Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid.

"My opponent continues to provide no grounds for deciding what a person is paid in a capitalist society." Actually, I did. A person is NOT paid for merit. A person is paid for RESULTS. When a CEO is making billion-dollar decisions to benefit the company, his results are easily worth millions to employ. Those are the grounds for a capitalist society. "Think of it this way: if the stockholders are in a traditional corporation ï¿½€" not simply multi-billion dollar executives investing into other companies, but rather a collection of each person that bought stocks in a company, then there is representation from the general public amongst their ranks. While not every person in a society is going to agree on a decision of any sort, there are norms that can be followed. This is the principle that democracy is run on, and logically makes a good grounds for how to run a capitalist infrastructure." First, you said that the entire society owns a corporation. Then, you said that there are only multi-billion dollar executives. This is contradictory. You're among the third-party people who think that they know what is best, even though it's not even your money you're talking about. It's very simple, really. The stockholders identify who the best CEOs are, and then they find out who the best CEO would be for their company. They then offer the CEO millions of dollars to make billion-dollar decisions to benefit the company. Actually, I am PRO-Labor Unions. I think that labor unions are great. They set a natural minimum wage through their own work, as opposed to government making an artificial minimum wage. However, in the end, the business is what determines the pay, because they have the money. The labor union can get a whole bunch of people to protest for more pay, but if some people are willing to be paid less to guarantee a job, the labor union can't stop that, and shouldn't be allowed to stop that. The fact is, if qualified people are willing to work for $25 an hour, why pay any more? Meanwhile, if a CEO will only work for millions, but the stockholders realize that choosing him over another person will be well worth the salary, the CEO should be hired. You're trying to change this debate into what it's not. You are arguing that the people should determine how much one man pays another man to do work. I'm arguing that that job should go to the man who is paying the money and receiving the production. "I'm saying that every society – whether capitalist, socialist, or idealistic with no economy whatsoever, there are still an underlying set of moral guidelines that we should be using." Yes. People get paid based on production. CEOs make billion-dollar decisions, which stockholders try to make into the smartest billion-dollar decisions by paying more for a CEO. Everyone has a chance to try to work their way up to the level of CEO, but only those who prove themselves capable become CEOs, and thus benefit. "The term deserves is what gives this resolution a measurement of morality..." "Deserve - to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital" "Deserves" does not imply morality. CEOs deserve their salaries because they are suitable to receive it, because they do the work that earns the salary, and the stockholders feel that the CEO deserves the salary, and it's the stockholders' money, so they naturally get to decide who deserves it. NOT YOU. "Were we to measure this debate simply on the values of capitalism, then, as he states in his first speech, it is obvious that an executive deserves to be paid money for the work he does. Where is the controversy?" The controversy was SUPPOSED to be where my opponent argued that CEOs didn't actually do anything, and thus didn't deserve the money. You never made this argument, and instead have tried to remove the phrase "Under capitalism" from the resolution. "Rather, I say we need to be looking at more than JUST capitalism, and see the underlying principles that my opponent is ignoring." And I say that this debate specified that we would ONLY look at capitalism, and anything beyond capitalism is irrelevant to the debate. "I'm arguing that the poor group and rich group are growing farther apart, which is unhealthy for an economy." And yet, you failed to introduce HOW this is unhealthy. You claimed that it was because of mortgages, but you completely dropped that argument this round, when I actually had a response, so you have nothing. Thus, the point is dropped. "Extend it, and make it a major voting point for the round." You failed to support it against my claims, so don't extend it; drop it. Drop it into a bottomless pit. "I shouldn't have to prove a philosophy or economic theory that I didn't write, I just need to show that it is there in order to make my argument." Ah, but then you give me no reason to believe Michael Harrington. You give no reason why the poor in the Appalachian Highlands are poor because of the rich. If you don't give a possible connection, how am I supposed to severe it? Michael Harrington must have supported his argument. Why didn't you just quote him? It's too late now, though, because it's impossible to severe a connection made in the last round. "I have never once conceded the resolution. My opponent mis-analyzed my speeches three times, and his arguments need to drop because of it. The only way to vote in this round is negative." Here is what you said: In Round 1: "Yes, corporate executives are doing a job, and they do deserve to be paid according to capitalist ideology." In Round 2: "In a purely capitalist society, yes, executives deserve to be paid whatever they want, so long as it benefits society." In Round 3: "Were we to measure this debate simply on the values of capitalism, then, as he states in his first speech, it is obvious that an executive deserves to be paid money for the work he does." All three of these things affirm the resolution. My opponent is trying to warp the resolution to fit his desires. If he does wish to debate this without "Under capitalism" in the resolution, that's fine. He should challenge me to a debate that excludes such a phrase. However, upon accepting this debate, my opponent accepted the resolution, and now he is trying to change it into what it is NOT. If "according to capitalist ideology" and "Under capitalism" are synonymous, and "deserve to be paid" and "deserve the salaries that they are paid" are synonymous, then the resolution has been conceded. If "In a purely capitalist society" and "Under capitalism" are synonymous, and "to be paid whatever they want..." and "the salaries they are paid" are synonymous, then the resolution has been conceded. If "Simply on the values of capitalism" and "Under capitalism" are synonymous, and "deserves to be paid money for the work he does" and "deserve[s] the salaries that [he is paid]" are synonymous, then the resolution has been conceded. It seems obvious that all of these things are synonymous. Furthermore, it is obvious that when CON concedes that the resolution is true three times, once every round, then PRO wins. So, using the logic that CON has used statements that are synonymous with the resolution, and CON has affirmed said statements, thus CON has affirmed the resolution, thus CON has conceded that PRO is correct; thus, PRO wins. It is only logically acceptable, therefore, to vote PRO. Thank you for this debate. Remember, if you want to debate under a different resolution, just issue a challenge!