Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid.

My opponent is basically arguing that capitalist ideology is the only thing worth valuing in this given resolution. By assuming this, we are not only over-simplifying the moral obligations that are questioned in this topic, but we are ignoring the basic human rights that must be preserved in any given society. Contention 1(neg): My opponent argues that the lower-end workers are easily replaced, therefore they are worthless. He insists that the quality and difficulty of their work is unimportant in the determinacy of their pay. But this argument ignores the human element of morality. Is it justified to force the most dangerous job to be paid the least? Is it a morally acceptable act to pay high end executives at the expense of the low-pier workers that really get the job done that makes the money? No. "Inequality in workplaces is unavoidable for a practical business under capitalism, and as long as a corporate executive's job is deemed important enough to be worthy of a multi-million dollar salary, the job will be paid a multi-million dollar salary." The issue is, who decides that the job is worth multiple millions of dollars? And furthermore, what are the criteria for the worth of a job in a capitalist society? The affirmative never gives you these answers. He simply insists that the managers of corporations should have their right to decide for themselves, without regard of the opinions of society as a whole. At that point, society is effectively owned and controlled by big-business – far from a fair, just system. Contention 2: My opponent simply misunderstands what I am saying. He claims that people, as individuals, rise to higher wealth as they grow older, which makes my point moot. However, I don't say anything about that. On the contrary, I simply say that as the group "wealthy" and group "poor" become farther apart, the economy suffers. And his point is moot anyway, as it is too assuming of progress. In the book, "The Other America," by Michael Harrington, he explains that "These [the contemporary poor] are the people who are immune to progress." In locations such as the Appalachian Highlands, he explains, there are simply "pockets of poverty" which never progress into richer groups. Why should we listen to his proposed economic theory, when it is simply not the truth for all people? He later attempts to explain that the blame for the current financial disaster lies solely on the banks offering the mortgages. However, as Adam Davidson, an economist for NPR's "Planet Money" explains that in the current global market, run by mutual funds and money market accounts, investments are largely controlled by executives who control those accounts. (http://www.pbs.org...) The fact that these investment companies bought up mortgages that failed because families didn't make enough money to pay for them is not a lie – it was a real cause for a real problem. Finally, he attempts to argue that I concede the round based on semantics in my previous speech. Again, as I have shown in my rebuttal, we should not be looking solely to a capitalist mindset, but rather keep in mind the morality of the decisions we make. In a purely capitalist society, yes, executives deserve to be paid whatever they want, so long as it benefits society. However, if you keep in mind the rights of the people and the health of the economy in mind, then the paychecks that are being sent out to these executives suddenly become far less reasonable. The only way to vote affirmative for this case is to drop all sense of human rights and allow a totalitarian regime to set in. So, for the sake of legitimacy in society and economy, I urge a negative vote. My opponent is now free to respond...