The Instigator
dr.doom
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (15)

 

dr.doom

Pro

I. Microsoft is the Borg of computing
a. Microsoft controls the server market
http://www.news.com...

b. Microsoft is a virtual monopoly -- they control 90% of the market.
http://www.microsoft.com...

II. Microsoft's market saturation threatens humanity
a. Homogeneous systems fail because they are prone to viruses (Alteiri 1999)

b. Viruses are used in bot nets
http://arstechnica.com...

c. Bot nets threaten infrastructure

d. Infrastructure collapse threatens the country's economy

e. The US Economy is key to the world economy; failure of the world economy leads to world war 3 (Mead, 99)

III. Plan
1. Funding, Enforcement through normal means. Ask and I'll specify.
2. Mandates: Congress will ban exports of all products with microsoft code as well as any other operating system that has more than 50% market share at any point; the courts will rule that Microsoft is a Monopoly and ban the sale of any software with code that at one point belonged to Microsoft in the US.
3. fiat -- the resolution says should we only have to prove that the gov't should do this, not that congress or the courts will.

IV. Let's defeat the Borg of computing
a. de-developing the market allows a plurality of discourses to surface, including NIX based systems

b. Nix based systems vary widely

c. A plurality of discourses solves for homogeneous structures (Escobar)
repete21

Con

I will go over your arguments, in the order in which you posted them, starting with the idea that Microsoft controls the server market.

First off, the article is from 2003, and the parts about 2007 are simply projections. Secondly, even if this was true, what harm does it do for them to control the market? I understand if there is only one company, which is having huge effects on the price of goods, and hurting the market, but I don't see what harm them controlling a majority of the market is doing. Your second piece of evidence stating that microsoft is a monopoly is from 1998, since then, APPL stock has risen nearly 200 points, showing that they are clearly growing, and taking back part of the market.

I don't completely understand your second argument, because, if I am correct, you are stating that there are bots on the internet, and these bots will bring the demise of the world, starting with the US infrastructure, then US economy, then the world economy, this is completely foolish to assume that the destruction of the world's economy will be brought by bots. Also I would like to point out that these bots will exist regardless of if they do so on Microsoft, or Apple computers, and getting rid of Microsoft will not get rid of the bots, nor destroy there so called "ability" to destroy the US infrastructure. I would also like to make note, that if bots can in fact destroy the US infrastructure, the destruction of Microsoft would only be a catalyst to the problem, because Microsoft does a large amount of research which contributes to the destruction of these infrastructure destroying bots.

I agree that monopolies should not be tolerated, but stopping the monopolies completely is not the way to control them, they should simply be restricted, where as your plan would completely destroy Microsoft, and probably Apple, because they would probably step up after Microsoft, then they would be destroyed, due to your plan.
Debate Round No. 1
dr.doom

Pro

Roadmap: obervation 1, 2, then 3

on observation I:
1. The article is still the only piece of evidence in the round regarding market saturation
2. Microsoft still controls a majority of the server and PC market -- even if that majority has declined.
3. Microsoft will continue to dominate the PC market, and this is critical per observation 2, which relies mainly on normal consumers.

On observation 2:
1. The argument is that the bot bet destroys US infrastructure, which devastates our economy. the recession in the US then spreads throughout the world -- the US economy is key to the world economy. This threatens humanity, as economist Dr. Mead stated in 99.
2. Microsoft isn't key to the US infrastructure, nor cyber security. Furthermore, any mitigation of the harm of botnets by microsoft doesn't answer back market domination and homogenization.
3. The bots are able to spread so easily because of the homogeneous landscape of computing -- as I state in observation 3, allowing a plurality of discourses
to share the market evenly solves best, because it deconstructs the market and destroys the homogenous landscape that is so potentially devistating.

which takes us to observation 3:
1. destroying homogenization sends a message to companies: don't try it again or lose your wealth. This threat prevents re homogenization of the market by Apple or anyone else.
2. No warrant that destruction of microsoft -> destruction of apple.
3. Even if destruction of microsoft -> destruction of apple, it doesn't matter: new discourse will emerge, per Escobar.
4. the plan only kills microsoft: the supreme court can make no-precedence rulings, that is, their interpretation in a specific case doesn't set a precedent for future cases. But even if it does set precedence, that only proves long term solvency for the plan because it prevents rehomogenization of the market.
5. NOT destroying microsoft doesn't send a strong enough message.

