In the Hunger Games, President Snow is Really the Good Guy.

I can only assume, from my opponent's arguments, that we are using parts of the movies as well as the books in our arguments. I will be repudiating arguments from my opponent in this round. (And by the way, I'm a she, not a he). My opponent states that although President Snow doesn't mention his family in his books, he is quite obviously very attached to them in the movies. This is true. However, this doesn't necessarily make him a 'good guy'. Many people in our society or in other books love their family but are still considered 'bad people' - the shooter in San Bernardino for one. Having love for one's family only shows that a person is capable of human feeling. If my opponent is trying to argue that Katniss is the bad person in the Hunger Games, this can hardly be considered a strong argument, seeing as Katniss volunteered to take her sister's place in the Hunger Games, despite being certain that she herself would die. My opponent's next argument is that there are different morals in Panem, making President Snow's actions justifiable. And there are certainly some questionable morals in the Capitol and in Districts 1, 2, and 4 regarding the killing of children. But the other districts are keenly aware of how wrong it is to kill children for sport. And remember, the Hunger Games are only 74 years old, and President Snow is a very old man. He may have even started the Hunger Games himself, but he certainly rose to power soon after their establishment. Therefore, one could argue that Snow himself is responsible for the degradation of morality in Panem. He himself may have been raised in a world where this would have been considered unacceptable, but then taught the people of the Capitol that this was okay. The next argument made by my opponent was that the Hunger Games were simply a measure to prevent rebellion. This is very much not true. If anything, the Hunger Games were the very thing to excite another rebellion. The point of the Hunger Games was always about power - showing the districts how easily the Capitol could control them. And even if it was the prevent a rebellion, this was a very cruel way of doing it. My opponent then refutes my claim that everything Snow does can be traced back to a need for power. They state that Snow only considers the Capitol people his citizens. This is ridiculous. That would be tantamount to allowing Donald Trump to ban all Muslims from our country because he doesn't consider them 'his citizens'. And even if he did, that isn't the point. You can't mistreat the people of France because they aren't your citizens. They are still people, and what's more, it is Snow's duty to protect them as their president - a duty he fails at miserably. My opponent also says Snow was protecting the people of the Capitol by allowing them into his mansion. However, the book makes it very clear that he was creating a human shield, in order to protect himself from the rebels. My opponent's final assertion is that I never fulfilled my Burden of Proof - proving Katniss is the good one. I first wish to point out I was never made aware that this was part of my obligation - I assumed we were only talking about Snow and his morality. Katniss can be annoying - especially in the third book, I grant you that. However, while she is good at manipulating, she never wants to become that person. Her intentions are, for the most part, good. She makes mistakes, but who doesn't? And she certainly makes less than President Snow. My opponent states that Katniss 'practically forced them [her team] to go with her [to kill Snow]'. This is untrue. If you read the book, the characters state that they knew what they were getting into following Katniss, and they chose to anyways. Finally, I wish to state that, according to my opponent, there are different morals in Panem, so doesn't that make everything Katniss does okay? Thank you for your time.