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

Some unexpected business came up. ==Rebuttals==PRO says "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. " 1) Student loans. .. Without the government, there would be no such thing as student loans, since students often have no collateral or credit history. This poses too much of a risk for banks, but our government has somewhat "co-signed" with the students to get the loans. This process happens by the government guaranteeing that the student will pay off the debt, as he/she cannot file bankruptcy.2)Affirmative actions doesn't neccessarly mean prioritizing one group, but rather policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin. I don't see how we are taking away democracy, as everyone promotes diversity and against discrimination. 3) "Some type of qualification. " Every student belongs at a certain school. .. Elite schools would be too hard and useless for those in need of more basic education, and genius students will have nothing to do at normal schools. Qualifications are used to make sure that the student is right for that school. Pro says, "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. "1) There are local organizations that provide a range of services, including shelter, food, counseling, and jobs skills programs. 2) Food banks exist to feed those in need.3) Since the 1950s, the US government has passed many laws to ensure equality between whites and blacks. . http://www.scholastic.com...4) Our government and we as a society ensure that criminals do not go unpunished.5) The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, banned slavery. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, including women and former slaves. The 15th Amendment (1870) provided that voting rights of citizens “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Pro says, "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. "1) Several rights have nothing to do with the amount of money you make, such as the right to vote or the right to a trial.2) A public/government hospital is a hospital which is owned by a government and receives government funding. This type of hospital provides medical care free of charge, and this is covered by the funding the hospital receives. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. 3) Life-sustaining treatment and organizations that specifically research cures for cancer exist to help those with cancer. Whether or not they are rich, those with terminal diseases cannot be saved with current technology. I fail to see how money can cure diseases that have no cures. PRO says, "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. "1) First off, I'd like to mention that "voicing your opinion" has nothing to do with "freedom". Everyone has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.2) Now, there are some possibilities on how the rich can have a bigger voice. a) The Rich have better capabilities and more political power. b) The government benefits and prefers the rich over the poor/middle classes. Addressing point "A". ..1) Cantidates have "spending limits" on states. Here a the list of the spending limits for each state: . http://www.fec.gov...2) Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. Addressing point "B". .. .1) The top contributors for each presidential cantidate is made public and for everyone to see. If there is corruption going on, then it would already be pointed out.2) Everyone has limits on how much they can donate. This prevents people from trying to gain favors from cantidates. . http://www.fec.gov...;3) Secret ballots currently help prevent cantidates from bribing people to vote for them, as the cantidate cannot know for sure whether or not they are voting for him/her. PRO says "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. "1) I only need to provide an example of people reaching "happiness", even though they are poor. One example is Bill Clinton and Lincoln. Happiness is defined as the state of being delighted, pleased, or glad. Just because you are poor, it doesn't mean that you cannot express human emotions, or that you cannot make friends. Pro says "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. " 1) How, in any way, can exercising rights be stopped because of income levels? You can choose whether or not to exercise them, but they are not being prevented from you.2. PRO talks about "Unequal shares", but I've already stated before about how you cannot gain the benefit of the government.3) Representives are elected through majority vote. The rich are not the majority of America, but rather the poor and the middle classes. Pro says that people don't necessarly receive enough food. However he is conceding that they are receiving food from food banks. .. PRO also talks about how temples require money. These cultures are often supported by NPOs. And I've run out of space! D: