Using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.

My opponent begins by extending his arguments. This is uncalled for and unnecessary because under the K presented none of his arguments have any weight. My opponent states that I have a burden to fulfill however this is nonsensical. My opponent concedes to having the burden of proof. And by doing this he concedes that I don’t have a burden. Since I am defending the status quo I don’t need to prove anything. My burden is fulfilled because since this is the status quo we may as well stick to it because there is no reason to view it as unjustified. There is no need to change the system if my opponent cannot prove that there is anything wrong with it. My opponent states that good and legitimate and notices that my case only attacks the word good. This is correct however he fails to understand how the term legitimate is defined. Legitimate is defined as ‘able to be defended with logic [and] justification’ [1]. So again, the term legitimate falls under the same heading as good. It needs to be defended with justification which is negated by the K. So unless my opponent can prove that it is not good (negated by the K) or that my position is not logical and has no justification (also negated by the K) then he loses. My opponent is correct in stating that he only needs to affirm one but the K negates both of them. My opponent is also correct in stating that the K focus’ on what is morally good the term justified’s usage in the resolution makes this an ethical debate as opposed to a pragmatic one. The K does challenge the resolution because it uses the term justified which is implying that things can be considered as intrinsically good or legitimate. My opponent continues by saying that he only needs to affirm the resolution to win, not moral objectivism (the view that intrinsic moral values exist). This is correct however given that I have raised the objection that the resolution cannot be proven without objective moral values existing then the only logical thing to do in this instance is negative because you cannot view the practice of building football stadium using taxation money as doing a bad thing. My opponent automatically assumes what the definition of legitimate is without providing it and without employing it correctly. Something being bad for the economy (as was stated in my K - which my opponent dropped) can be viewed as good for some people and bad for others. Since in order for something to be legitimate it must be justified that doesn’t work either because the term justified is defined as doing something for a good or legitimate reason (hence the same problem with the term good arises in this scenario). Finally, my opponent states that it doesn’t take objective morality to show that this goes against the justification given by the government. Voters ought to dismiss this because the resolution never states that we are going by the government's justification. It is used generically without reference to who it is justified by. Since it never says who it is justified by we must assume that he means it generally in regards to everybody. Since he phrases it in this way (without the use of the necessary sentence modifiers) we ought to presume that he is referencing to everybody in which case we must look for an intrinsic system of morality which my opponent fails to present. [1] https://www.google.co.uk...