Humanity's tendency towards commodification of things ought to be resisted.

Wrap up Throughout the debate, there has not been a denial that commodification has its uses. Man has been trading goods since prehistoric times. Despite our different points of view, when this first began, it’s not really germane to the topic as a whole. I have proven how continued commodification here in the Western has not made us thrive, but has been diminishing over the last 30 years. My opponent has failed to equate how we have been empowered by it; other than all the good stuff we can get. My opponent feels that our dwindling standard of living is a subjective opinion, but examples have been provided. Our standard of living has diminished due to lack of reinvestment at home. The rise of dual income households, obtaining and keeping employment, high education debt, and colleges treating students as customers rather than intellectual molding of minds, as well as stagnant wages to restate a few. Healthcare has been commodified, it’s limited to the worthy who can pay. Many in the US file for bankruptcy due to medical cost. The high cost of drugs like the Epipen is an unaffordable life saving drug, the marketing of medical services and lack of R&D for affordable drugs for the 3rd world has not been not undertaken due to profit motivation; these all are uncontested points. Third world nations only receive health care through the charity of others. My opponent uses a capitalist web site to state our health system is better than socialized countries, but the Commonwealth Fund and World Health Organization concur in opinion on our system ranking 37th [http://tinyurl.com...]. Bad economic times are not just hiccups; it’s been in a slow and steady decline over time. Our social interactions, human functions have been commodified, love, good feelings, judicial pain and suffering awards, the purchasing of self-identity for self worth, religion, media molding our views, even the air we breathe has been commodified; uncontested. Additionally uncontested is our sense of community, family and civic sense has been eroded by commodification. Our on-line families mean more than real families; we have for profit adoptions, and hired mercenaries to fight our wars. The marketing of stuff creating a drive to achieve social status and self worth, which also furthers greater social stratification and derisiveness has caused social harm. How does commodifying what it is to be human as a part of the Laissez-faire market place allows us to live and thrive has gone unanswered. Imposing our system of Neo-liberal commodification upon 3rd world countries has caused harm. Their economic autonomy in making decisions on how they wish to develop is denied them. Their barter/trade systems are reduced to market forces, a point dropped by my opponent in the last round. As wells as how our market system destroys the cultural fabric of community, and has destroyed cultures via the tourist industry. My opponent believes commodification in the 3rd world is voluntary. But, often is not; their natural resources are taken to supply the West’s consumer culture; they don’t reap the economic benefits. Lands are privatized and at times forcibly taken. Pollution results, and in some cases people become slaves or die in the name of profits; a few citations regarding slavery occurring have been provided. Lesser developed countries are being taken advantage in the name of Neo-liberal commodification, Brazil, Dominican, Thailand, India, Zambia, Congo, Papua Ghana, Tanzania, Sudan Cambodia, Kenya, & Zimbabwe to name a few. They are not better off with the introduction of our western system, but worse off. To say that “undeveloped countries have mostly undesirable culture” is passing a subjective judgment. For those living through our style of commodification may feel otherwise, especially those who have been displaced and now live in polluted squalor due to our impacts. My opponent objects to my contention made in round 2 in the 4th round, I certainly made my direction clear at the start. Whether metaphorically or literally, my opponent uses sexual values as a comparative of the subjectivity of morality; the issue has been addressed. And, it can be said with great confidence that morality behind slavery, death due to unsafe work conditions and polluting the 3rd world for profit for the 1st world nations is reprehensible by anyone’s standards. Also make note, no such argument has been made on my part regarding rampant immigration into more developed countries; only that immigrants have been politically scape goated for our declining standard of living; it’s a new point that cannot be rebutted in this round. Along with points on ecological modernism, Communist, anti-capitalist countries, and W.H. Hutt’s Theory of Idle Resources, all new points that cannot be weighed. I’d like to thank my opponent for the invigorating and challenging debate. This surely has been a unique topic and thanks to Bsh1 for instigating the tournament.