The Instigator
FrequentFlyer
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
StCurry
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/25/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,850 times Debate No: 7097
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

FrequentFlyer

Con

This is my first debate here so bare with me. It's not my first debate though.
I negate the resolution: Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just. Negating achieves the value of Cultural Identity measured by the criterion of retaining what is considered to be just. It is true that every society has its own morals, its own values, its own laws, et cetera. Because of this it is impossible to discern what is just from what is unjust. If the society is split on what is just, it can lead to civil war as seen in the USA. This is just one of the atrocities that can happen if a society's cultural identity is changed or even their idea on justice. Picture for a second an indigenous tribe in Africa where cannibalism brings them closer to their gods and is very just. If you give them plenty of money but westernize them cannibalism is no longer just and they can no longer reach their gods. Is it just to condemn a whole nation to eternal hellfire? Of course not. Therefore you must negate. Please allow me to define the following from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Cultural Identity: Religion, customs, values, etc.
Federal: advocating the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers.
Communism: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." –Karl Marx.
Observation 1: The resolution is, in itself, paradoxical.
As Karl Marx states: "Revolutions are the locomotives of history. To sum up what he says; in order for any society to progress, there must be oppression followed by a revolution. To preach for bailouts would be like preaching for a revolt against the society. In our case, a revolt against a federal government. Karl Marx sums up the theory of Communism in one sentence "Abolish all private property." Bailouts put government investment into a corporation, but in return it gets equity or controls specific parts of the corporation to ensure repayment. The major corporations are no longer private, but slightly run by the government itself. This is abolishing private property. Bailouts lead to Communism and Communism is not a federal government. By bailing out a major corporation, a government is abolishing private property and controlling it. Because of this, it is not even fulfilling its role as a federal government and is no longer a federal government. The resolution is paradoxical because a federal government can not stay as a federal government and bailout its major corporations. Bailouts and federal governments can not exist at the same time. This means that resolution is inherently false.

Contention1: Bailouts can never be defined as just.
With more and more bailouts being given to major corporations, the government has more and more say the government will have. Currently the most the U.S. government has helped a major corporation was the Citigroup bailouts of 2008. The government backed roughly $306 billion in loans and securities and injected about $20 billion in capital. This is in addition to the $25 billion the bank received not too long ago. As part of the agreement, Citigroup froze dividend payments at one penny per share per quarter for three years, restricted executive compensation and absorbed the first $29 billion in losses and 10 percent of subsequent losses.
The government dumping money into one company and then telling it how to handle that money is clear collective ownership and organization of labor. This is communism. We can not afford to let any great nation fall to communism because as seen in the USSR and China. Communism does not work. And as shown in the Communist Manifesto, true communism is the opposite of a federal government because the people are working for themselves and their neighbors.
If the government is changed, then so must the cultural identity. However changing a cultural identity is the worst thing possible that can happen. The problem with this is that who people are and what they consider themselves to be changes. It is unjust to even try to change a person's cultural identity as it is trying to change their opinions. Take a look at the novel 1984 by George Orwell. Constantly during the book, the nation Oceania would be at war with Eurasia "they had always been at war with Eurasia" and allied with Eastasia. Then at random points in the book, Oceania was allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia "they had always been at war with Eastasia". The government would change all the historical records to make sure that they said Oceana had always been at war with whatever country they were currently at war with. This is unjust as it is constantly changing peoples' love, and hatred towards others. Friends would suddenly be turned against each other. By changing the historical records, the government had changed history and where the people came from. Some saw the great injustice being played upon them. What the government in 1984 was doing was unjust. If we apply this to real life, we can see how any other injustice would be dwarfed compared to the injustice of the change in the nation's cultural identity. The people can no longer comprehend what is good and what is bad because their definition of justice, their morals, and their values are changing. By submitting to communism, any federal government will change its cultural identity. With a massive shift in the cultural identity, there will be a massive shift in what is considered to be just in the nation. A nations idea of justice is found with in its cultural identity and by taking that away, you are taking away what is considered to be just in that nation. Because bailouts take away what a nation considers just, and therefore there is no definition of justice, bailouts can never be defined as just. Therefore you must negate.
StCurry

Pro

First I will go to the NC then the AC.

First an overview on the NC:
The negative makes assumptions in his case that should be absolutely disregarded. First, my opponent assumes that it is a capitalist society, insofar as he is saying it is changing identity. This assumption cannot be made, as the resolution simply specifies a "federal government" not a "capitalist government" Thus as the negative's link to his case is severed, so you vote aff.

First, my opponents value is cultural identity. We should use justice because the evaluative term of the resolution is "just" thus imploring us to evaluate whether affirming is "just", thus justice is the only value that can be used in the round.
We should not use cultural identity as a value, because A) it has no intrinsic value, whereas justice does B) Maintaining cultural identity can be a bad thing, if we are maintaining the cultural identity of a nation that chooses to perpetuate horrible ideals such as "might is right" etc, as is seen in medieval times and many cultures. Thus you can turn his value against his case. C) My opponent is violating the terms of the resolution by not evaluating it in the terms of the resolution, this is a stock issue.

My opponents criterion is retaining that which is just. This should not be used for the following reasons, 1st: He contradicts himself in his criterion analysis by saying "It is true that every society has its own morals, its own values, its own laws, et cetera. Because of this it is impossible to discern what is just from what is unjust." insofar as this is true the negative has said that his criterion cannot be achieved. Thus there is no brightline, because we can never know when we are achieving what is just. So his criterion is unachievable. 2nd: My opponent provides no link between his criterion and value, thus his criterion falls. 3rd: You can turn my opponents civil war analysis against him, because societies will always be "split on what is just", thus his impacts go against him! 4th: He never provides any warrant as to why we would be condemning a nation hellfire, thus this analysis should be disregarded.

On to my opponents communism analysis: 1st: We cannot assume that we are talking about a capitalist society, just a society with a federal government. Insofar as this is true assuming that you'd be shifting to communism is unwarranted. 2nd: it's ethnocentric to assume that communism is inherently bad, thus you turn his communism analysis. 3rd: He never specifies how this violates the principles of a federal government just a capitalist government, so disregard this analysis, there are dictatorships that advocate "strong central power" I'll clarify in the AC... 4th: Turn his case against him, if communism is good then he is trying to achieve something bad

Contention 1: 1st: my opponent provides no warrants as to why we evaluate the United States, insofar as there is no framework there is no reason to evaluate the United States. 2nd: It is ethnocentric to evaluate the resolution from the point of view of the US only. 2nd: My opponent says communism fails, and provides empirical examples of China and Russia. However China currently has the second largest GDP of any organization on Earth, they follow the entirety of NAFTA. China has 26% of the world's GDP, NAFTA has 28%, will cite sources if asked.
Onto the second part of Contention one, let's call it subpoint B.
1st: Cross-apply the value offense on cultural identity here. 2nd: There is no link between the bailout and changing culture. 3rd: Disregard the 1984 analysis, insofar as no link is provided as to how bailouts. 4th: If you buy the 1984 analysis turn it against him, because in saying that the culture in 1984 is bad and that it should be changed, thus contradicting his value. 5th: The link between communism and changing cultural identity is not there, disregard his entire analysis.

Now for the AC :)
I affirm the resolution, federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.
To clarify the resolution the affirmative defines certain key terms. Just – Violating no right or obligation, this is the definition of justice we must use because A) It is empirical versus being an unobtainable subjective ideal, B) Obligations are valued in all cultures, though the obligations themselves may be subjective. Bailout - a rescue, especially a financial rescue, Federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with an elected governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units. First, in order to judge whether the debate is taking place within the resolutional context the affirmative provides observations to clarify. First, federal government does not necessarily entail a capitalist society. Second, a bailout can entail a loan, as a bailout is a financial rescue of some nature. Third, the negative has a burden to prove that a bailout somehow goes against the principles of federalism. This is warranted by 2 reasons: First, the only 2 static terms in the resolution are federal government and bailout, thus it cannot be assumed that the society we are evaluating is anything but so saying that a bailout at this point in time for a specific nation is not just still loses the round. Second, to do otherwise puts an unfair research burden on the affirmative, insofar as there are a near-infinite amount of societies that the affirmative would have to prove it is Just for.
The value that should be used to evaluate this round is Justice; this is the value that must be used because the resolution specifies it, as the evaluative term is the word "just".
The criterion that will be used in the round to evaluate whether bailouts are just is that of Promoting the Common Welfare, this is the criterion we should use to evaluate the round because One: All governments value the perpetuation of themselves, so we can assume that the any government being evaluated will value this criterion. Second: One of the obligations of federal governments to its people is to ensure to some degree the welfare of those people, and economic ruin is not ensuring that welfare.
Contention 1:
Bailouts Uphold the Common Welfare
A) Necessity
Bailouts are only to be used when necessary, the affirmative defines a time of necessity as the point in which the end is determined if no intervention is levied: imminent demise. Insofar as this is true even if we cannot determine the end if the resolutional action of affirming is taken (the bailout), we can determine the end if it is not. If action is committed such as a bailout, the maximum fiscal loss is the amount of money, however if action is not committed than the impact is infinite. This is true because keeping the company alive could have saved jobs, investors from being ruined and the like. So even if my entire case falls, as long as this stands the negative loses, because I outweigh insofar as the negative impacts are finite where as the impacts in my case are infinite.
B) Affirming is not Unjust
Because affirming is simply an attempt to promote the common welfare there is no way in which it violates any rights or obligations. By loaning a major corporation money we are attempting to promote the common welfare, as we are trying to A) promote investment, B) Keep the members of that corporation working C) Keep from interrupting the service between the clients and corporations. So because it is not "unjust" then it is Just. Thus the burden of the affirmative as outlined by the resolution is met by affirming.