Underview:
1. All of the attacks are defense. Neg provides no offensive vote, no reason why plan passage would lead to a worse world.
2. No matter how unlikely, the harm of nuke war outweighs the harm of affirming the resolution, because there is no negative impact to affirming the resolution
3. when deciding who to vote for, you should assume the role of the Policy Maker, a member of congress, because the actor of the resolution is the United States Federal Government.
4. At the point at which you, as a policy maker, see the potential for nuke war if you negate the resolution, and no real harm in affirming it, you should vote affirmative.
repete21

Con

You state that the end of the infrastructure will come because of the fact that microsoft rules the market, and it is easy for bots to spread, I would like to see current evidence that the infrastructure of the United States is in danger of being destroyed because of bots. If this is true, the only explanation is that the infrastructure is to reliant on technology, and if that is the case, the destruction of Microsoft, and Apple (which I will discuss later) would do the same thing as bots destroying the infrastructure. Your whole case revolves around the fact that the infrastructure of the US will be destroyed leading to global problems, although I agree the infrastructure of the United States collapsing could lead to global problems, I don't, nor can I expect the judges, to believe that the end of our infrastructure will be brought around by bots, because of a monopoly. I would also like to note that to assume someone can make a bot capable of destroying our infrastructure, that but will only work on Microsoft products is completely foolish, if someone really wanted to take our time to bring our economy to an end by this means, and had the skills, and resources, I am sure that they would be able to do the same for any brand of technology.

Moving on to the destruction of Apple, you state that Apple will no not to do what Microsoft did, but you don't consider the fact that they are currently the "Second Best" for lack of a better term, and the second that you destroy Microsoft, you will destroy Apple, unless you expect two other companies to rise up out of nowhere and take over at least 25% of the market, if so, I would like to see evidence that these companies exist, and are capable of doing this.

You have stated that I have not given any harms to your plan, I would consider, destroying Microsoft a harm, since, after all, they do sell products to major Fortune 500 Companies, the government, individuals throughout the world, and apparently are now the only thing holding up the economy. So I would consider that a harm, and to expect all of these companies to change all of their operating systems is completely foolish, and could, bring the destruction of Corporate America.

I would also like for you to clarify the link between Microsoft and nuclear war, and, again, I would like to see relevant, and current evidence.

Regarding the evidence on Apple, I brought up evidence on the stock market, but I will give you exact numbers, since the ones I gave you don't seem to be good enough. September of 1998, the year, and month of your evidence, Apple stock was at 9.68, now, the cost is 184. There has clearly been an increase in Apple sales, showing that Microsoft may no longer be a monopoly. At the same time, Microsoft stock sold at 25, now it sells for about 35. Obviously there has been more growth in Apple than in Microsoft, showing that Microsoft may not be the monopoly.

I would like to see all of the evidence which I pressed for above in your next speech, because some of your arguments are a little bit "extreme", and I honestly don't believe some of it.
Debate Round No. 2
dr.doom

Pro

First, something on top:
A.The negative provides no warrants for some claims – we'll refer to these unwarranted claims as blips.
B.An argument consists of a claim and a warrant. Without a warrant, there's no argument.
C.negative must sever the unwarranted argument.
When I tell you to cross apply blips, it's these three observations I'm referring to.

and, botnets kill infrastructure:
http://www.infoworld.com...'s-boss_1.html

Let's first clarify the infrastructure argument. My argument here is that HOMOGENIZATION of the computing landscape allows for viruses to spread easily. The fact is that when Microsoft dominates the market, this homogenization makes it incredibly easy for one virus to do huge amounts of damage, because one hole in the piece of software makes millions of computers vulnerable. Right now is key, because terrorists are starting to employ technology -- if we don't adapt, we die (Alexander, 2007, in his "super terror" paper.) The harm isn't Microsoft specifically, but the control of the entire market by one piece of software/varients of that software. The plan gets rid of that homogenization.

