Corporate personhood should be repealed

Definitions :DBefore we dive into this, a corporation is a business run by people made to be an "artificial" person. [1] Now, my opponent has just CONCEDED in this debate, as the definition is a group of individuals. As by nature they are defined as individuals, it is unconstitutional to not consider them a person under the 14th amendment. Rc1:My opponents argument is on the basis of they already have rights, and letting them be a human under a corporation is double rights as she put it. Now, this is actually impossible as you cannot give freedom of speech twice without any effects. Then my opponent claims corporations cannot go to jail. This is false, as the individual is the corporation. Without him there is nothing. And the owner of the company, the people in it, can be arrested put on death row etc. Further more there is something called corporate liability. This determines how responsible as a collective group and individuals in the crime. [2] This procedure allows the corporation as a whole to be punished for the problems they create in the US, and can involve the penal system.My opponents argument essentially they have more rights then us etc. Yet the courts actually deemed it necessary for these corporations to have corporate person hood so they could enforce contracts. [3]My opponents arguments are false as the rights granted to the corporation stay in the business, only during working hours. During this time, he gets corporate rights. Once he leaves he gets normal person rights. My opponents arguments here are full of false arguments and fallacies. Rc2:My opponent claiming a corporation is not a human because she used 3 sources. woo hoo!! One is a liberal think tank the other two proved my point. A corporation is a run by a person and, as we know, is logically given the right of being a person. [4] My opponent has yet to refute this premise, as if they are run by people they deserve the same rights. Without people, the GM sign would not exist. Also taxation only applies to people. This may actually help the IRS's job as they now have the power to tax people through income this way. [5] My opponent then goes on to claim nowhere have I proved this, even though she technically has the BOP. (instigator and change in the status quo) So if anything, I need to just sit back until you fulfill the BOP. y opponent has still not provided proof on how it takes peoples rights away. She claims double rights, but this comes with double taxation ;). Also, its kinda hard to apply second amendment twice. Double rights are not really double, as rights like this cannot multiply. Rc3: she drops this. She refutes things outside of my argument. __________________________________________________________________________________________________=Case=P1: All corporations are peopleP2: Not giving them this right is discriminationP3: This violates the 1st and 14th amendmentsC: Keep corporate person hoodDP1: Extend DP2: extend DP3: Here we go. My opponent is correct in the assertion that the 14th amendment only applies to people. [6] Yet her only proof of her claim it is not a person is like my old debate style: "its not a person [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]" And basically force brute evidence down your throat, then I noticed I wasn't getting anywhere with that. My opponent has not applied any logic to her refutations here, and is basically using foot notes to argue her whole case. My opponents logic is they are not humans, rather something else. Now what is that something? Corporations, as you conceded, is a group of INDIVIDUALS. So even if her definition is correct, she essentially conceded. Then my opponent is using semantics... but ok. She extends her argument of "oh we cant give rights for a Texas corporation in NJ". This is false. She in this argument assumes they have rights, then tries to show the way these rights are non transferable, so having corporate person hood is a waste of time. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;" [7]This means the rights that are given here are the ruling document, they control the states too. Meaning a corporation has rights the same throughout the united states. Also my opponent says it is irrational as look at other countries. This is false as once you leave this country, you have US rights, but you must abide by foreign laws, which take away your rights. So basically once a corporation goes viral, they lose rights. They keep them here, but lose them there.My opponents next attack is on the freedom of speech. Her first argument is on environmental harm. As stated, the corporations rights change depending on the location. Here for example the EPA regulates corporations. [8] Here they get the same regulatory laws as us, AND MORE. Then my opponents argument is corporations can pour all the money into X's campaign which is unfair because Y is at more of a chance for losing. Now, my opponents argument actually does not reject my argument, kinda curves around it. The supreme court has ruled recently that corporations money is protected under the first amendment, and any limit violates their right. [9] Yes, you heard me. Her only argument is basically it is unfair. I am sorry, but the constitution is unfair. Just because a corporation is more powerful does not mean it is a violation our rights. And as the supreme court said it, it is unconstitutional to ban them from the right of the first amendment, which allows means they are people.CONCLUSION: She has not fulfilled her nearly total BOP, and her arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed, and have not survived the scrutiny. My arguments for the most part where dropped, and one of my refutations was dropped by her. This right here is enough of a reason to vote con. I have defended P3, 1, and 2, and proved C. I urge a CON vote._____[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.irs.gov...[6] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [7] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [8] http://www.epa.gov... [9] http://www.nytimes.com...