The Council on Foreign Relations (The CFR) is a shady organization.

First I'll respond to my opponent's opening arguments, then I'll make my own case if necessary. ======== Background / Points: ======== My opponent explains the origins of the organization. Few actual points here, though there is an unspoken point about the Marxist views of the founder. As my opponent states: - In this book House says his goal is for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." This is not a point in itself. My opponent has not shown why "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx" is shady. Also, consider that the organization has no official positions on matters of policy - whatever positions their members put forth are likely to be the most dominant in the organization. A direct quote from their website: "The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization [...] the Council takes no institutional positions on matters of policy." Thus, the views of the founder are rather irrelevant, no? The founder's dead, anyway. Also, my opponent suggests that the Federal Reserve Act, among others proposed by the CFR, make the organization shady. However, he fails to back this up, except with a link to a 7+ minute long video. Am I required to respond not only to my opponent's argument, but also to a 7+ minute video, all in 8000 characters? I think not. If my opponent wants to argue that the Federal Reserve Act or other acts make the organization shady, I will gladly debate that issue. In short, the video my opponent posted displays a lack of knowledge on the economic issues the Fed aims to address. It is propaganda aimed at an uninformed audience with little to no background in economics. If my opponent wishes to hold on to these points, I ask that he make his own arguments for me to respond to, in his actual round. Once again, I cannot be expected to respond directly to a link, since this allows my opponent's arugments to be vast, where my response is limited to 8000 characters. Then my opponent suggests that since big businesses back the CFR, it MUST be shady! He bases this argument only on what he hopes are your own personal feelings. However, remember that he has not substantiated this argument. He has not shown WHY or HOW big businesses backing the CFR makes the organization shady. Thus, I have nothing to respond to. They back the organization because the organization benefits them. That doesn't mean it hurts the rest of America. ======== Burdens: ======== My opponent suggests that it is my burden to show that "The CFR is good and this is why" This is nonsense. I do not have to show that it is good, I have to show that it is not shady. Otherwise, there is room for a complete and utter tie. What if I show that it is not shady, but I don't show that it's a good thing? In this case, I would have fulfilled my burden to negate the resolution, but I would fail in the burden my opponent places on me. Thus, it can only be said that I must argue that "The CFR is not a shady organization." However, in doing this, I may indeed show that it is a good thing anyway. Next, he claims that he must only place doubt in your minds to win. However, he immediately contradicts this by claiming that he must show more convincingly than I that his side of the resolution is true. This is indeed what he must do, as it is always what one must do in a debate. I have countered all my opponent's current allegations of shadiness. [All his points thus far were not backed, they were simply implicit allegations that go off unbacked assumptions.] ======== My argument: ======== The CFR is an organization whose "think-tank" thinks deeply on policy issues, and then allows the organization to offer people well thought-out ideas and information about said issues. Here's an excerpt from their official website: "Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations’ David Rockefeller Studies Program. We are the Council’s “think tank.” We are an important part of the Council’s mission to produce and disseminate ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. We do that by thinking, writing, and speaking about a broad range of foreign policy issues." This could hardly be called shady. The group exists to give people sound policy advice, and it largely succeeds. It has likely been helpful to the US, due to its frequent advice often being utilized by the Government. That'll be it from me this round, I don't want to waste my opponent's next round with rebuttal, I'd like to see what arguments for his side he has in store for us. Also, good luck to my opponent, and may this be an enjoyable debate. I expect it will be.