resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

I would first like to rebut my opponents contentions: My opponents first contention deals with addressing individual ideals of democracy and showing how each ideal is no being threatened. I will do the same in negation. My partner first addresses life and he/she is saying that there are public institutions and public hospitals and even the fact that the government cannot take all these away from the people. Lets look at some government institutions/orders/rules. For example, affirmative action gives priority to certain races over others when applying to colleges. Sure this is promoting the democratic ideal of diversity, but now we are taking away democracy. Other institutions require some type of qualification. If everyone was entitled to money from the government then there would not be so many people on the streets as we see today. Even then government support does barely nothing to ensure equality among the citizens. My opponents states that the government cannot takes rights away from people, he is right, however, the fact is, in reality, the effect or leeway of these rights are more noticeable and correlate with the amount of money one has. Even hospitals, they are only legally obligated to treat you if emergency, after that if you don't have good.any insurance then they can send you home. You could be dying of a cancer that they can sure, but if you don`t have proper insurance than they just send you home with "what to do with the rest of your life" pamphlet. And thus that point would reside with me, because of income disparity different people are given different healthcare and then possibly have unequal chances of living. Moving on to liberty, they say that the government cant deprive you of freedom and everyone is given the exact same rights. This is true, however, again, because of this income disparity, certain people have a harder time executing these rights in a from to their pleasing. For example the article released form Princeton University specifically states how the rich are given more of a say. This shows how the rich can properly voice their opinion in the government as opposed to those with lower income. My opponent then talks about the pursuit of happiness. Sure no everyone is guaranteeing it, but because of income disparity most people cannot. This pursuit of happiness should be encouraged by the government but is hindered but the lack of income. They then say we have an education system and a health system that help people succeed. Well that may be the case, but then again not all schools are equal and a lot of schools have are in bad neighborhoods and are not properly funded. In terms of health care, government paid health care does not cover most things, just items such as immediate care and medication. that's it. As i said before. They then talk about political rights and equality. Well, yes everyone is given the same rights, but again the ability to perform these rights is hindered by income. Th effectiveness of these rights in government is hindered as said before. New York time columnist and economist stated that people are given unequal shares in the government, and these "shares" are based on income. in section of other ideals: 1) The other ideals that I stated above were the right to food, the right to work, and the right to practice culture. Right to food, yeah people have the right to food. My opponent never specified how much or what. People may receive food, but is it enough to feed their entire family, if everyone had food, why are the beggars on the streets? It is because people that do not have money are have very little of cannot afford to properly feed their families. 2) Practicing culture has nothing to do with income disparities. Culture involves, temples, most cases a place to perform rituals/ceremonies, there are cases where this cannot be executed because of a lack of money 3) My opponent gave the definition "The definition of income as defines by National oceanic and atmospheric administration is the total payments received by individuals for employment." The word ‘employment' implies that the people we are talking about already have a job, so "the right to work" is fulfilled. People may have jobs, but that does not mean people make enough money to fulfill the aforementioned ideals. People have jobs but may not have enough money to get there voice into the government. 4) Finally, "the right to food" As I stated before, food programs that assist the needy are already implemented and functioning. Again as I said, these programs exist, but my opponent cannot prove that these programs are helpful to the full extent. My opponent then for his second contention states that The American Dream must be achieved by the people themselves. Our belief is that any person deserves the chance to achieve the American Dream, but this doesn't guarantee them a successful life. He gives some examples to. The examples he gives show people, who one in a million. Bill Clinton may have had a drunk father, but he lived in a good neighborhood and worked hard, where as we can see that there are a lot of people that live in bad neighborhoods, don't have schooling, drop out, and then make bad decisions. To event further extend my own point, lets looks at President Bush, he was a drunk and failed out of most schools. But because of his wealthy father he was able to get back on his feet and become president. People may have to work for their dreams, but they cannot properly do so if their ability to carry out work is hindered. Finally my opponents third contention state that the existance of wealth among the citizens of America simply proves that our free markets are working. Many of America's wealthiest citizens are also among the most ambitious, clever and hard-working. This is a sign of the freedom to successfully direct one's economic self-destiny. Okay, every country has an existence of wealth, does that correlate to success as a whole. The fact is, is that these wealthy people have more rights, the fact that our markets are working has not relation to the threatening to democratic ideals, and not everyone has access to the markets, and even of those who do, only a handful have a noticeable profit. I have negated my opponents contentions and therefore would like to urge a pro ballot. Thank you. As I have no more space, I will reserve my partners rebuttals and a wrap up in the next round. Thank you.