Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just

First I will go to the NC then the AC. First an overview on the NC: The negative makes assumptions in his case that should be absolutely disregarded. First, my opponent assumes that it is a capitalist society, insofar as he is saying it is changing identity. This assumption cannot be made, as the resolution simply specifies a "federal government" not a "capitalist government" Thus as the negative's link to his case is severed, so you vote aff. First, my opponents value is cultural identity. We should use justice because the evaluative term of the resolution is "just" thus imploring us to evaluate whether affirming is "just", thus justice is the only value that can be used in the round. We should not use cultural identity as a value, because A) it has no intrinsic value, whereas justice does B) Maintaining cultural identity can be a bad thing, if we are maintaining the cultural identity of a nation that chooses to perpetuate horrible ideals such as "might is right" etc, as is seen in medieval times and many cultures. Thus you can turn his value against his case. C) My opponent is violating the terms of the resolution by not evaluating it in the terms of the resolution, this is a stock issue. My opponents criterion is retaining that which is just. This should not be used for the following reasons, 1st: He contradicts himself in his criterion analysis by saying "It is true that every society has its own morals, its own values, its own laws, et cetera. Because of this it is impossible to discern what is just from what is unjust." insofar as this is true the negative has said that his criterion cannot be achieved. Thus there is no brightline, because we can never know when we are achieving what is just. So his criterion is unachievable. 2nd: My opponent provides no link between his criterion and value, thus his criterion falls. 3rd: You can turn my opponents civil war analysis against him, because societies will always be "split on what is just", thus his impacts go against him! 4th: He never provides any warrant as to why we would be condemning a nation hellfire, thus this analysis should be disregarded. On to my opponents communism analysis: 1st: We cannot assume that we are talking about a capitalist society, just a society with a federal government. Insofar as this is true assuming that you'd be shifting to communism is unwarranted. 2nd: it's ethnocentric to assume that communism is inherently bad, thus you turn his communism analysis. 3rd: He never specifies how this violates the principles of a federal government just a capitalist government, so disregard this analysis, there are dictatorships that advocate "strong central power" I'll clarify in the AC... 4th: Turn his case against him, if communism is good then he is trying to achieve something bad Contention 1: 1st: my opponent provides no warrants as to why we evaluate the United States, insofar as there is no framework there is no reason to evaluate the United States. 2nd: It is ethnocentric to evaluate the resolution from the point of view of the US only. 2nd: My opponent says communism fails, and provides empirical examples of China and Russia. However China currently has the second largest GDP of any organization on Earth, they follow the entirety of NAFTA. China has 26% of the world's GDP, NAFTA has 28%, will cite sources if asked. Onto the second part of Contention one, let's call it subpoint B. 1st: Cross-apply the value offense on cultural identity here. 2nd: There is no link between the bailout and changing culture. 3rd: Disregard the 1984 analysis, insofar as no link is provided as to how bailouts. 4th: If you buy the 1984 analysis turn it against him, because in saying that the culture in 1984 is bad and that it should be changed, thus contradicting his value. 5th: The link between communism and changing cultural identity is not there, disregard his entire analysis. Now for the AC :) I affirm the resolution, federal government bailouts of major corporations are just. To clarify the resolution the affirmative defines certain key terms. Just – Violating no right or obligation, this is the definition of justice we must use because A) It is empirical versus being an unobtainable subjective ideal, B) Obligations are valued in all cultures, though the obligations themselves may be subjective. Bailout - a rescue, especially a financial rescue, Federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with an elected governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units. First, in order to judge whether the debate is taking place within the resolutional context the affirmative provides observations to clarify. First, federal government does not necessarily entail a capitalist society. Second, a bailout can entail a loan, as a bailout is a financial rescue of some nature. Third, the negative has a burden to prove that a bailout somehow goes against the principles of federalism. This is warranted by 2 reasons: First, the only 2 static terms in the resolution are federal government and bailout, thus it cannot be assumed that the society we are evaluating is anything but so saying that a bailout at this point in time for a specific nation is not just still loses the round. Second, to do otherwise puts an unfair research burden on the affirmative, insofar as there are a near-infinite amount of societies that the affirmative would have to prove it is Just for. The value that should be used to evaluate this round is Justice; this is the value that must be used because the resolution specifies it, as the evaluative term is the word "just". The criterion that will be used in the round to evaluate whether bailouts are just is that of Promoting the Common Welfare, this is the criterion we should use to evaluate the round because One: All governments value the perpetuation of themselves, so we can assume that the any government being evaluated will value this criterion. Second: One of the obligations of federal governments to its people is to ensure to some degree the welfare of those people, and economic ruin is not ensuring that welfare. Contention 1: Bailouts Uphold the Common Welfare A) Necessity Bailouts are only to be used when necessary, the affirmative defines a time of necessity as the point in which the end is determined if no intervention is levied: imminent demise. Insofar as this is true even if we cannot determine the end if the resolutional action of affirming is taken (the bailout), we can determine the end if it is not. If action is committed such as a bailout, the maximum fiscal loss is the amount of money, however if action is not committed than the impact is infinite. This is true because keeping the company alive could have saved jobs, investors from being ruined and the like. So even if my entire case falls, as long as this stands the negative loses, because I outweigh insofar as the negative impacts are finite where as the impacts in my case are infinite. B) Affirming is not Unjust Because affirming is simply an attempt to promote the common welfare there is no way in which it violates any rights or obligations. By loaning a major corporation money we are attempting to promote the common welfare, as we are trying to A) promote investment, B) Keep the members of that corporation working C) Keep from interrupting the service between the clients and corporations. So because it is not "unjust" then it is Just. Thus the burden of the affirmative as outlined by the resolution is met by affirming. Underview: Disregard his federalism definition, I provide etymology (covenant = agreement) that agreement between the state and people My value and criterion are warranted, his are not, my contentions stand, his do not. I implore you