Now let's move to the alt cause: that infrastructure is the problem. This isn't true. A DDoS attack or other coordinated attack against infrastructure will destroy it, regardless of how awesome the infrastructure's security is, or how little it depends on technology. This type of attack is only possible with a MASSIVE bot net, and that type of a bot net can only occur in a homogeneous environment.

The destruction of Microsoft doesn't turn case: Escobar proves that getting rid of the giant allows for a plurality of discourses -- you COMPLETELY cold concede the Escobar alternative. Game over on solvency mitigation, the new discourses take the place of the old one. furthermore, these new discourses CAN'T exist now because of Microsoft. Getting rid of Microsoft allows for these discourses to emerge. That's the point of Escobar. And when we have dozens of discourses, which we will, that MASSIVE bot net needed can't exist because there is no homogeneous environment in computing.

Cross apply blips to every call for evidence (I warrant with analysis and some evidence, he just makes counter-claims) and all attacks on links I haven't touched yet. At the point at which these claims are severed, there is no attack on my access to solvency for impacts -- and because of this there is a 100 percent probability that the status quo will lead to nuclear war. AGAIN, it's not the monopoly that causes this, it's the homogenization said monopoly creates.

Extend blips to the "you destroy apple" argument, as well as the argument I made last round that is doesn't matter if we destroy apple, and that new discourses will fill their void -- non-homogeneous discourses.

Extend blips to the "Corporate America" claim -- no warrant. Plus, they will be able to adapt to one of the many discourses that occur after the plan. Getting rid of Microsoft doesn't end computing.

the link between microsoft and nuke war is clear, just look at the first speech. I won't re-type all of it -- all the links are there.

Finally, even if Microsoft isn't a monopoly, they still create a near-homogeneous environment. Squo still links.

the only thing that is extreme is your use of unwarranted arguments. All my claims have warrants and links, while yours don't.

which takes us to voting issues:
1. I control all the links to the harms -- they are probable. further, his case turns are extremely improbable and unwarranted -- he has to sever them.
2. The case turns come too late, are unwarrnted, and fall per analysis in this speech
3. I control the solvency debate with Escobar.
4. I control timeframe -- it's now per Alexander.
5. I control magnitude, his solvency takeouts don't even compare to the Nuke War impact.

And, don't let him bring up anything new in his next speech -- I never get to respond to it and that's abusive.
repete21

Con

First off, I will clear up these "blips" I have created with unwarranted arguments.

I will start with the corporate America "blip".

http://blogs.wsj.com...

http://blogs.wsj.com...

http://blogs.wsj.com...

http://www.entrepreneur.com...

http://www.microsoft.com...

These all show that buisness are growing more and more to rely on technology, and that without this technology, could not be as successful as they are, to link that to the case I will move on to my second "blip".

You say that "that is doesn't matter if we destroy apple, and that new discourses will fill their void ". I asked you what companies would fill this void, to which i got no reply, on that note, I got no evidence for any of my presses, except for one broken link. Also I would like to make note that by destroying Apple and Microsoft, you will force countless companies to change there operating systems as they grow, which would be a huge cost, and would likely destroy the companies.

You seem to have replied to all of my questions that "doesn't matter if we destroy apple, and that new discourses will fill their void -- non-homogeneous discourses." and "getting rid of the giant allows for a plurality of discourses -- you COMPLETELY cold concede the Escobar alternative". I have not conceded the Escobar alternative, I have shown that it will not solve for problems, you also state that "This type of attack is only possible with a MASSIVE bot net" this furthers my point on the fact that if they can create that large, and effective of a bot, they can overcome the simple barrier of different operating systems.

You also state that "Game over on solvency mitigation, the new discourses take the place of the old one", I don't know what "mitigation" is, but from what I have picked up, you believe that everyone who relies on Microsoft will simply be able to switch over to a new operating system, no questions asked, you don't consider the fact that when companies grow and buy new computers they cant have competently different operating systems, and need customer support for the systems that they do have, but all of that will be destroyed with the destruction of Microsoft, you also forget all of the government funding used to buy Microsoft products which we use in schools, do you expect we can change all of those over to a new operating system?

