Resolved: The American Dream still exists.

--Definition-- The definition of the American dream in today's debate is a person's ability to strive after a strongly desired goal because he or she is in America. My opponent tries to refute my definition by saying that the author Bernie Madoff would be considered an American Hero under my definition. I have 2 responses to this. 1. Nowhere did I state that if a person achieved his or her dream, he or she would be an American Hero. I am simply stating what the American dream is, and has in the past, constituted of. My definition is better than his because his definition believes that everyone in America is trying to live and work for the "better and richer and fuller for every man". This is simply untrue. All people have come to America to help themselves, and not help others. My opponent is actually using a logical fallacy that is generalizing from too small a sample size. My opponent assumes that because some people believe in the greater good of society, all people believe in the greater good. This is clearly untrue. My opponent is in fact advocating that the American dream is a communistic society where all men are doing well. If you as the judge believe that the American dream is a dream of communism, then go with my opponent's definition. Otherwise, you must look to my definition of the American dream, which is a person's ability to strive after a strongly desired goal because he or she is in America. 2. My second response is that my opponent is actually contradicting and making clear that there should be an affirmative vote on today's resolution. He admits that Bernie Madoff has achieved his goals in America, and thus, he is admitting that the American dream does exist. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote on today's debate. Now let's move on to the burden that the negative team must prove. --Burden— My opponent believes that he can evade my question about when the American dream ever disappeared by asking me another question: When did the American dream ever truly exist? This is a logical fallacy in which my opponent is demanding negative proof. Basically, because he has no response to my question, he is trying to evade my question by asking me another question, which contradicts my question. As the judge you must erase my opponent's question from the debate and only look to see that my opponent has no answer to my question: When did the American Dream cease to exist? Until my opponent can answer me this one question, there is no choice but an affirmative vote on today's ballot because my opponent is admitting that the American dream has never ceased to exist. But furthermore, I will answer my opponent's question: When did the American dream ever truly exist? I have a number of answers to this. 1. My opponent is being quite foolish by asking me whether or not the American dream ever truly existed. Of course it had existed, else we would not be having this debate today about whether or not the American dream still exists today. Because my opponent has accepted me on this debate, he has accepted that the American Dream did at one point exist, and that we are now debating about whether or not it exists still, as stated under the resolution. 2. My second response is that my opponent's whole "burden" paragraph in his second speech tried to say how the American dream hasn't existed under his definition. As I showed you previously in this speech, my opponent's definition is not the correct definition in today's debate, and thus his argumentation is flawed. 3. Looking under my definition, the American dream has always existed. A person has always had the best ability to "strive after a strongly desired goal" in America. Throughout the ages people have been emigrating out of their countries and immigrating into the Unites Stated because America was the place to be. America is the land of success. My opponent makes a valid point that there has been discrimination in the past. Let me emphasize though, that this was in the past. The resolution is asking whether or not the American dream exists in the present. In the past there may have been discrimination, but today there is equality under the law for all sexes and races. My opponent may site how women receive slightly less compensation for their work, but this is just irrelevant. I challenge my opponent to give instances where women actually felt like they were being ripped off. Sure they may be making less money, but this is not infracting upon their American dream. Thus, it is clear that it is my opponent's burden of proof to prove that the American dream has ceased to exist. Let's move on to my opponent's case. --Refutations— Contention 1: Real freedom has been replaced with symbols of personal freedom. 1. Under my definition that I have proved to you, this is an irrelevant argument because the American dream is for the individual, not for society. This argument actually goes to my side of the debate because my opponent himself states that Americans are in a "pursuit of self-promotion". This is the American Dream, and so clearly it does exist. 2. My opponent says that obesity is rising and so the American dream does not exist. This just proves my point. Because Americans are living the dream, they are doing what they want, and so they are eating lots of food. Just because it may be bad for them, does not mean that they aren't living the American dream. Contention 2: The Ends Justify The Means My opponent lists a number of impressive numbers in this contention as a whole, but these are all easily refuted with one key point. My opponent has fallen to the logical fallacy known as the Nirvana Fallacy. This fallacy is that sure, a situation may not be perfect, but at least it is better then the alternatives. Yes, there may be some flukes in the American system such as corruption or lobbying, but as a whole, the American system is the best system in the world and gives the people of this country the best opportunity, so thus, the American dream exists. B. Lobbyists This sub point actually goes to my side because lobbying in fact helps the American dream exist. Because of lobbying, the politicians are constantly given information on both sides of the debate by lobbyists. Because of this, the politicians are able to see a full scope of arguments on both sides, and are then able to pass bills and laws that have had much thought put into them. Because of this, the best possible laws and bills are passed, giving the people of American the best opportunity to do well, and thus, preserving the American dream. C. Middle-Class These CEO's are just people that have successfully followed through the American dream, and are currently living the dream, thus the dream does exist. Contentions 3: Gays DADT is actually put in place to help the gay community. Think about it, if a gay person were to come out in the army, people would not look at him the same way. America cannot control the way society perceives gays, but they are putting laws in place to try and mitigate the damage. DADT is one of them. Also, many states have passed the legalization of gay marriage, and California is on the verge of passing this bill. Clearly the American government is preserving the American dream. Contention 4: The Working Poor My opponent confronts the logical fallacy of proof by example. He is stating that because in one instance there are issues, the whole United States must be flawed. Yes, there may be unfair treatment at a Wal-Mart, but this does not mean that it is everywhere in the United States. The large majority of the people in the US are in fact employed and doing fine. For these reasons, I see no other option but an Affirmative vote.