Resolved: The American Dream still exists.

I will examine the definition, framework, and burden of today's debate. Definitions: My opponent begins by constructing his own definition of the American Dream. He stated that "the definition of the American Dream is a person's ability to strive after a strongly desired goal". My opponent's definition is too simplistic; the American Dream is much more than just achieving your individual goals. That's not what America is about; America isn't about ruthless capitalism. Under my opponent's definition, Bernie Madoff would be classified as an American hero; an American who sought his "strongly desired goal[s]" because he was "in, or under the influence of, America." The definition I offer by James Truslow Adams is much more inclusive. The American dream is a term of art; my definition truly captures the widely accepted meaning of the American Dream. Thus, the definition we must use in today's round is that "the American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." [1] Framework: Now that we have clarified the definition of the American Dream, I would like to set a framework for the round. The definition of the American Dream states that it must apply to ALL Americans, regardless of financial or ethnic situations. Thus, if the negation proves that one group of people are not being given the equal opportunity to life a "better, richer, and fuller" life, then he has proven that the conditions outlined in the American Dream have not been met, and thus it does not exist. The affirmative must prove otherwise. Burden: The affirmative carries a burden in today's debate. He states that I must find a time or incident after which the American Dream disappeared. I will answer my opponent's question with a question of my own: when did the American Dream ever truly exist? Up until the 1960s, African Americans were denied their rights and discrimination was rampant. Ever since the 60s, gays, lesbians, and the working class have continually been crushed under discrimination and the thumbs of CEOs who earn 400 times their salary. Washington is constantly caving into pressure from lobbyist organizations representing Wall Street – lobbyist practices which lead to the creation of the Enron loophole, a deregulated oil futures market, established higher cost for prescription medicines under Medicare Part D and created deregulatory practices that lead to the ongoing recession. Because the resolution uses the words "still exists", my opponent must find a time in the past where the conditions set forth in the American Dream existed. If he cannot, he loses this round by default, because if the American Dream didn't exist in the past, it cannot "still exist". Response to Contention 1, Women: "They work fewer hours to attend to the kids, causing them to earn less money." My opponent's analysis of Steven Levitt's book is flawed. The reason women earn less than men in the workplace is not because they "attend to the kids". It's because they're women. "The workplace pay gap between men and women, once thought to be narrowing, has only been getting worse, according to an analysis of recently released census data conducted by the Institute for Women's Policy Research." [1] The National Committee on Pay Equality finds that as of 2010, women earn only 77% of what men earn, meaning that a woman who works the SAME job as a man will earn 23% less than the male worker. [2] According to AFLCIO, the disparity in the wages for men and women is steadily increasing. Economist Evelyn Murphy finds that this disparity causes women to lose up to $2 million in the course of her work life. [3] Furthermore, the National Committee on Pay Equality finds that women of color earn even less than other women; only 67.5% of what men earn, or 32.5% less than their male coworkers. Whilst women in America have more rights than women in other nations, they are not equal to men in terms of pay. The American Dream does not state that Americans must be "better off than individuals in other nations". Rather, it states that equality must exist for all Americans regardless of gender or race. As we can see, with women earning 23% less and with women of color earning 32.5% less than their coworkers, this equality does not yet exist. Response to Contention 2: See the Affirmative's Burden above. My opponent must prove that the American Dream has ever existed at some point in the past in order for him to prove that it "still exists". If it never existed before, it cannot "still exist", and thus the negation wins this debate. Response to Contention 3, Economics: Extend my arguments regarding economic corruption present in the United States. The ability of multi-billion-dollar corporations to buy out elections and pocket senators' votes makes for a corrupt atmosphere where the ends justify the means. Response to Contention 4, Education: America's education system is quickly going down the drain. Newsweek explains the necessity that we reform tenure laws and fire bad teachers [4] "The relative decline of American education… has long been a national embarrassment as well as a threat to the nation's future. Once upon a time, American students tested better than any other students in the world. Now, ranked against European schoolchildren, America does about as well as Lithuania, behind at least 10 other nations." Considering the influence of teachers in a student's success, Newsweek states that "nothing, then, is more important than hiring good teachers and firing bad ones." However, "the teachers unions have become more powerful. In most states, after two or three years, teachers are given lifetime tenure." Kati Haycock, coauthor of the 2006 study on teaching inequality explains, ""The research shows that kids who have two, three, four strong teachers in a row will eventually excel, no matter what their background, while kids who have even two weak teachers in a row will never recover," Firing bad teachers is imperative to protecting the future of American public education, but due to current politics, it is near impossible. Next, many American universities practice affirmative action policies that put students from "majority" races at a disadvantage to minorities, because they will often lose spots in colleges to an underqualified minority candidate. This is called reverse discrimination. Affirmative action policies are based on race, not income, and thus are unfair. Why should the wealthy son of an African-American lawyer be given preference in admission to college over the equally-qualified poor daughter of an Asian schoolteacher simply on the basis of race? Fair affirmative action policies would be based off of a family's income, which determines a) where the family lives/living conditions, b) the schools the children will attend, c) access to out-of-school tutoring/learning programs such as SAT class, etc. With America's education system slowly deteriorating due to bad politics and reverse discrimination, it's clear that education is not giving Americans equal opportunities. How can the poor daughter of an Asian school teacher believe in the American Dream when the equally-qualified wealthy son of an African-American lawyer is given preference over her into college? As for my own case, I would like to extend all of my contentions. [1] http://usgovinfo.about.com... [2] http://www.pay-equity.org... [3] http://www.aflcio.org... [4] http://www.newsweek.com...