective people must at least extend our hand in unifying ourselves as a nation.
"3. Nowhere in any of your sources does it say that "radio and Tv increase racism" but in fact, they simply connect violent crimes with minorities more often. There are no studies that this in turn leads to racism"
What the plan states is that many radio hosts are racist towards african americans and other minorities and these minorities have no way in which they are able to fight back XT Amajor '12.
On the Virilio Flow, You're argument holds a very weak link at best. The plan states that we are to unify the US as one and not divide it by racism (Legion advantage FTW!) What we propose to do doesn't link to Virillio in any way. And, the alternative to our plan only allows for these racist ideals to increase, widening the gap of racism. If this gap continues to widen, certain extremists may begin to lash out at each other, take for instance the KKK, an extreme racist group that became so against African Americans that they actively went out and slaughtered them by the masses, if this is the world the Con wishes for, the by all means, let him have it. I, on the other hand, would enjoy a world in which we may all see ourselves as equals and share our great nation together in peace.
Vote Pro and you vote for a world in which there is no racism and for a world in which we are all one, unified, nation.
I'll concede point A. under contention one but you have also not correctly answered point b. that it doesnt make sense that a governmental investment would knock down any barriers that prevented minorities from "voicing their opinions" before. Also, because you still have not given solid statistics on HOW increasing broadband cures racism, my subpoints C and D still stand strong that it doesnt make sense that you solve racism seeing as broadband networks don't really allow people to "voice" their voice any better and also the fact you have no evidence stating that minorities will actually use the broadband to "voice their opinions". You have also completely conceded my second contention that funding for this seems non existent because in the eyes of Congress and the FCC, "solving for racist ideals" isnt exactly a prioritized action of pragmatism. On contention 3:, nowhere in your plan does it state that "many radio hosts are racist towards African Americans and other minorities and these minorities have no way in which they are able to fight back". Your plan is to simply increase an investment in the national broadband plan. The specific cites you have listed do not say this but instead, simply state that radios/television often connect violent crimes w/minorities. Without certain evidence, this argument doesnt make sense in the context of this debate. This is your Amajor citation.
You say that we hold a very weak link to your plan but this is actually quite the contrary. Your plan doesnt stat that " we are to unify the US as one and not divide it by racism", but rather, increase investment in the national broadband network. That sounds like a drastic increase/attempt to further technology to me. As stated before, because you have conceded that there is no real racist threat from a lack of broadbands, your advantages to the pro are almost non existant. However, even if you as the audience grant him his racism harm, you have to remember he has also considered the utilitarian framework in which body counts determine the winner of this debate. Remember that the integral accident could be one of nuclear response or any major weapons of mass destruction failing resulting in the loss of many lives. In terms of body count, this will heavily outweigh any "racism" claims my opponent can attempt to garner.
Contention 3, that is completely not true, in the first speech I specifically cite evidence from my amajor article, the argument you make against it doesn't really make much sense because it specifically states within the article "This tactic forces the viewers' attention toward more salient and visible attributes of criminal suspects, such as their race or ethnicity. Through the course of watching this crime script the audience notices that criminal suspects are generally non-white males. The great prevalence of violent crime in local news and the tendency of crime reports to feature non-white perpetrators." In this, it means that news stations focus much more on the ethnicity of criminals than their actual crimes. If anything, the Amajor evidence is very much so relevant to this debate and your arguments are wrong.
Virillio - I shall continue to argue that there is a very bad link of this argument to my own case, the evidence never shows any reason to believe that increasing broadband will lead to nuclear war or any such thing in the US. While I will not argue that nuclear war nor any big weapon war is bad, I will argue that racism is much much worse. Many people would rather loose their lives than live in a society where they are persecuted and hated upon simply because the color of their skin or their ancestors heritage. Death is final and absolute, where as persecution will continue until something is done. As the pro, I urge you to vote in my factor for the eradication of racism in the US and allow for a nation in which we are able to get rid of these racist ideals and allow for one in which we are able to be one as a nation. The world in which we refuse to help with the problem of racism, we are left with one in which these ideals are perpetuated and will eventually spread to both sides and shall lead to a nation that is exponentially divided into one that is full of hatred. Vote pro for a nation without racism and for a nation that is one as a whole. The world of the Con is simply one in which we say "I don't care about all of these racial persecutions and will just continue on and allow for our nation to be divided further."
You have once again conceded my point B that it doesnt make sense that a governmental investment would knock down any barriers that prevented minorities to "voice their opinions". Even if you are right that government action in this instance is for the purpose of eradication, you forget that there are two parts of the perception. You (as the policymaker) might think that it is an obvious connection to make between increasing broadband and erasing racism, but the victims of the racism could simply see it as another act to increase communications/technology and not connecting it to racism at all. You have still not provided as solid reason on HOW increasing broadband cures racism. Even if you are right in saying that "the gesture is what truly counts", gestures don't solve racism, practical plans of action do. That being said, remember you're conceded subpoints C and D still stand strong that it deosn't make sense that using broadband solves racism. You have also completely conceded my second contention that funding for this seems non existent because in the eyes of Congress and the FCC, "solving for racist ideals" isnt exactly a prioritized action of pragmatism.
Contention 3: cross apply from above that you have started to defend that a "gesture" would act as a cure, but in reality that is not true (see above for details). Take a closer look at your Amajor evidence, there isn't a specific line in that article stating racism roots from T.V. and radios. Crime+minorities=doesnt necessarily equate in racism.
Virilio: Just because your evidence doesnt outline steps to a nuclear war via broadband increase doesnt mean that I don't link to your argument. Remember that any act of increasing technology for the purpose of making it faster/stronger/efficient is a reason as to why it will proliferate into the integral accident via the "pure war" status that we are in. Also extend the fact that in this specific instance, increasing broadband speed/availability will only make military satellite tracking faster, uav's faster/more efficient, and military communications better. This will inevitably lead to the great accident because as we make our military/weapons more efficient/faster, humans will be taken out of the equation in war/nuclear response threats. The great accident is one that a machine reacts so fast, that it doesnt consider moral consequences/body counts, that it just does whatever is "statistically correct". My opponent as just started arguing that racism is a more significant issue than death based on the justification that "many people would rather loose their lives than live in a society where they are persecuted and hated upon simply because the color of their skin or their ancestors heritage. Death is final and absolute, where as persecution will continue until something is done" However he ignores the fact even if "death is final and absolute", one person is not the only person who can die. What if your father or you mother died. Isn't that "final and absolute" and you have to live with that the rest of your life? He tries to go for a more "value to life" impact as opposed to my utilitarianism framework but the integral accident can access both frameworks. Remember that machines will eventually put us out of the equation because they are so much faster/powerful than us. The reason why racism is bad is because it causes subjugation and the perception of superiority over someone else. How is a world in which we are subjugated under technology any different. This being said, cross apply from above that broadband doesnt really solve for racism which means that you aren't going to grant my opponent a solid claim to racism. However, in the event that you do grant him this (for some reason) and grant me my machine subjugation claim, we are then considered equal in analysis in the "value to life" debate but my opponent doesnt have a solid extinction level scenario he can solve for which means you default to con. Remember that even if all his claims on racism are true, broadband simply won't be able to solve for it.
Con 4 Life
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to prove that Broadband didn't really decrease racism in any options covered by the National Broadcast plan. BTW pro, copying and pasting arguments that don't work will likely lead to future losses. Just look up Hezzekiah_Akez's debates. i think that guy cancelled his account after a 0 win record because he would just use the same defeated argument again and again.