Corporate CEOs in America Should Be Paid Less

Housekeeping: It is totally legit for me to bring in new evidence in R4 since Pro has time to respond. Pro could have weighed my evidence against his or pointed out flaws in my evidence without offering new arguments. New arguments are fair in all but the last round. If it really bothers a judge to see new stuff in R4, then discount my evidence a little- however my evidence stands on academic research and is so much stronger that it is still better than Pro"s. Overview: Shared burden of Proof means that Con must actively show why judges should vote for Con. I do this via comparative advantages my advocacy has over Pro"s. Pro has not disputed that preserving freedom is the primary value. The Comparative Advantages I have demonstrated are: 1)Squo is only real world option 2)Only Squo protects freedom. Con restricts what companies are allowed to pay their employees and in R4 restricts who is allowed to be on Boards. Pro makes CEO pay so risky that only the already wealthy could accept. Squo protects open access of position. 3)Squo optimizes company flexibility in attracting/retaining talent. By inhibiting this, Pro hurts freedom and market performance. 4)Squo uses only fair way to determine value of labor- free market. Pro unfairly relies on arbitrary definitions of "too much pay." Pro"s straight-jacket formula also removes autonomy in setting salary. 5)Every piece of evidence in this round shows SP500 expanding and performing well, even after 2008. This shows Squo is economically desirable. In contrast, Pro offers no clear advantages. The closest thing to a comparative advantage is claiming that his plan will motivate CEO performance better, but HIS OWN P4P argument claims that monetary incentives don"t improve performance. Moreover, he offers no justified benchmark for how much is "too much" despite CEO pay tracking SP500 performance, Boards regularly firing CEOs for poor performance, and 98% shareholder approval of CEO pay. Even ignoring Squo comparative advantages, Pro fails to offer a compelling reason to vote Pro. Framework is a baseline evaluation of whether or not the content of an advocacy should be evaluated or whether it should be dismissed outright. For example, if I argued "the U.S. should replace airlines with teleportation" you would automatically dismiss my proposal, no matter what economic benefits I could prove, because the proposal is impossible, i.e. not real world. Additionally, arguments which are unfair and make productive debates impossible ought to be ignored on grounds of performative contradiction- we all expect fair and educational debates and so we must uphold them. At the least vote conduct. Framework must be evaluated BEFORE considering any other issues. Pro has failed to meet the test of Framework: a)Advocacy is not real-world, S&P companies would never agree to the same pay structure; even if they did the agreement would fall apart rapidly. Pro offers no examples of comparable real world agreements. b)Advocacy violates anti-trust laws and is illegal. I support this with evidence in R3, Pro does not. c)Pro unfairly shifts his advocacy. He only introduced his plan in R3 round and then ADDED A NEW PLAN IN R4. If you don"t vote on Framework it means you are allowing fantasy world plans, and then you should vote for my Magic Gates plan. Pro hasn"t argues against this at all- this plan has all the benefits of the status quo AND results in 5 billion annual revenue to charity. This plan is way better than Pro"s advocacy to cut CEO pay on the offchance shareholder revenue improves (which it wouldn"t). Finally, Pro has simply failed to uphold his own BoP by conceding in R3 that his plan may increase CEO pay. VOTE ON FRAMEWORK, VOTE AGAINST FANTASY SOLUTIONS. OR VOTE FOR THE FANTASY OF RAISING CEO SALARY FOR CHARITY OVER THE FANTASY OF RESTRUCTURING CEO PAY FOR SHAREHOLDER BENEFIT.