Resolved: The American Dream still exists.

My opponent has dropped his case, so I will use this round to extend my own. Definition: My opponent places two responses to the definition I provide for the American Dream. Here are my responses: 1.He states: "All people have come to America to help themselves, and not help others." and wildly claims that I am trying to prove that America is a communist nation where all are trying to benefit each other. This could not be further from the truth. What I stated as my definition of the American Dream was that every American would have equal opportunity to pursue his or her own goals – no mention of communism. His response holds no ground. 2.He states that since one corrupt American used corrupt means to achieve his goals, he is living the American Dream. This is wrong for two reasons: 1) Using corrupt means to achieve success is in strict contradiction of everything outlined in the American Dream; rather, it goes against every basic American virtue and principle. 2) The American Dream states that individuals of all races, genders, and financial situations must be able to attain their goals. My opponent in no way proves that this occurs. Ultimately, we can only look to the definition of the American Dream I provide, which encompasses all of the conditions set forth by the original American dream states by James Truslow Adams, whilst my opponent's definition is simply a re-iteration of ruthless capitalism where the ends justify the means. Burden: My opponent asks me to point to the incident that ended the American Dream. I have answered my his question by stating that the conditions set forth in the American Dream were never met; unless my opponent can prove otherwise, he loses this round. However, my question remains unanswered; when did the American Dream ever truly exist? Prior to beginning this debate, my opponent and I agreed that in order for the American Dream to "exist", the conditions outlined in its definition, such as equal opportunity for all races, genders, etc., must be met. To make this burden simpler to understand, I'll provide an analogy. Assume a friend asks you if your cat is "still alive". If you never had a pet cat, then it obviously cannot be "still alive". Likewise, if my opponent cannot show us a time in American history where the American Dream existed, it cannot "still exist", and he automatically loses the round under the context of the resolution. I will now refute to my opponent's responses to my contentions. Contention 1. My opponent misunderstands this point. It states that the dream that Americans are pursuing isn't even the true American Dream. The dream most Americans pursue today is that of a flat-screen TV and an expensive car. However, under the original and accepted definition of the American Dream, James Adams clearly states that "it is not a dream of motor cars and high wages". This contention proves that since Americans aren't even in pursuit of what the real American Dream outlines, the dream no longer exists. Contention 2: The Ends Justify The Means Subpoint A and B: Corruption and Lobbying My opponent ignores these points entirely, stating that I fall for a "Nirvana Fallacy". If the resolution for this debate had been "Resolved: Economic opportunity in the US is better than the rest of the world", then my opponent's Nirvana Fallacy argument could apply. However, today's debate isn't about comparing America to other nations. It's about comparing America today to the America idealized in the American Dream. All of my examples of corruption, ranging from Bernie Madoff stealing billions in fraudlent activities, to the involvement of lobbying in the passing of Medicare Part D, which skyrocketed the price of prescription drugs, still stand. They are prime examples of how the ends justify the means for Americans and how the rich get richer by manipulating the government as the poor get poorer. My opponent attempts to respond to my lobbying argument by stating that "politicians are given information on both sides thanks to lobbyists". This is false. Lobbyists provide biased and often false information to politicians, and it is rare that lobbyists are on both sides of an issue, let alone both sides having equal resources to access these politicians. As a result, thanks to lobbying, the rich are able to buy the votes of congressmen. There exists a group called the Congressional Research Service which provides congressmen with unbiased information for both sides of every bill, thus making lobbyists unnecessary. [1] We must extend all my examples of corruption in the US. 1) Bernie Madoff's fraudulent activity, 2) the creation of the Enron Loophole through lobbying, 3) Enron stealing money from Californians, 4) deregulating the economy and causing the recession, 5) repealing the Estate Tax. Subpoint 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." I have two responses to this. 1) My opponent disregards the contention ENTIRELY, forgetting the disappearance of the middle class and the ever-growing gap between the rich and poor. This prevents the American Dream from ever being accessible to the poor. 2) The American Dream must provide equal opportunity to all despite financial backgrounds. As I proved in Subpoint B, when corrupt congressmen are able to buy out Congress, it prevents the poor from ever getting wealthier while the rich continue to suppress them. [2] Contention 3: Gays DADT is definitely NOT put in place to help the gay community. My opponent states "Think about it, if a gay person were to come out in the army, people would not look at him the same way". Imagine if we lived during the Civil Rights Movement, and my opponent argued: "Think about it, if a black person were to go to the same restaurant as a white person, people would not look at him the same way." My opponent doesn't realize that social change comes in steps; in order to make gays more acceptable in American culture, the government must first accept them by eliminating legislation such as DADT. All DADT does is prevent gays from having the American Dream of equal opportunity as other Americans. Contention 4: The Working Poor "He is stating that because in one instance there are issues, the whole United States must be flawed." I have four responses. 1)This is not an isolated case; it applies to basically every corporation, large and small, in the United States. Wal-Mart, Target, Burger King… the list goes on. 2)"The large majority of the people in the US are in fact employed and doing fine." My opponent provides no evidence to support this claim. 3)Most Americans aren't "doing fine" simply because they're employed. In her novel, Ehrenreich was employed by several companies, but she was never "doing fine". 4)My opponent says "the large majority of people in the US". Again, think back to the 60s era; if we lived during the Civil Rights Movement, would it be okay to say "the large majority of people in the US have rights, so why should we give them to African Americans too?" Today's resolution doesn't ask if the large majority of Americans have the American Dream; it asks whether or not the conditions outlined in the dream, that all Americans must have equal opportunities regardless of financial standing, have been met. They clearly have not been met. My opponent has dropped all of his contentions, so you can ignore his entire case, and thus the negation wins by default. Next, it's clear that all of my contentions still stand; unless my opponent can prove to us in his next speech that the American Dream ever existed, that it is indeed accessible to the working poor and to gays, and that the rich can't buy out Congress, it's clear that the American Dream does not exist. [1] http://www.loc.gov... [2] Center on Budget and Policy