Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

As a brief road map, I will be attacking the NC and then reiterate the AC. First to attack his value. He accepts my value of justice, however offers the definition of it as "fairness". My opponent however has not defined fairness and therefore it is open for me to define. I offer the definition of fairness as the property of being fair and define fair as being free from deceit and fraud (JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES Second Series, Vol II: Deposition-Lamp). Now on to his criterion. My opponent does not show how "maximizing social and economic equalities" is fair or just and doesn't show how maximizing social and economic equality achieves fairness (his definition for justice). This coupled with the fact that he didn't actually define his value causes his value and value criterion to fall and without a value and value criterion, his entire case falls. Now on to my opponents contention 1: My opponent states that bailouts "violate the rights of citizens" however does not explain at all how so. Therefore this statement is useless in the round as it is not properly explained and backed. My opponent also states in his contention 1 that "In the US there have been 5 bailouts already, none of them have worked", however he doesn't have his facts straight. The fact is that in the US there have been 15 bailouts and counting and not all of them have failed. (http://www.propublica.org...). In fact, in most cases the government actually made profits (http://www.propublica.org...). Therefore, I can say that my opponent does not know his facts and is in fact making things up and so his 1st contention falls. For his contention 2: My opponent states that bailouts "set the stage for a flawed economic structure as minor companies collapse and only large companies remain". However he doesn't back this up at all and so there is no evidence that the government is only bailing out large corporations. In fact, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is an example of the government helping out individuals, not just large corporations. Also, my opponent states that the bailout money is only going to CEOs and executives, however this is also wrong because money from bailouts go toward paying employees (and in the case of the banking industry, toward lending). Therefore again, we can see that my opponent's 2nd contention is fundamentally and factually flawed (just like his first one). Now just for clarification: My opponent states that "just government action requires popular support" and the bailouts actually have popular support and therefore are just. (http://pewresearch.org...). At the end of the NC, my opponent states 4 reasons why he is winning and I will show you why he is wrong: 1) He states, that he "accepted [my] value and gave you a good definition advocated by Rawls". This is wrong because the definition he gave of justice, was another word, open for interpretation (which I did). 2) He states that he took out my criterion and showed you why his more important. However he doesn't. He never says why "maximizing social and economic equalities" is more important than government fulfilling its obligation. 3) He states that bailouts "violate a very fundamental right", basically by taxes. However this is saying that all taxes should stop, and therefore government would be unable to run and would result in anarchy. Also, he states that bailouts are being paid for by taxes and this is untrue as the bailouts are being paid for by selling 20-year government bonds. 4) He states that his contentions show that bailouts are unjust and are "detrimental to achieving justice", however this is not true because as I showed, his contentions are factually flawed. Now, on to the Aff: For my value and value criterion, my opponent states that my criterion of government fulfilling its obligations, doesn't lead to justice, however this is flawed because establishing (which means to bring into existence) justice (one of government's obligations) actually brings about justice. As far as my first contention, my opponent drops it and so it automatically extends throughout all the rounds. It states that bailouts promote common welfare by keeping people in their jobs. This point is not refuted by my opponent. My second contention states that since bailouts are not violating any rights or obligations, they are just (by the definition of just that I offered and my opponent accepted). My opponent states that "since taxes are directly needed for a government bailout of a corporation", bailouts are unjust. However, as I had mentioned previously on my attack on the NC, taxes are not directly needed for a government bailout as they are paid for by 20-year bonds. Therefore this attack fails and is factually flawed (like the NC) and my second contention also advances throughout the rounds. So in conclusion, you ought to vote affirmative because: 1) My opponents case and attacks are factually flawed and he is making things up. 2) His attacks on my value and value criterion fall (so my value and value criterion still stand) while he never explains why his criterion is fair (so his value and value criterion both fall, leaving him with no case). 3) My opponent doesn't understand the history of the subject (and so makes things up) and doesn't understand where the money that goes into them comes from (and so again makes things up). 4) He completely drops my 1st contention. 5) His attack on my 2nd contention is factually flawed and so falls. 6) I have shown why all elements of his case fail (value, value criterion, and contentions) so he has absolutely no case. Therefore, you must vote aff.