Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid.

Contention 1: My opponent continues to provide no grounds for deciding what a person is paid in a capitalist society. He suggests that it is the responsibility of the stockholders, but in a capitalist society, isn't that really the general society? Sure, it isn't the ENTIRE society, but it is as accurate as a capitalist corporation will ever be able to provide. Think of it this way: if the stockholders are in a traditional corporation – not simply multi-billion dollar executives investing into other companies, but rather a collection of each person that bought stocks in a company, then there is representation from the general public amongst their ranks. While not every person in a society is going to agree on a decision of any sort, there are norms that can be followed. This is the principle that democracy is run on, and logically makes a good grounds for how to run a capitalist infrastructure. At that point, it isn't the executives themselves, but the stockholders – or, as I've shown, society – that determines what fair wages are. It isn't simply enough to say that low-paid miners have the ability to quite any time, therefore their wage is justified. Why is it that people in factories of the 1800's were paid practically nothing, yet didn't quit? Because they have a family to feed, and the need for money is too great to just quit. In effect, by trying to mute my arguments about the need for fair wages, my opponent is arguing that labor unions are not only unnecessary, but unjustified in what they do. It isn't the role of the people, he says, that can determine pay, but rather the business. This is how he is arguing an unjust society – the corporations run the people, because the people cannot rise up against the business's will and still survive. Contention 2: My opponent simply twists and dismisses my point without any reason or logic. I am not arguing socialism, I am arguing moralism. Under socialism, I'd be arguing that it is the government that determines how the wealth is divided, and that we need to make everyone on equal grounds, period. That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that every society – whether capitalist, socialist, or idealistic with no economy whatsoever, there are still an underlying set of moral guidelines that we should be using. The resolution does state that we are looking at a society "under capitalism," but also says that we are questioning whether or not "executives DESERVE" their salaries. The term deserves is what gives this resolution a measurement of morality, and I argue that we can't simply use the values of capitalism to determine that – we must look to the basic, human sense of morality as well. Furthermore, I argue that his interpretation of the resolution is abusive and one-sided. Were we to measure this debate simply on the values of capitalism, then, as he states in his first speech, it is obvious that an executive deserves to be paid money for the work he does. Where is the controversy? There would be no point debating whatsoever if that was how the resolution was interpreted. Rather, I say we need to be looking at more than JUST capitalism, and see the underlying principles that my opponent is ignoring. I am not arguing that the people who are currently poor become poorer, I'm arguing that the poor group and rich group (basically a set of standards saying "what makes you poor?" and another saying "what makes you rich?") are growing farther apart, which is unhealthy for an economy. He never once argues this point, he simply ignores it. Extend it, and make it a major voting point for the round. Moreover, he questions Michael Harrington's book. He wants me to provide the evidence that Michael Harrington provides. I say if he wants that information, go read the passage I posted in my last speech. I shouldn't have to prove a philosophy or economic theory that I didn't write, I just need to show that it is there in order to make my argument. I have never once conceded the resolution. My opponent misanalysed my speeches three times, and his arguments need to drop because of it. The only way to vote in this round is negative. My opponent is now free to rebut...