Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

NC/AC Value/value criterion debate. My opponent does not make any new arguments, he just reiterates the same ones which I have already refuted. Even if I didn't give justice a specific definition I gave the qualifications developed by Rawls. Since my opponent did not attack this you are still using my version of justice and directly my criterion. First contention: My opponent attacks my contention by saying that there has not been enough time to evaluate profits. However, he does not even refer to my evidence from the auto-industry bailout. I showed you how even after numerous bailouts it is still in turmoil and companies are continually laying off more and more employees. Second contention: My opponents ONLY attack on my contention is that the resolution doesn't include the word "only" and the definition of "bailout" doesn't specify the size of the company. However, look at my analysis of bailout which I extended all throughout the round (because it went completely unattacked): "Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout." This means that my opponents attacks are irrelevant because I already addressed this. Although the resolution does not say the word "only" I said that for the purposes of the debate we can only assume that bailout will be specifically for major corporations. (again, this went unattacked). "And just for clarification, my opponent never denies that he is lying, especially in his 2nd contention, therefore he clearly accepts that he is." Haha. Seriously? I clearly denied I was lying and proved it through evidence and logical analysis. To extend some items that went untouched: 1.Extend my definition-analysis of "bailout" where I said that "Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout." This affects his entire case since it means we can't accept that the government will be fulfilling any obligations and also that it will in fact impede justice by only helping major corporations and not the ones that most need it. This is a big voting issue. 2.Observation 2: where I state the affirmative burdens. This goes completely unaddressed. Extend this my opponent has no way of EVER achieving this. He loses just off this. AC Criterion: my opponent's only defense of his criterion is such: "this attack is completely nonsensical and secondly, he provides no evidence to back this up so the attacks fail." Clearly my opponent 1.Has no real defense against my attacks 2.Does not understand my logical refutation of his self-contradicting and intangible criterion. His criterion has no defense. I said that it was self-defeating because the only link between his value, justice, and his criterion was one specific obligation. So what happens to the others? They are ignored. And because of this, in trying to achieve his value my opponent fails to achieve his criterion. Fail. First contention: I explained that it was irrelvevant because of my bailout analysis where I said: "one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the ‘common welfare'. And because I showed how a bailout violates a fundamental right. Second Contention: My opponent's defense is that taxes will not be used, however this is not true. Joe Nocera of NYTimes says: "Gobs of tax money is going to bail out unnamed companies" (http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com...). This clearly refutes my opponent's defense. Extend the Hein card. Impact being taxes are UNJUST because they are a "frontal assault upon private property, which is a basic human right" therefore bailouts and all government action requiring funding is also inherently UNJUST. This debate is so clearly won I don't even know if I should bother with voters. But… I'll refute my opponents most malicious attack on me, he said: "My opponent clearly does not know what he is talking about and so is resorting to lies." This hurts my feelings, I worked very hard to build my case and completely destroy his in a very systematic manner. Don't let my opponent get away with this attack on my character, I have not resorted to lies. Voters 1.I'm clearly winning 2.Criterion was easily defended, his destroyed ever since the first round 3.I turned his criterion and second contention against him 4.My contentions still stand 5.Bailout definition and observation two are untouched Thank you, Vote Neg.