Humanity's tendency towards commodification of things ought to be resisted.

There has been no denial throughout this debate that commodification has its issues. However there has been no acknowledgement whatsoever by my opponent regarding the serious, innumerable, and invaluable advantages and benefits that commodification has allowed for humanity and continues to provide. I have repeated that we must weigh the pros and cons, and benefits vs. problems of continued commodification. Thus I have outlined and compared the repercussions, and proven that commodification is a positive trend which, on balance, does far more good than harm. I've also explained that while problems associated with commodification can and should be curbed, that commodification in general is not the enemy. For example overmedicating someone is harmful. That doesn't mean medicine is overall harmful -- it means medicating someone can be problematic, and we should attempt to avoid those problems, but not completely curb the behavior. Having the option of medicating someone and continuing the benefit of medicine is the right move even though there are potential harms with medicating people (i. e. risk of dependency, etc. ). We see this need for balance and regulation in almost every single human endeavor. Fishing is good, overfishing is bad. Exercise is good, but too much exercise can be harmful or detrimental to one's health. And so it is with commodification. Commodification is good. Does it have it's risks? Yes, but it most definitely has its rewards -- something that my opponent has ignored throughout this entire discussion, almost certainly because he recognizes the rewards far surpass the potential risks. And furthermore, if we attempt to curb the bad things associated with commodification through regulation, education, and otherwise, then it becomes indisputable that the benefits and pros of commodification undoubtedly negate the resolution. This country (and the West in general -- that is countries with mass commodification) enjoys the highest standard of living ever known to mankind [1]. Even our poor people have a high standard of living. I've explained our high standards repeatedly, particularly in regard to access to education and medical care. To deny that we have things today that make our lives safer, healthier and easier than ever before thanks to technology and other advancements is outrageous. The richest people on the planet did not enjoy the luxuries 100 years ago that the poor and middle class people can enjoy and benefit from today. Examples include medical treatment, tools to make cleaning and housework easier (dishwashers, washing machines, air conditioning, etc. ), zippers, GPS, running water, indoor plumbing, toasters, lighters, heating systems, disposable diapers, useful over the counter medicine, thermometers, batteries, cameras, phones, and of course the Internet which has been tremendous. There is also the invaluable fact that we have the highest life expectancy of any generation in human history (including the poor) thanks to said advancements. Things like gasoline, clothes, and grocery shopping are cheaper now than ever before [2]. So when Pro lists things that we consider frustrating (and indeed they are problematic) such as student debt, etc. , we must remember that we only HAVE things like student debt because we CHOOSE to, and we choose to because we see a valuable return. College degree = job opportunity. Job = wealth generation. Wealth is the security to provide for our basic needs. We would need to provide for our basic needs in life regardless of commodification. Yet commodification makes this far easier (Pro has not denied or responded to these related arguments) and provides the opportunity for saving and luxury. But indeed there are still people who are extremely poor. That's why throughout this debate, I have asked Pro multiple times to explain how these poor people would be better off without commodification. Commodification provides jobs i. e. the opportunity to be lifted out of poverty. Sure the poor today don't have access to many opportunities and tools that would help them such as better medical care, education and whatnot. But without commodification, how WOULD they have access to these things? Again - Pro has no answer. I have asked multiple times. The reality is that these poor people will never have access to these things (like we have in the commoditized West) without commodification. I would like to point out for the audience that I specifically asked 2-3X how impoverished people would have access to better shelter, medicine, health care, or education without commodification and there was no response. Pro complains that I have used a capitalist site to confirm that capitalist medicine is far more advanced than its socialist counterpart. .. which is an irrelevant and fallacious ad hominem, as criticizing the source does not discredit the content contained within the article - content my opponent has completely ignored. And yet still Pro fails to respond to my point here: that all of the countries he outlines as having superior socialist medicine, i. e. Western Europe, are all countries with significantly high levels of commodification even though they are socialist commodities. Again this is self-defeating and tramples his own argument. Indeed it's been common for Pro to ignore the vast majority of my arguments and notations. For example I've repeated that our western way of life and markets is not imposed on impoverished nations -- they willingly beg, hope, pray and welcome with open arms the opportunity to have their markets flourish and economy grow. My opponent does not deny this; he simply ignores it and repeats that we "force" our commodification onto others. While my opponent insists that other countries are worse off through commodification -- he even lists them -- he fails to specify how. Indeed people in third world countries are still living pretty crappy lives. Well what would improve the quality of their lives? The answer is things like better water systems, health care, better agriculture, more technological improvements - specifically in relation to electricity, and surely more access to the internet [3]. All of these things are the direct result of commodification and commodification is what allows us to have these things in the West, thus it is self-refuting to single out countries without commodification and point out how bad they are doing -- especially without providing an explanation on how to improve without commodification. And that's really what this debate comes down to. Since it's so important, I'll repeat and bold it for good measure. Pro has no problem noting that many countries are still doing pretty bad, yet he does not and CAN NOT explain how they can improve without commodification. I repeat: Pro has not explained how to improve people's lives -- i. e. access to reliable shelter, medicine, education and general care without commodification. Indeed it is commodification which makes those things far more available. I've made this point several times; Pro has chosen not to respond or simply cannot negate that fact. Pro also repeats that we are commodifying important things like sex, love and religion, when I have repeated that people's values are subjective and diverse -- and that it would be arrogant, self-righteous and futile to dictate what things Pro thinks other people ought to value the way he does from his individual and limited perspective. What he considers to be a gross example of commodification (i. e. carrying someone else's child for money) someone else might see as the most beautiful and loving act that they are eternally grateful for, as that commodified trade allows them to have a biological child of their own even if they personally couldn't carry one. Pro writes, "Whether metaphorically or literally, my opponent uses sexual values as a comparative of the subjectivity of morality; the issue has been addressed. " Yes it has been addressed and the point is very much in my favor. To reiterate the point, Pro mentions that western society is eroding because we commodify things that HE thinks we should not commodify. His examples include "love, good feelings, judicial pain, the purchasing of self-identity for self worth, religion," etc. Yet I have proven that not everyone values things like those the same way. So while he might feel spirituality, love, etc. should be something to not be commodified, other people see the value in commodifying those sentiments and behaviors (i. e. prostitution, dating websites that help people look for love, etc. ) and he cannot dictate that others live according to HIS values. My opponent has also quipped "To say that undeveloped countries have mostly undesirable culture is passing a subjective judgment. " And yet ironically he continues to assert that developed, commodified countries are undesirable which is of course his own subjective judgment. At the end of the last round, Pro maintains that immigrants are scapegoated for Western problems which is true. Remember this coincides with my argument that immigrants are flocking to the West specifically because our advances markets have given us an improved quality of life. People want the opportunities and benefits that commodification afford, hence the rampant mass immigration to western societies and the push to have growth through capitalism/commodification in countries without it. ConclusionCommodification does more good than harm. It protects people and on balance saves/improves lives. Thank you. [1] . https://fee.org...[2] . http://www.moneymanifesto.com...[3] . https://www.quora.com...