I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress

CaseThe burden should now be placed on the pro, as it was defined in the very first part of the debate, when I must prove why it's bad OR provide my own.He conceded that he links to the Cap K.They conceded my trade-off argument: the education of promoting growth, infrastructure spending, and consumer spending will not all work together. This is an inherent part of the pro's arguments, meaning that you can have ONE but not the others.On his first premise:How would you feel if you had to move from a house you've lived in for your whole life, much less if you just moved in? Big boss CEO would be like: "Get over it, you're either with us or against us. Work for me, or I won't let you 'live a happy life'." That type of extortion is the same reason why capitalism happens to be bad. That big boss CEO just sees money: he doesn't see the people living there. That's kind of also the part of Zizek's quote, which I will explain why it explains why slavery is gone. Infrastructure and consumer spending doesn't do anything for housing options, just creates roads and power plants - almost as if it's a farm for production. It also puts in place segregation, and white flight. Another impact to voting pro.The reason why I'm so ideologically restrained against infrastructure? Back when I was 7 to 10 years old, I faced the looming threat that the concrete plant (Dolese) I've lived next to - all of my LIFE was going to demolish my home, and use it as a means of producing more concrete. I have a personal story versus this, they use the perspective of priveleged economists who don't have the experience of living in a suburban community undergoing so much sprawl. To the second premise:It doesn't undermine the capitalism critique in whatever way at all: if we refuse to engage in a capitalist action, i.e. - creating infrastructure technology -- in the name of ECONOMIC GROWTH would be gone in the ethos of democratic debate. I never provide any other link except using infrastructure for growth, and that being net worse. Also, they never challenged why my stance of using multiple worlds is better, and I'll provide a reason to prefer after I'm finished with the second premise. His last point on this proves he can't solve for economic growth, and proves my trade-off argument.Now, multiple worlds are key to debating, and here's why:A) Education - In order to provide the most offense and defense, debate centers around this theory of multiple worlds. It allows for con flexibility and offsets the potential infinite prep that the pro could've had.B) Pro strategy - where does he spend more characters on, case or the critique?Err con on theory - they provide no reason as to why using multiple worlds are good.The K-The alternative actually has multiple sets of literature. Let's go back to the Giroux card, what does he mean by replacing capitalism with democratic discussion? We have to oppose the authoritarian politics of capitalism, and provide means for developing an enclave of resistance and movements. Our pedagogy is crucial, it creates a hope as a precondition for agency, to find a way out of the manufactured cynicism that accompanies capitalism. Agency is, and must be organized through pedagogical relations - and reclaimed through collective resistance. These kind of movements / resistance has actually worked before. We're talking about empirics. What about the Zapatista movement? The pro only persists that this intellectual resistance down to an oversimplification. Socialism works as an existential part of this (although not what is exactly advocated, we need something better than capitalism is what I do advocate, and socialism has no offense) - and solves for any of their late claims.They also conceded from my last speech the explanation on why infrastructure would lead to extinction - more of a reason than their impact to prefer con. They provide no analysis. Pro concedes my Yunas card - reforms to eradicate poverty using social businesses, also known as the alternative is the only way to eradicate it. The alternative rather takes poverty away, and I'll quote it: "The reason is simple: "unfettered markets in their current form are not meant to solve social problems and instead may actually exacerbate poverty, disease, pollution, corruption, crime, and inequality. [...] . A social business is not a charity, but a business in every sense that must recover its full costs and recoup investments, but with the profit-maximization principle replaced by the social-benefit principle."Now, on my Shannon card- they disregard anything minus the first few words that disease is possible in squo because capitalismShannon explains it further than that- he states that the evolution of the flu has expanded DRASTICALLY -- especially in DEVELOPED countries. Diseases also expand faster in what the card calls "disease factories", also known as [suburbs*]slums that were subject to urban expansionist policies such as the pro's infrastructure policy. It also says that just because they hire the better scientists, these scientists still manage to cling to the policy of finding the fastest and most often least effective route to trying to eradicate that disease. Remember the ebola crisis, that existed for longer than the United States itself? How we discovered it in the sixties, and how we never did anything until we had an outbreak here? What about the African communities who still suffer from newer, stronger diseases? When will they be helped? Now, to explain my Zizek quote. The reason he says it's easier to be exploited in a long-term job is because apparently capitalism "Self-corrected" itself, and made it worse for those, providing unemployment for those people. Capitalism rid of slavery because it realized that it could use people that already had the status of "worker". It won't be alleviated - he even makes the parenthetical comment on how economic growth replaces these workers.Now, to answer their summation of the arguments:Individuals are only inspired to work hard because they see no other alternative. They only are rewarded when they work hard - because capitalism makes them very complacent in the system. However, those in undeveloped countries tend to work very hard, but where's their reward? The oppressed don't have their voice, they're still in the mist of what Zizek and Daly confront. Those "men of good will", seemingly should have already displaced the corrupt, considering capitalism has existed for six hundred years. Those men of good will become complacent with the logic of the system. Now, his argument is still a claim, that it would leave people "confused", but Herod explains way more than his broad assumptions of the average capitalism critique. The Zapatista's prove my point. They aren't confused, they're actually very intellectual individuals who know who they are. They can discuss each pedagogical standpoint in what has happend to them. The "creativitity" and "innovation" were already stifled - these people are rewarded for thoughts only relevant towards the current system. The reason you should vote con:The pro can't solve any of their economic growth - pro concedes that it all trades off on one another.Also, they concede each of my extinction impacts on the K. Capitalism is now proven to cause extinction, and they conceded the links earlier - no impact on disease. The alternative proves to provide a better life regardless, without poverty. See above.They concede role of the ballot