Global Capitalistic Institutions

What is power? It is the ability to do what one wants when one wants. Say Person A wants to do an action by him/herself. Because it interacts with no one no power must be used to accomplish this action. Now say Person A wants to Interact with Person B. In order for this interaction to happen Person B MUST lose his/her right to decline action. If Person B willingly engages Person A, then Person B has GIVEN Person A Person B's liberty to choose not to make this interaction. Like Wise, if Person A FORCES Person B to interact, then Person A has TAKEN Person B's liberty to not interact. Either way, Person B must lose his/her liberty to choose not to interact in order for Person A to have the POWER to interact. My opponent's argument that money, physical prowess, and genuine belief are all examples of how Person A could attain Person B's liberties. This proves that power is gained from the loss of liberties and that point should be flowed to the con. "First, the government does not have the power to send "us" to war. They have the power to send our military to war. Members of our military are volunteers. It is their job to go to war." The government DOES have the power to send the UNITED STATES to war. What are the United States? The land and EVERY SINGLE legal citizen of the U.S. So: yes, the government CAN send us to war. This proves my point judge and should flow to the con. "Second, Congress decides whether or not to formally declare war" This contradicts my opponent's previous statement. Congress is the government bud. They are who send us to war. "The members of Congress are elected by the citizens to represent them. By extension, it is the citizens that actually decide whether or not to go to war." No. Congress is an centralized entity that we have given power to. This centralized power is what sent us to war, not the people. This proves my point judge and should be flowed to the con. My argument:"It should be considered a bad thing. This inherently takes away our liberties." Opponent's argument "Again, you have yet to prove why this is a bad thing." I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were just an average american who doesn't care about your own freedom. I personally would like to have as much free choice as I can concerning myself...but that's just me apparently. Opponent:"any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." My Refutation:"If any individual is trying to hurt someone, then all the other individuals are there to correct the situation." Opponent:"No, the government via the police are there to correct the situation." The police are SOME of those individuals I mentioned. Any person can perform a citizen's arrest. So: when my opponent tries to argue that "any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." it is obvious that they cannot do WHATEVER with out consequences. A whole multitude of people can prevent or punish it. This completely proves my point judge this argument flows to the con. My statement:"My opponent asks what proof I have of the centralized governing system of the capitalist entity having complete liberty. As I have proved, they have power at the extent of our liberties." Opponent:"From what I see, you have proved nothing." Look to the beginning of this speech, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for someone/something to have power without obtaining it from others. Following this, if these entities have power then they have it at our liberties' expense, thereby, giving them liberty we do not have. My question:"What other considerations?" Opponent's answer:"Refer to my second response." Allow me to restate it. What OTHER considerations? Judges, my opponent gives one weak statement, wanting,(which they do not explain) but says there are more to make the argument sound like it should hold much sway in this debate. The fact is it was a weak argument. Do not allow them to give an answer no because I would not have a speech to argue it. My opponent cannot bring up any new arguments and if he does they need to be scratched from the ballot and ignored in this debate round. As you can see I have refuted his statement that other considerations go into it and that should flow to the Con. My statement:"If that same individual protests the entity, then that entity is going to use any and everything in it's Power (that we gave them) to quell the protest." Opponent's refutation:"Not necessarily. Our government allows protests all the time." We aren't talking about the government son. We're talking about global capitalistic institutions. In 1995 the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha deemed hanging to be the necessary means to quell the articulate voice of poet Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight fellow Ogoni activists.(http://www.commondreams.org...) What were these voices protesting? Shell Oil Company. Who paid off General Sani Abacha? Shell Oil Company. Even the U.S. government will launch massive P.R. campaigns after protests to try and make it seem like they are everything the protesters want them to be. So my original argument that the centralized power will do everything it can to protect it's being and beliefs, whether it's through the force of killing or through the process of telling us what we want to hear, is proved. I have clearly won this point and it should flow to the con. In closing: I have clearly won the arguments on; Power=Loss of liberties, the government's ability to send us to war, the government's centralized power to govern the non-centralized population, loss of liberties=loss of freedom, the consequences of actions, my opponent trying to use the unstated "other considerations" as a voting issue when it is not, and that as a whole, when one or multiple people take action centralized power does not like or agree with, that power will do everything it can to make the people not a threat to the powers beliefs and security. Of the 9 arguments brought up in this round, I clearly win eight and the last one is:"Completely false. "Letting" someone "get away" with something may or may not give them power. Furthermore, "letting" someone do something may or may not be a factor. That individual may have the ability to do what they wish regardless of the actions of others. There are other ways to gain power: money, physical ability, and simply convincing someone that one's action is correct" which is essentially just a different view of the Power=Loss of liberties argument that I clearly won. I would just like to remind that any new arguments should be considered invalid because I will not have a chance to argue them. My opponent can extend any already stated argument just not bring any new arguments to the round. Judges you must vote on the 9 arguments previously stated. You have two ways of looking at it. Either, --award the "Completely false...one's action is correct" argument above to the pro and the rest to the con finishing with 8 con points and 1 pro point. This would be a con ballot. Or --award all nine arguments to the con finishing with 9 con points and 0 pro points. This would be a con ballot. I'd like to thank my opponent for a challenging debate and I'd like to thank the Judges for their time in reading this debate. All I can see is a Con Ballot. Thank You.