Underview: Disregard his federalism definition, I provide etymology (covenant = agreement) that agreement between the state and people
My value and criterion are warranted, his are not, my contentions stand, his do not. I implore you
Debate Round No. 1
FrequentFlyer

Con

I'll go AC then NC
My oppenents observation of how a federal government doesn't mean capitalist is true and I did not state anywhere in my case that I was takling about a capitalist government. For his second one, yes a bailout can entail a loan but if we are to stay with the resolution, the loan may only be to a major corporation by the federal govnerment. I accept my opponents burden. " I don't understand what my opponent is saying here. "First, the only 2 static terms in the resolution are federal government and bailout, thus it cannot be assumed that the society we are evaluating is anything but so saying that a bailout at this point in time for a specific nation is not just still loses the round. " so an explanation would be nice to clear it up. My opponent says that the only value useable for this round is "justice" but just because it's in the resolution, that doesn't mean that it's the only value allowed. My opponent's criterion is Promoting the Common Wellfare and says that because all governments will uphold themselves, then they will uphold the criterion. However if we look at a dictatorship with a ruler who cares about only himself, then yes he will be looking at the common wellfare of himself, which could harm the people. I would like my opponent to state whether he is talking about the common wellfare of the government or of the people. My opponent provides no link between how bailouts prevent economic ruin or how promoting common wellfare is just.
Contention1:
A)
My opponent gives many examples of bad things that can happen if we don't bailout major corporations however this is not the job of the Affirmative. The resolution is "bailouts are just" not "not bailout out is unjust" so any point my opponent states of bad things that come from not bailout out major corporations fall because his job is to prove that bailouts are just. He must provide good things that come from bailouts. Also he says that bailouts are only to be used when necessary however once again that's not in the resolution. He can not slim down the word "bailouts" to mean only necessary ones. The resolution is also talking about uneccessary ones aswell.
B) As I stated in my NC with bailouts we lose the cultural identity of the society and without that we have no definition of justice. So without a definitino of justice affirming can't be just nor unjust. My job is not to prove bailouts unjust, just prove that they are not just. There is a difference because there is a middle ground between the two, neutral.
I'm sorry that this is so late and I'm at school currently and can't finish arguing my NC so If my opponent would like to continue this argument with only 2 rounds I would be happy to do taht. My excuse is that I was at a tournament all weekend and had no time to write this argument. I would appreciate a PM from my opponent on whethere or not they would like to continue and when they will open the debate.
StCurry

Pro

Brief Road map:
NC/AC

Let's go to the neg's overview of my vase:
My opponent says nowhere in his case does he state that he's talking about a capitalist society. This is entirely untrue, all of his impacts hinge on the fact that a bailout is changing the government to a marxist or socialist society. Apply my analysis that I mention in the top of the AC that the resolution is MORE LIKELY to take place in a communist or socialist society. This analysis takes out ALL of his impacts and links because the culture is NOT changing if it's already communist or socialist to any extent. So, because his case is A) Nonunique, B) No longer has any impacts you vote aff off this.

Further my opponent accepts my burden that he has to prove that the bailout goes against federalism.

On to the value debate,
You can extend my attacks A, B, and C as to why we should not use his value. Any one of these reasons is enough offense to take out his value. Further insofar as point B is extended turn my opponents case against him, you can vote aff solely off this. Further, even if it IS a capitalist society, disregard his case and vote aff. Further, you can vote him down for a topicality violation, because his case operates outside the resolution.

