Nike should be banned from the USA!

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Paragraph 2, Round 3/// Your source round 3 source [1] states that CEO Phil Knight made 6 commitments. Increasing wages was not one of those commitments as Knight does not have the power to dictate how much these factories pay their workers. You also claim that Knight promised to fund universities in the countries that produce for them, this is also not true according to your source. While many of these promises were not fulfilled to the satisfaction of many they were fulfilled. ///Paragraph 3, Round 3/// While this action paints Nike in a bad light it does not support the resolution that Nike should be banned. I will be responding to paragraph four in its individual parts. ///People don't realize that they are paying more money for the same shoe!/// It is not a crime to charge exorbitant amounts of money for your product. As I stated in previous rounds, Nike is not forcing people to purchase their merchandise. ///Nike has and is breeding its brand to be cool./// Of course it is, cool = popularity, when concerning products popularity = money. I hardly think it is rational to ban a company for being popular or cool. ///Because they have been told, TOLD that it is cool. By whom? Not themselves, they have been led to believe from an early age that Nike is cool because Nike told them so./// These kids have been told that Nike is cool, but it is not Nike that says this to them. Society tells these kids that Nike is cool because to society the Nike brand is cool. Nothing can be cool without people thinking that it is cool. Nike became cool because someone thought that it was cool and the idea caught on. ///There are kids in my school who can't afford a new backpack so they use one that has only one strap and a hole in the bottom because they bought a shoe that they have been led to believe that they must have to be cool...it is the fact that they are preying upon poor families that can't afford it./// See the first rebuttal for this paragraph. ///As for your point concerning Colleges, it is how rigorous the curriculum of the college is, how good and experienced the teachers are and how much better the teaching tools at Harvard that puts it apart from your fake new school./// You misunderstand my point. Harvard Law is _literally_ no different than Flibbledorp. In this scenario the teachers have the _exact_ same amount of experience, they teach in _exactly_ the same manner, and they have _exactly_ the same amount and quality of resources. Harvard is not a better school for teaching law than Flibbledorp is, their name just holds more weight and that's just the way it is. ///While what Nike is doing is just within what is legal/// Remember this as it is important later on. ///Murdering is banned because it is morally wrong. Theft is banned because it is morally wrong./// These are incorrect statements. Murder and theft are not illegal because they are morally wrong, they are illegal because they violate other individual's right to life and property respectively. Many things considered immoral are legal such as gambling, lying, and prostitution (in some places). Morals are subjective and therefore have no legal influence on lawmaking. Lawmaking is a process that deals with protecting the rights of citizens. I will skip over the next portion because they mainly deal with the immorality of the Nike company for worker exploitation, not why they should be banned. As a blanket refutation of this portion I will simply say that rather than forcing the Nike company out of business would be to make laws that prevent what Nike is doing, they would therefore be required to fix things or risk legal ramifications. ///Paragraph 7, Round 3/// It is here that my opponent relies on a legal argument to justify a ban on Nike. To make this contention have any weight my opponent should not have stated the following, "what Nike is doing is just within what is legal." If what Nike is doing is legal then how can they be violating the US constitution? This statement invalidates this argument because the constitution is the document that dictates laws in America and if what Nike is doing is legal then they are not in violation of the constitution. ///By not taking action and removing Nike from the US until it offers equal rights to all it's workers we are allowing Nike to oppress, to take away rights, and to degrade the constitution which we, the people, have fought for./// These arguments would have been good had this been the resolution. The resolution in this debate is that Nike should be banned. Period. Not 'Banned until they give workers equal rights.' In conclusion my opponent has failed to provide any sound evidence that shows that Nike should be banned from America. He has shown a great deal about how what Nike is doing is immoral and wrong, but in America things are not banned because of immorality, things are banned because of the fact that they can be harmful to the American public. I believe that I have successfully fulfilled my Burden of Clash and strongly urge a Con vote.