Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

As a brief road map, I will attack the NC again and then go to the AC. First off with his value and value criterion. His definition of justice is" fairness" and that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all." However, this doesn't define fairness so by his own definition doesn't define justice (and so we must use my definition) and therefore his value and value criterion fail because they have no way of being measured up to and have a plurality of definitions and are therefore meaningless. Now, for his first contention, my opponent states that the government has not made any profit from bailouts since 2001, while this is true, my opponent doesn't understand (or purposefully omits) is that after 2001, the next bailout was in 2008 (and that was a line of credit). So only a few short months have passed and there has not been time to actually make a profit, yet. Therefore, his first contention fails (as I had mentioned in Round 2) and it is factually wrong. For the second contention, my opponent misquotes the resolution and says that "the bailouts are only for major corporations". Keyword here, "only". The resolution never mentions the word "only" or in anyway suggests that the bailouts are "only" for large corporations. Again, my opponent is resorting to lies. He also states that because of his definition of bailouts, they only refer to large corporations, however his definition of bailout is "the act of giving capital to a failing business". He never mentions "large". Again, this shows he is lying. Therefore, his second contention fails (like I had previously mentioned) because it is nonsensical and untrue. My opponent also attempts to attack my response to his Observation one which stated that that popular support was needed for a bailout. However he again provides false evidence that the bailouts don't have popular support. He talks about the stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), not the bailouts. I have proven in round two that public support for the bailouts is present (http://pewresearch.org...). So we can see that he is lying, again. And just for clarification, my opponent never denies that he is lying, especially in his 2nd contention, therefore he clearly accepts that he is. So as I have proven, his case is built on a collection of lies. My opponent clearly does not know what he is talking about and so is resorting to lies. Now, for the AC: He states that "if [government] is trying to lead to justice (and again this is one of its obligation) this excludes the other obligations of justice", namely maintaining social order, providing for common defense and promoting general welfare. This means that if government tries to achieve justice, it cannot maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote general welfare. First of all, this attack is completely nonsensical and secondly, he provides no evidence to back this up so the attacks fail, and my value and value criterion still stand. For my first contention (bailouts promoting common welfare by keeping people in their jobs), in round one my opponent stating that my 1st contention was "irrelevant" and never explained why and therefore he dropped it. So the argument extends all the way. To attack my second contention (bailouts being just), my opponent brings up that "every action the government takes is funded at least in part by taxes" however does not back it up at all, therefore this statement is meaningless. On top of this, it is untrue. As I stated, the bailouts are being paid for by the 20-year bond, not taxes. But don't take my word for it, listen to Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner in Economics and Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.... This shows that his attack on my second contention is not factual and fails and my contention 2 extends (as I had previously mentioned). Now for some voters: 1) My value and value criterion still stand and are defined such that they can be measured up to (my opponents can't be and therefore are meaningless). 2) My contentions have extended throughout the rounds. 3) My arguments all have proper evidence and are backed up. My opponent's aren't 4) My opponent's value and value criterion are not properly defined and cannot be measured up to and so are meaningless. 5) I have effectively destroyed his contentions by proving them false. 6) I have proven that my opponent is a prolific liar. Therefore you must vote affirmative.