Further, onto the criterion debate he never rebuts my attacks on his criterion, extend the FOUR REASONS that I stated, thus we do NOT use my opponents criterion. My opponent asked that I clarify my criterion, I am talking about furthering the welfare of the people. Fine, I accept a dictator wouldn't necessarily want to, but it would be just if he did. The affirmative only advocates a bailout at a point of necessity. Cross apply subpoint A in contention one. You can extend warrant 2 from the 1AC, and the attacks, thus we use my criterion. Apply all the impacts of my case to my criterion, I clearly outweigh the negative, thus you vote aff.

Further cross-apply the 4 reasons that saying communism bad is evil in of itself, you can vote aff solely off that because it takes out his entire case.

Let's go on to my opponents case,
On his contention one I grouped his contention into 2 categories of analysis, I labeled one as A one as B to better provide organization. Apply the 3 reasons on the first analysis in his contention that I labeled A. All 3 of these reasons go dropped, extend them, thus his whole contention is taken out here, and a majority of his offense...

Onto the sub point B as I labeled it, the changing culture analysis. Apply all 5 reasons why we shouldn't accept it, specifically look at the turn on reason number 5, saying if you buy his analysis from his 1NC his case contradicts itself, and you vote aff.

At this point there is a turn on every piece of offense, thus you impact it back to my criterion. Further if you don't buy the turns, the other reasons against all of his points that go DROPPED annihilate his offense.

So because my opponent no longer has any case, affirming is just, because I say it is.

Let's go on to the AC:

On to subpoint A) on contention one
First, my opponent clearly misunderstands this argument. I'm not outlining bad things that can happen, I'm outlining the advocacy of the affirmative. My opponent says that I have to provide good things that come of bailouts, I do provide them, and I quote "This is true because keeping the company alive could have saved jobs, investors from being ruined and the like". Extend this point of analysis and his offense completely collapses, extend the contention and my opponent loses the round.
Further, he says I can't "Slim Down" the definition of bailout. I do not slim it down, I merely provide analysis about a rational actor. There is no reason to assume that the actor in question is not a rational actor, thus it would make a rational decision. Further, my opponent doesn't ever dispute the ability of the actor in question to predict what will happen when the bailout is used, thus any rational actor that decides to bail a corporation out will predict the best ends before doing so. Insofar as this is true, the bailout in question always produces good ends and you affirm even if we use the negative casework.
Even more offense on this, he never attacks my infinite impact analysis and loses the round solely off this. I quote:
"Insofar as this is true even if we cannot determine the end if the resolutional action of affirming is taken (the bailout), we can determine the end if it is not. If action is committed such as a bailout, the maximum fiscal loss is the amount of money, however if action is not committed than the impact is infinite. This is true because keeping the company alive could have saved jobs, investors from being ruined and the like. So even if my entire case falls, as long as this stands the negative loses, because I outweigh insofar as the negative impacts are finite where as the impacts in my case are infinite."
So because my impacts are infinite and the negative's finite I always outweigh and you affirm. Solely off this the resolution is affirmed. Further group all of his offense together, there are no warrants, affirm.

On to my subpoint B)
The cultural identity argument is non-unique and doesn't matter because of the reasons I state in my offense to the neg case that goes dropped throughout the round. Even if you still accept his analysis he doesn't say why justice can no longer be defined, I define it as violating no right or obligations. It can still be defined in this way, insofar as all federal governments have a governing covenant by definition. There is no neutral, if it is not just it is unjust, if it is unjust it is not just.

Apply the observations that go untouched, one and three take out his whole case.

Vote Aff
Debate Round No. 2
FrequentFlyer

Con

FrequentFlyer forfeited this round.
StCurry

Pro

He eh...forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by StCurry 7 years ago
StCurry
Go ahead and make it 2 rounds...
Posted by FrequentFlyer 7 years ago
FrequentFlyer
ready
Posted by StCurry 7 years ago
StCurry
Ready for a good debate :).
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
I'd take it if weren't about to start the tournament in which there will be A LOT of debates that I have to be proactive with. You want to join?

(PM me if you want to by February 28th 11:00 PM Central)
Posted by FrequentFlyer 7 years ago
FrequentFlyer
haha ya ok
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Your request to "bare with me" would get more takers if you were a cute girl. I think you meant "bear with me."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by animea 7 years ago
animea
FrequentFlyerStCurryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by krazzybrandon 7 years ago
krazzybrandon
FrequentFlyerStCurryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EricEngle 7 years ago
EricEngle
FrequentFlyerStCurryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05