Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just

Brief Road map: NC/AC Let's go to the neg's overview of my vase: My opponent says nowhere in his case does he state that he's talking about a capitalist society. This is entirely untrue, all of his impacts hinge on the fact that a bailout is changing the government to a marxist or socialist society. Apply my analysis that I mention in the top of the AC that the resolution is MORE LIKELY to take place in a communist or socialist society. This analysis takes out ALL of his impacts and links because the culture is NOT changing if it's already communist or socialist to any extent. So, because his case is A) Nonunique, B) No longer has any impacts you vote aff off this. Further my opponent accepts my burden that he has to prove that the bailout goes against federalism. On to the value debate, You can extend my attacks A, B, and C as to why we should not use his value. Any one of these reasons is enough offense to take out his value. Further insofar as point B is extended turn my opponents case against him, you can vote aff solely off this. Further, even if it IS a capitalist society, disregard his case and vote aff. Further, you can vote him down for a topicality violation, because his case operates outside the resolution. Further, onto the criterion debate he never rebuts my attacks on his criterion, extend the FOUR REASONS that I stated, thus we do NOT use my opponents criterion. My opponent asked that I clarify my criterion, I am talking about furthering the welfare of the people. Fine, I accept a dictator wouldn't necessarily want to, but it would be just if he did. The affirmative only advocates a bailout at a point of necessity. Cross apply subpoint A in contention one. You can extend warrant 2 from the 1AC, and the attacks, thus we use my criterion. Apply all the impacts of my case to my criterion, I clearly outweigh the negative, thus you vote aff. Further cross-apply the 4 reasons that saying communism bad is evil in of itself, you can vote aff solely off that because it takes out his entire case. Let's go on to my opponents case, On his contention one I grouped his contention into 2 categories of analysis, I labeled one as A one as B to better provide organization. Apply the 3 reasons on the first analysis in his contention that I labeled A. All 3 of these reasons go dropped, extend them, thus his whole contention is taken out here, and a majority of his offense... Onto the sub point B as I labeled it, the changing culture analysis. Apply all 5 reasons why we shouldn't accept it, specifically look at the turn on reason number 5, saying if you buy his analysis from his 1NC his case contradicts itself, and you vote aff. At this point there is a turn on every piece of offense, thus you impact it back to my criterion. Further if you don't buy the turns, the other reasons against all of his points that go DROPPED annihilate his offense. So because my opponent no longer has any case, affirming is just, because I say it is. Let's go on to the AC: On to subpoint A) on contention one First, my opponent clearly misunderstands this argument. I'm not outlining bad things that can happen, I'm outlining the advocacy of the affirmative. My opponent says that I have to provide good things that come of bailouts, I do provide them, and I quote "This is true because keeping the company alive could have saved jobs, investors from being ruined and the like". Extend this point of analysis and his offense completely collapses, extend the contention and my opponent loses the round. Further, he says I can't "Slim Down" the definition of bailout. I do not slim it down, I merely provide analysis about a rational actor. There is no reason to assume that the actor in question is not a rational actor, thus it would make a rational decision. Further, my opponent doesn't ever dispute the ability of the actor in question to predict what will happen when the bailout is used, thus any rational actor that decides to bail a corporation out will predict the best ends before doing so. Insofar as this is true, the bailout in question always produces good ends and you affirm even if we use the negative casework. Even more offense on this, he never attacks my infinite impact analysis and loses the round solely off this. I quote: "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." So because my impacts are infinite and the negative's finite I always outweigh and you affirm. Solely off this the resolution is affirmed. Further group all of his offense together, there are no warrants, affirm. On to my subpoint B) The cultural identity argument is non-unique and doesn't matter because of the reasons I state in my offense to the neg case that goes dropped throughout the round. Even if you still accept his analysis he doesn't say why justice can no longer be defined, I define it as violating no right or obligations. It can still be defined in this way, insofar as all federal governments have a governing covenant by definition. There is no neutral, if it is not just it is unjust, if it is unjust it is not just. Apply the observations that go untouched, one and three take out his whole case. Vote Aff