Individual human rights and liberties should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations.

My opponent has offered some interesting information and opinions, yet, much of it is irrelevant in regard to the issue being debated.I am not against the formation of corporations. I am challenging the ability of corporations that pose a threat of physical or ecological harm to be given rights that transcend or outrank the human/natural rights and liberties of the individual or general public. However, I do feel that corporations would be able to fulfill their mission (profitability) without being given 'legal' individual rights. While it may be easier for the corporations, expedience and/or comfort should not be allowed to endanger individual liberties or the rights oft he people."... there are lots of different ways to organize natural persons in the world. Families, churches, clubs, towns, cities and other governments are all institutions that engage in productive activity. We do not have to treat any of them as persons for them to fulfill their missions." Families - Families are not protected or viewed as single persons. In fact, many governmental programs (such as certain welfare policies) are considered to be factors that cause the break-up of families.) Churches - There is a supposed separation between church and state. Clubs - Clubs do not mass produce industrial merchandise that is hazardous. Towns and Cities - Towns and cities are civic organizations."...Occupy Wall Street protesters... When they refer to corporations...refer to the social community of persons associated with the corporation: its leaders, its employees, its creditors, its shareholders, and even, perhaps, its customers."Again, this is a periphery topic. However, these protesters do seem to grasp an understanding of how the corporatocracy works. Their protests appear to focus on state-corporate crime."...realized that the press was aggregating contributions made by the employees of an entity and reporting them as contributions attributable to the entity."First, as much of the 'press' is owned and controlled by corporations, any information or propaganda that is offered by its sources can be considered a conflict of interest. I imagine that my opponent is referring to election contributions. The political system has been commandeered (so to speak) by lobbyist and special interest groups. Many corporations sponsor these special interest groups which are often comprised of said corporations' employees. These lobbyist and special interest groups are used by corporations to sidestep limitations placed on how much money a corporation can 'contribute' to any particular election. Another example of how the legal person-hood of corporations is used to avoid criminal culpability for deleterious or criminal actions take by "its leaders, its employees, its creditors, its shareholders, and even, perhaps, its customers.""...when Occupy Wall Street protesters object to "corporations,"...not objecting to their corporate form...objecting to the behavior of the persons associated with the entity...protesters do not appear to be considering any changes in corporate and related laws related to the question of whether or not a corporation is treated as a legal person."Again, I do not claim to know the agenda of the Occupy protesters if there was one. I will wait until my opponent makes clear the changes in corporate and related laws related to corporate person-hood he is referring to before deciding if they warrant comment. It does seem that part of the protester's gripe seemed to involve the infringement of the corporatocracy upon the liberty or sovereignty of individuals."Corporate person-hood actually benefits creditors and customers of corporations. Without person-hood, they wouldn"t be able to sue "the corporation" but would have to sue individual shareholders, from whom it would be much more difficult to recover."My argument focuses more on criminal rather than civil law. Activities such as purposeful environmental pollution and phamaceutical crime cause actual physical harm or death to many individuals and communities. These individuals have no contract or agreement with the corporation. While individuals can be physically punished for assault and murder corporations cannot. Thus, any action that has the potential to be dangerous or has proven to be deadly should be prohibited."Corporations are not creatures of constitutions, but rather of the legislative power recognized by constitutions. It is the legislature that sets out the rules governing their existence."As we live in a corporatocracy, it seems duplicitous to suggest that corporations can be viewed as totally independent from the legislature."...the capacity of corporations to exercise First Amendment rights is implausible..."Corporations should be held liable for false advertisement. Also, corporations that are not classified as 'press' should not have 1st ammendment rights or freedom of speech as they are not able to speak. Private for profit corporations that are not classified as 'press' should not be able to use their influence to sway the masses or overshadow the voice of the people."... most of the stuff I get are from books, because I find websites to be for the most part poorly written and not always correct."My opponent seems to think that books cannot be inaccurate. There are still texbooks that state Christopher Columbus discovered America. The entire theory of scientific racism was based on myths and lies. As one of my teacher's once said, one should always consider the author's biases - regardless of the source.I await your response.