This round I really don't need a google docs since this will be a semi-short argument.
In this debate we have a moral obligation to reject the resolution that has been proposed by my opponent as it has been an ethical violation of the very nature of humanity. This argument is a priori in this debate meaning that this is the only argument that shall be voted on and the only one that matters since it surrounds the very nature and violates the ethicality of forming a Bourgeois Socialist/Communist State.
Without the pressure from the people bellow in society, the rich and upper class politicians will deny and reject our rights. We will see a degradation of society as they will not only deny our human rights, but they will not ensure progressive reforms to be made nor public works that will aid all of society. These people will opt not to help eradicate starvation and homelessness . If they are not pressured, then we will see more and more of the same status quo nonsense. On balance, the best generally will focus on impact calc analysis. We can see that the Capitalistic plan that my opponent is putting forth has a zero sum balance of that of the Holocaust due to the amount that it devalues human life by the amount of callousness that my opponent has put forward in this argumentive debate . The advantages that my opponent brings up in this debate, via his alternatives, only further the conflicts and the issues caused by this. His plan will only encourage more and more social genocide. He is willing to sacrifice millions and millions, not just in the US, but worldwide if this plan in Affirmation occurs, thus morally it should be voted down on face value . We must be realistic in this debate and can only do that by attacking the very nature of Capitalism which my opponent is in support of which is the only way we can begin to progress as a nation by striking down Capitalism to move to a better, Marxist society of equality. The very fact that he is Pro in this debate is a slap to the face of society and he needs to be voted down accordingly.
In this debate and in many upcoming rounds, my opponent may speak of the wonders Capitalism has given the world or how bad Socialism may be, but that is not the scope of this argument. This argument revolves around the issue that Capitalism is causing the world and it is being supported by the very structure, no, the very nature of my opponent's argument. He may try and fool us by talking about the wonders of it or the organicness, but it masks the pain, suffering, and war that it causes. This reason, on the grounds of this Kritik, you must vote Con on these grounds .
The grounds of how we can change the status quo is this debate. By voting Con, you are starting the awareness to help develop this new world, but we need to help guide it. If there is a ballot casted in affirmation, then we as the human race shall perish to the bonds of slavery that my opponent has incited and supported the establishment of such . With this argument being a priori, all other arguments that have been brought up in this debate are irrelevant by nature as this Kritik is the only argument that matters. He may try and state otherwise, but the a priori stands.
With that I thank you and urge a ballot in Negation.
1. Stop the Killing Train by Albert Michael pg 27
2. DILLON IN 99 [Micheal, Prof of Politics @ U of Lancaster, “Another Justice,” Political Theory, v27, N2,April, P. 164-166]
3. ZIZEK IN 2000 [Slavoj, Qualification: Prounounced “Sluh-voy”, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, p.319-323]