Federal aid to private companies is unconstitutional in the United States.

Burdens: I accept your burdens, as they are clearly defined by the resolution. We can then conclude that the entire debate rests on CON's first contention and the definitions of the resolution. Definition of "Federal Aid": Federal has been defined as: -pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states . http://dictionary.reference.com... Aid is defined as: -to give help or assistance (as a verb) . http://dictionary.reference.com... However, in the resolution, 'aid' is clearly a noun. -help or support; assistance . http://dictionary.reference.com... Help is defined as: -to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist . http://dictionary.reference.com... Support is defined as: -to uphold (a person, cause, policy, etc. ) by aid . http://dictionary.reference.com... As for definitions, it is clear that 'aid' is never to relieve a burden, such as to lower taxes (so that is a different debate), but to give something to someone or something in need. My opponent had a broad definiton of federal aid that allowed it to be essentially anything he wanted it to be. His great source did not even contain any of the following words: aid, assistance, or benefits; even though he claimed it to be a proper definition, his definition is nothing of such for this debate. -------------------------------------------- Now, for CON: 1 "so the federal government, MAY, by the advocacy of the affirmative, provide aid to companies to ensure that the consumer is being protected through incentives, or just plain aid when the market is going down to keep prices bearable. " By the definitions above, federal regulations are irrelevant, because they are not 'Federal aid'. As for "keep prices bearable", this actually hurts companies, because they charge what the market forces of supply, demand, and competition lead them to price. By conflicting with these market forces, the strength of the free market is jeopardized. "Futhermore, the AFF even goes as far as to define regulations as consumer protection" Consumer protection is not 'Federal aid to private companies'. My opponent's definition of 'Federal aid' is very broad and falsely stated. Therefore, this is not part of this debate. "clearly this interpretation coincides with the constitution, my opponent and I both agree. " It coincides with the constitution, but not the debate. "if a corporate entity worth billions of dollars and employing millions were to collapse, to provide that company with aid would in no doubt be "improving the well being of the whole society. " " This is incorrect. To temporarily prop up a corporate entity with federal funds would hurt the whole, as they are either taxed involuntarily to prop this company up or their currency is inflated. This hurts the 'whole' of society while giving benefits to only a few million people, or about 1% of the population. "federal government may see it as advantageous to the general public "bail out" or provide aid to such a company, to prevent further job loss and exacerbation of markets" When a company falls, it files for bankruptcy and its assets are sold into the rest of the market, allowing for this market to grow and develop in a more profitable way than it would have with the unprofitable existence of the former company. Jobs are not lost, they are ultimately transferred to otehr companies as they expand to fill the void. GENERAL WELFARE AND THE COMMON DEFENSE: CON insists that helping about 1% of the population at the cost of the whole is 'general welfare'. This is fallacy. CON insists that "a collapse of that economy would mean a collapse or downfall in the U. S. F. G. 's ability to defend our country"; however, even during the Great Depression, governments across the world were able to amass enough military to fight off the expansion of the strongest economies in the world, Nazi Germany and Japan. Therefore, this claim is false. Granting assistance through government spending does not have a place in the constitution. NEG 1a "in response to his uniformity of tax argument, I agree, so long as the federal government is giving tax breaks in a uniform manner to private companies" Relieving tax burdens does not qualify as aid, as a more specific definition proves. "alleviating the tax burden on private companies would be entirely beneficial to these companies= federal aid" Again, relieving tax burdens, or any other burden, such as a regulation, is not federal aid. Removing of a burden in no case is providing aid according to a more proper and specific definition. "look to the whole definition section to see why my opponents argument against this sub contention doesn't work" So, because your definition was wrong, your subcontention falls. CON 1b "I have already explained how the collapse of an economy would be enough to jeopardize the common defense and general welfare. if everyone is unemployed, and the government could have prevented that by giving aid to corporations, the feds must act. " Such a thing has never happened in history and will never happen. My opponent has made an alarmist claim. CON 1c "since there is no real refutation besides what is argued on con 1 a, I feel no need to refute why sub contention a stands, its already been solidified. " Because your definition falls, subpoint 1c falls as well. --------------------------------------- Now for my case: "I can see in no way how I have conceded his case" I did not say you had conceded my case, I said "My opponent has conceded my case if and only if his case falls", which is entirely different and a product of the debate burdens, as we have both pointed out. ---------------------------------------- "just kick the interstate commerce argument, as that's another debate for another day. " No problem. ----------------------------------------- CONCLUSIONS: Because the definition of "Federal aid to private companies" is "For the federal government to uphold private companies by giving them assistance", my opponent's case is not relevant to this debate, with the exception of his alarmist arguments that an entire economy could collapse as the result of a few companies falling, which is a false claim. "Federal aid to private companies is unconstitutional in the United States. " Affirmed.