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

My opponent has suggested that placing public safety and individual rights and liberties before the profit model of corporations is idealistic. I disagree with his perspective. As the world survived before the advent of plastic, oil, and fossil fuels, I suppose it would continue were these materials cease to be used. Also, other more ecologically friendly options are currently available. If not, others would be discovered. Necessity is the mother of invention. However, my argument stated that personal and societal rights should take precedent over products manufactured by corporations. I did not say that the products should be automatically trashed. It has beeen proven that corporations that produce toxic or harmful products disproportionately build their factories in underprivileged, disadvantaged and oppresses communities. Issues such as environmental racism are proven 'realities' for many disadvantaged people."Poor communities...tend to bear a disproportionate amount of pollution and toxic waste from factories and polluting industries that are located inside their neighbourhoods and territories, often because poor communities lack the political and financial resources to move these industries elsewhere. Although environmental problems disproportionately affect people in poor nations, they also disproportionately affect poor people in wealthy nations, especially where environmental pollution and toxic waste is concerned. For these reasons, we can understand that environmental problems are also problems of injustice and poverty. " [1] "The extensive use of fracking in the US, where it has revolutionised the energy industry, has prompted environmental concerns...The first is that fracking uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, at significant environmental cost. The second is the worry that potentially carcinogenic chemicals used may escape and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site. The industry suggests pollution incidents are the results of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique...environmental campaigners say that fracking is simply distracting energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels." [2]As stated, these toxic manufacturers are disproportionately found in underprivileged and/or racially casigated and marginalized communities. However, as global warming suggests, these practices have a negative environmenal impact on the entire planet.Toxins released by these manufacturers have been known to contain carcinogens and have a myriad of adverse ecological and physical impacts."What human rights?...right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are natural rights..."As quoted by my opponent, the people have the right to life, liberty, etc.. Thus, if a corporation in the U.S. engages in practices that endanger the lives of the people, those practices should not be allowed."...a company that asks for money in exchange for services or products is violating peoples' rights...have the right to those products without having to pay for it."My argument is not against the basic principles of barter or trade. However, when a company attempts to monopolize the market and hinder individuals from plying their trade it is clearly a violation. Mosanto and the gov't (TRIPS agreement) restricting farmers' ability to save seeds is a good example. While the courts have ruled to protect Monsanto when their seeds contaminate the cfrops of other farmers, this is clearly an intrusion on the part of Monsanto. The fact that the GMO created by Monsanto have been proven to cause cancer, yet, do not have to be labeled as such is a clear illustration of the collusion between gov't and corporations. A negative result of the corporatocracy."This is called Capitalism...Socialism"My argument does not mention any economic system in particular."...corporation should...consider peoples' safety. Your safety is your own problem. Of course you cannot work in unsafe conditions"While my argument does not refer to wworking conditions, my opponent is incorrect. - "Workers at the site on Lawrenceville Highway were doing stucco and brick work on an unsafe scaffolding system and were at risk of falls, the leading cause of death for construction workers. Hundreds of these workers die each year and thousands more suffer catastrophic, debilitating injuries...Our investigation found that several contractors were ignoring basic rules about fall protection and created unsafe working conditions...In this case, the project was behind schedule and the employers chose to put profits ahead of the safety of their workers." [3]- "LaWanda Williamson’s arm was burned by fryer oil at the McDonald’s where she says she works in Detroit, her manager was standing right next to her...And the manger was standing there like, ‘Oh snap, you ok?’ And it was burned she never even offered me the [burn] cream. I didn’t even know they had burn cream...We go to work and get treated like crap, but we have to go to work because we have to make a living. [This way] the workers will eventually get managers that care and provide a proper, safe environment for us.”[4]My argument refers to practices of corporations that negatively effect individuals and the communities in which they are located. Goods and services such as cell phone towers, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. have been known to cause deaths to individuals who are not employees."It is right that corporation cannot be physically injured, but the people running them can. Corporation have interests and property...Corporate person-hood is an American legal concept...same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual... The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people"... they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued..."My opponent admits to the crux of my argument. Corporations cannot be physically injured. Thus, when viewed from a different perspective, treating corporations as individuals is a way for the individuals and groups in these corporations to protect themselves from criminal (not civil) culpability for actions that carry the risk of death to uninvolved parties, (i.e. neighborhoods, communities, individuals, society, etc.) In short, while these corporations are legal fictions, they threaten and take the lives of real conscious beings and pollute the environment and water supply in the areas that they are located. These toxins even affect unborn children by causing miscarriages, birth defects and deformities.[5] The threat, risk, and actuality of death should prohibit the ability of a corporation to be formed or continue production.I have yet to mention pharmaceutical corporations which cause some of the greatest harm to society. It is known that their lobbyist are paid to urge governments and doctors to endorse pharmaceutical remedies over homeopathic or natural lifestyles and medicines.I would like to close this round with a quote from Adam Smith who is considered by many to be one of the founders of capitalism in the U.S.:"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their good both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." [6]I look forward to further examination of the issue.http://environmentaltranslation.org... [1]http://www.bbc.com... [2]https://www.osha.gov... [3]http://michiganradio.org... [4]http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org... [5]http://www.globalissues.org... [6]