Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

Roadmap: AC/NC Okay my opponent says that I said that his criterion "doesn't lead to justice" and that, "this is flawed because establishing (which means to bring into existence) justice (one of government's obligations) actually brings about justice." But he completely ignores my attack against the failed logic of his criterion. I said, "The criterion is also flawed because if it is trying to lead to justice (and again this is one of its obligations) this excludes the other obligations of the government." What this basically means is that if justice my opponent's criterion of "government fulfilling its obligation" seeks to fulfill justice, it does this through the obligation of "establishing justice." However, this clearly ignores the three other obligations that he states a government must have. The impact of this is because he did not prove that bailouts do fulfill these obligations it "to injustice by violating those obligations." Now, look at my opponent's defense of this in his rebuttal the only thing he says in response is, "my opponent states that my criterion of government fulfilling its obligations, doesn't lead to justice, however this is flawed" he never actually explained why it is flawed/invalid and never explains how to account for the other obligations. This, along with the fact that he never offered a justification for his criterion in the first place, means that his criterion clearly falls. Following this you use mine (I will expand on the impact of this later). My opponent says that I do not attack his first contention and so it falls, however this is clearly not true. Scroll up and you can see that I show his contention to be "irrelevant" first because it lies out of the scope of his criterion because it links with the value only through its first obligation, meaning that this contention has no impact anyway. Second, because bailouts violate a fundamental right anyway, the contention irrelevant. In defense of his second contention my opponent says this, "taxes are not directly needed for a government bailout as they are paid for by 20-year bonds." However, this is not true because every action the government takes is funded at least in part by taxes, and also because the bonds are paid for through by the government through its revenue, which happens to be mainly taxes. Then, my opponent does not have any defense against the Hein card, that means that by his own definition and value, taxes are UNJUST because they are a "frontal assault upon private property, which is a basic human right." The impact of this is that bailouts and all government action requiring funding is also inherently UNJUST. Remember, my opponents did not dispute this, meaning extend it all the way. Impact being: my opponent can never achieve his value of justice which he defines as "the quality of violating no right or obligation." Just off this you vote NEG. So now to the NC. My opponent says I never defined my value of justice but only said it was fairness, however I gave further qualifications from Rawls: "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all." This means my opponents attack on my value definition fall and you still use mine. Then, he said I never show how my contention "is fair or just" however it is directly linked to Rawls explanation of justice. Because his criterion falls completely because of my undisputed attacks on it, and the fact that his attacks on my Value and Criterion are purely lies. My criterion must be used for this round. Let's go to my first contention. He says that I don't have my "facts straight" and that "in the US there have been 15 bailouts and counting and not all of them have failed," even that that "most cases the government actually made profits." First of all, I meant that there have been 5 bailouts within the last year. But even then, in the evidence my opponent the last bailout in which the government made any profit was in 2001! 8 years ago, when the economy was in a completely different state. Lets take the example of the bailout of the auto industry which my opponent himself provides in his case. Clearly this has been inefficient and possible a waste of funds, seeing as how the auto-industry is in turmoil (http://uk.reuters.com...). My opponents arguments are not relevant and untrue as shown through his own evidence. Extend this all the way. Now to my second contention. My opponent completely mishandles this argument. I said: "bailouts are unjust because they perpetuate social and economic inequalities" and this is because the resolutions says "that the bailouts are only for major corporations." Because of this it directly violates justice, my opponent does not address this. He gives examples of "Bailouts" that helped individuals besides major corporations, but in the resolution it is specified and can only be assumed (because of my definition of Bailout) that they will only help and only affect major corporations. The impact of this is that bailouts for major corporations can never be just! Extend this all the way, and you can vote neg solely off this. My opponent attacked my first observation by saying that people do support bailouts by using statistics from last year. Here are some facts from this year to show you that, not only do people oppose the bailout, but at least half think it will have "harmful effects": <http://www.rasmussenreports.com...;. This completely nullifies my opponent's claim that people support bailouts and it means that because 50% of voters believe it is harmful, it is unjust. Now to extend some vital pieces of the case: Extend my definition of "bailout" where I said that "Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout." This affects his entire case since it means we can't accept that the government will be fulfilling any obligations and also that it will in fact impede justice by only helping major corporations and not the ones that most need it. Look at my observation two, where I outline the affirmative burden. I specify that because the government is a federal one, the aff has the burden to "show why that bailout cannot be done at a local or state level" or "specify why it is the federal government that has to commit the bailout." Because of the harms I had already outlined, the aff has to justify the state action he is advocating. My opponent not only clearly failed to do this, but failed to address it thus accepting it. In other words, he consents to the burden, fails to achieve it, and thus there is NO possible way he can ever win. Voters: 1.I have completely obliterated my opponent's criterion and justified mine, meaning you use the criterion of "maximizing social and economic equalities" as is directly necessary for justice. (specified by Rawls) 2.I showed you how through his own definition of "just" and the Hein's card (which goes not attacked and is extended) his entire case turns against him because bailouts are unjust. 3.both of my contentions are defended against the attacks made to it by using my opponent's own evidence! vote neg off this. 4. Finally, and this is a huge voting issue: extend my second observation outlining the aff burdens. My opponent consents to this by not disputing it and he never even comes close to achieving it. This is extended without any attack, you can vote NEG solely off this.