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

RE: Why are things commodified?Pro writes, "Trade as originating with human communication is an assertion." Indeed it is an assertion - a true, factual assertion with supported archeological evidence. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce from circa 150,000 years ago [1]. We also have evidence of people from the Mediterranean region trading up to 35,000 years BC. People have traded in ancient civilizations and all throughout the Bronze Age [2]. Regardless, my opponent has not denied the reason things are commodified, and that is because it makes things much easier and provides the opportunity to have access to better goods and services - plus many things that one could not provide for themselves. Since that is an indisputable fact, it's easy to recognize and accept that commodification is incredibly useful. My opponent should specify if he is denying that commodification is useful and empowering. RE: Does commodification make us better off? Since the answer is obviously YES, my opponent has noted that bartering is a social activity with rules. He says that the value of goods is relative to culture. He then asks "What happens when you strip the culture away by commodifying it" and the answer is that the culture doesn't get "stripped away" but rather changes and evolves. Third world countries have the ability to be transformed to second and first world countries through said transformation and commodification.Pro asks, "Who then determines the value of goods?" and the answer is always the same: each individual. He says "Moral cultural codes of reciprocity no longer have value" which is a completely inaccurate bare assertion. Once again, values are subjective. Not everyone perceives morality the same way, but that doesn't mean morality ceases to exist. Next my opponent claims that while labor certainly has value, some people benefit more from labor than others. That's true... but so what? Here comes the terrible economics.Pro says "Johnny is paid $40 to make a shoe, the shoe is sold for $60; a labor surplus of $20 that Johnny does not directly benefit." It's untrue that there is a $20 labor surplus. The employer who profits $20 from the sale uses that $20 to pay bills (rent, electricity, water, heat, insurance); they use it to pay taxes; they use it to buy and transport more supplies for the business; etc. But yes we have things like inflation. Small inflation is good for economic growth. Large inflation is harmful, but what does that harm have to do with the virtue of commodification and trade? That's like saying farming is good; over-farming is bad -- therefore farming is bad. No. Rather than not farming, over-farming should be avoided. And similarly, we should try to prevent inflation, but not inhibit commodification. Indeed I am very fortunate to be able to buy experiences that many people cannot. Yet just because not everyone can afford the same luxuries does not change the fact that said luxuries are specifically possible with commodification. Without commodification they would not exist at all, so nobody would have them anyway. Right now many people in this world do not live in abject poverty. Those who live in poverty -- that is people who struggle to find food, shelter and medicine are living no worse than they would without commodification. Without people commodyfing the medical industry (medical education, insurance, supplies, drugs, etc.) and profiting off those things, why would someone have any incentive to not only know how to treat people medicinally, but specialize in certain expertise? NOBODY would have decent medical care without commodification. Now many people have access to some type of care, and some have access to amazing care. Even the people who receive medical care in third world countries are being treated by people who were educated in first world countries... by others aiming to profit. Otherwise, those people in third world countries without commodification would just waste away and die without a shred of opportunity at all. Thus Pro's entire point about people's standard of living changing is completely irrelevant to his argument. In fact it is self-defeating. He argues that certain people are "exploited" for their labor, i.e. kids in third world countries who are paid very little for their services. What's the alternative? Pro hasn't explained one because the answer is dire. Without commodification, people would live solely to survive. Thus instead of working for opportunity and trade (remember that trade has already been established as making people's lives easier, and giving them access to more things) those kids would still be working their asses off laboring all day and night. Along with their family, they would be building and maintaining their shelter with their bare hands. They'd have little to no tools for the job. They'd also be hunting, fishing and farming constantly which are tough jobs. And again they would have little to no access to medical care. Pro must explain how people would be better off without commodification and trade. Specifically with medicine and education. RE: Problems with commodification? Pro writes, "Oh yes, the subjectivity of morality and ethics; the justification of slavery, sounds familiar." Is Pro arguing that morality is absolute? If yes, he should make the case and provide evidence. If not, he should refrain from making pointless comments like this which do not actually make an argument. I've proven that people have different values. Pro cannot deny that so I don't understand his point here. Considering the fact that he acknowledges girls receiving blood diamonds perceive them differently than those killed to mine them, he seems to agree that every individual perspective and evaluation is different.Earlier in the round, my opponent quotes Douglas Rushkoff saying that commodification is a "crime against humanity" because we can commodify human functions (such as social interactions) as sellable items. In the last round, I've explained that values are subjective. It's not only arrogant and self-righteous to dictate how and what other people should value, but also completely impossible to ensure that various people perceive or interpret (value) things the same way. For example, I've mentioned sex as a potential commodity. I've outlined that to some people, it is a sacred act that should be reserved for special relationships and milestones. Yet other people do not value sex as being important. To some people, it is a frivolous engagement and does not need to be recognized or upheld as something morally or emotionally valuable. Thus to suggest that we should not commodify sex (or anything else) because SOME people see it as being particularly valuable, is defeating in that we cannot and should not expect everyone to hold the same values. Pro says "Fetish commodities are embedded in cultural heritages. This makes each culture unique and rich. Western capitalism removes these cultural moorings replacing it with individualism and social stratification." These words are lifted directly from Karl Marx and have no serious contention. It is not anyone's personal responsibility to ensure that one's culture as a whole stays "rich" to my opponent's liking. Furthermore, note that commodification itself becomes embedded into culture and adds value in its own way. For example lots of art (art = a reflection of the human experience) is in response to experiences that people have had directly thanks to commodification. Why shouldn't people be able to commodify i.e. trade something like sex (or art, etc.) if they do not see it as a moral wrong and it doesn't hurt anyone? Why shouldn't people be able to commodify any type of trade if it is voluntary, beneficial to both parties, and improves their quality of life? My opponent will be responsible for an answer. Keep in mind that I've already explained that potential problems with commodification must be weighed vs. the pros of commodification as a whole. On balance, the positives of commodification are abundantly more advantageous. [1] Watson, Peter (2005). Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention from Fire to Freud. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.[2] https://www.archaeological.org...