Moving on to nuclear war, you state "the link between microsoft and nuke war is clear, just look at the first speech. I won't re-type all of it -- all the links are there.", but in your first speech all you state about nuclear war is "e. The US Economy is key to the world economy; failure of the world economy leads to world war 3" and that isn't necessarily directly relevant to nuclear war, but you state that "because of this there is a 100 percent probability that the status quo will lead to nuclear war" you have NO EVIDENCE ON NUCLEAR WAR, I pressed for it, but you didn't bring it up.

Moving on to your "voting issues" I will answer each individually and fully.

1. I control all the links to the harms -- they are probable. further, his case turns are extremely improbable and unwarranted -- he has to sever them.

Just because you have links doesn't make you right, my analytical arguments have proven your arguments wrong, and what evidence you do have is either irrelevant, incomplete, or outdated. I have shown many harms in your case. Also, I don't have to sever my arguments, they are still directly relevant.

2. The case turns come too late, are unwarrnted, and fall per analysis in this speech

I don't understand this, but I have stuck by my original arguments from previous speeches, which you had a chance to reply to.

3. I control the solvency debate with Escobar.

You control solvency to the fact that a homogeneous network will destroy the infrastructure, but you don't prove it is actually a possibility, and you don't solve for the harms which are far more probable than the "problem" that you state.

4. I control timeframe -- it's now per Alexander.

I don't understand... again, but I am assuming you are referring to the evidence you brought up by Alexander, which is only relevant to part, rather than all of the issues, and is only true, if in fact the infrastructure is in danger of a bot attack.

5. I control magnitude, his solvency takeouts don't even compare to the Nuke War impact

You still HAVE NO EVIDENCE ON NUCLEAR WAR.

I would normally NEVER, EVER critique anyone, but I would suggest that you don't claim victories until the votes are tallied, and the fat lady has sung, also, you shouldn't tell the other person how to debate, or what arguments to drop, because as I have shown, the arguments were relevant. I am not trying to insult you or your debating ability, but I too am a high school debater, and these are simply tips for debating out there in competition. Also, bring up all of the piece of evidence you quote, instead of bits and pieces, which may or may not have been taken out of context, then you can quote pieces afterwards, and check your links too. Welcome to the site, thanks for the debate, and good luck
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by fpaulgreen 9 years ago
fpaulgreen
Dr. D, you probably should put links to the evidence you claimed. In most policy rounds, you can at least see your opponents evidence. What you had kinda went almost against you.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Policy.....

someone get the parliers and LDers up here.
I feel very alone ):
Posted by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
chuckles: Policy fo' sho'
Posted by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
The non-link part of the URL on the line I posted should be appended to the link -- I really can't help the fact that the filter system changes single quotes to their Unicode equiv, which excludes them in the link part because the parsing is messed up.

I can't really get the Escobar card, unless I retype all of escobar, which is excessive for an online debate, I'd rather not waste all that time -- the card I'm referring to is like 4 pages long. Mead wasn't out of context, and Escobar talks about dedevlopment in general in the card.

We obviously debate different styles... I know how to adapt when we have flays and lays, we have a friggen oratoryesque 1NC, doesn't mean I enjoy it; and how I behave in tab rounds just reflects my frustration with rhetoric over logic. Too many rounds I/my opponent has been rewarded for lying about stuff and the lay judge eats it up.

And you never respond to "Getting rid of Microsoft doesn't end computing." -- there's still no warrant as to why new companies won't fill the gap. You misunderstand the "open spaces" thesis

And as a debater you should know Mead. As any person you should be able to google Mead Economy and get the article pretty quickly
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
Dr. doom, what event do you compete in? ps i debate on the Sky view high debate team.
Posted by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Edgemont New York, it's good to see other debaters.
Posted by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
Pattonville, we're in Missouri -- Saint Louis. You?
Posted by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Dr.Doom what team do u debate for?
Posted by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
dr.doom are you a policy debator?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 3 months ago
Mharman
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by behindblueeyes 9 years ago
behindblueeyes
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HCPwns95 9 years ago
HCPwns95
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rockeywood 9 years ago
rockeywood
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Duron 9 years ago
Duron
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ryanqq 9 years ago
ryanqq
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by fpaulgreen 9 years ago
fpaulgreen
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Wharrel 9 years ago
Wharrel
dr.doomrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03