Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job

The first thing my opponent points out within this round is the fact that "... a teenager is taking jobs away from people who need it..." I'd like bring your attention to one thing and that is within the last rebuttal i have already addressed this issue that it is not an argument on either sides favor. As i quote from round 2 "there are also teenagers who need these jobs to help support there family as much as some other people." This means that even though there may be poor people who need those jobs, there are also teenagers that also need that same job. His claim is invalid. Secondly he attacks my value of economic stability by saying that I am not meeting the ultimate goal. Yet I do not need to meet the ultimate goal, i just need to show that it is not immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job. Not only that but my opponent cannot achieve his overall societal stability without economic stability. Furthermore since this resolution is dealing with whether people should accept jobs in time of recession My value links better than his, so all in all you can disregard his argument that his value is, if at all, any better than mines. His value should be taken 2cnd priority to economic stability. My opponent furthermore tries to stump you that my advocacy of spending does not link to a better economy. Yet id like to bring your attention to his OWN source (http://recession.org......) which, if you read, clearly states that increased spending is what is needed to avoid and get out of an economic recession. What else is better than having teenagers take up summer jobs to PAY for things that they need, why else would a teenager accept a summer job. There is a clear link that the spending of teens = a better economy which achieves 1) My value of Economic Stability (2) Increased spending compared to that of my opponent and (3) it is my contention. Also my attacks on his position, in my last entry i have only briefly addressed his case which sounded something like this "Therefore, my opponents contention one is invalid because we should actually be giving those jobs to those who will spend there money avoiding his impact of a economic collapse..." Though my opponent brings up a good impact that there shall be people dying if those who need the money don't get it. I'd like to bring you back to the beginning where i've stated that teens and their families can also be suffering if they don't take that summer job. Another thing is that because of the position i have taken, I do not need to worry about the death of poor people, and the necessity of others. That is because, in the bigger picture, by having teens take these summer jobs and spend money (my stance) I therefore relieve the recession and avoid the impacts that my opponent proposes. Lastly he does not address my 2cnd value of education which (my bad) have not provided a clear link. Do not consider this a voter for his side, because he cannot meet this same value. Education applies to the younger population of society and with increased spending + summer jobs teens are able to get a better education by having better textbooks during the school year, much money that anyone spends shall be contributed to public education systems, Summer jobs can bring in enough money for summer school, and many more benefits. I have clearly provided much more to benefit society and resolve this resolution. thank you, vote neg