Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

Unfortunately, the negative has attempted to dejustify my case with a case turn, so most of this debate is going to devolve into a theory battle. I will start with the off-case theory shells and then briefly defend my case. Theory (Off-Case) Shell 1:Negative interpretation of the resolutionis nontopical because it is too specific, but the resolution is general. Notice that the resolutiononlyis about whether or not progressive income taxes in theory are unjust; it never mention the United States or any other specific country. While the negative has the right to use the United States as an example, the entire justification of the negative case is that the progressive income tax system of the United States is unjust because it does not tax Capital Gains at a proper rate, not that progressive income taxes in general or in theory are unjust. The only way that the negative could potentially justify this claim is if no nation included captial gains in income calculations; unfortunately for him, however, such nations as Australia, Canada, and the Czech Republic tax captial gains as income, so his sole contention is not topical (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since his case is too specific, while the resolution calls for him to debunk the notion of progressive income taxes, the negative case is nontopical and you should vote affirmative based on presumption. Additionally, notice that the implementation of progressive income taxes is separate from the theory, so the negative case is nontopical beause it covers the flaws that occur when political bodies implement progressive income taxes, and does not dejustify the theory. Shell 2: The negative case is nontopical because it ignores the fact that, by definition, a progressive income tax would tax CGs at the same rate as income is taxed. Under a progressive system, individuals who earn more wealth, regardless of the means through which they earn it, are expected to contribute more to society than individuals who earn less wealth. This means that a truly progresive system would permit neither exemptions nor special rates for the wealthy because the income would not be taxed proportionally and individuals with less income would pay a greater proprotion of their earnings to the government for the well-being of the general populace. Notice, however, that my opponent's entire justification is that progressive income taxes are unjust because some nations have implemented special exemptions that permit the wealthy to use backdoor policies and thus submit less money to the state than their inferiors (extend the Warren Buffet example here). This means that my opponent's examples are flawed because they do not describe progressive systems; rather, they argue against systems that have not implemented true progressive income taxes. This has two impacts. First, my opponent's case is nontopical because it fails to address the question of the resolution; this obviously means that you should vote affirmative. Second, my opponent's case strengthens my own because it is arguing for the implementation of a true progressive system that would not utilize CG cuts and exemptions. In other words, a truly progressive system would not permit Warren Buffet's secretary to pay more in income taxes than the millionaire does. This means that you can turn the entire negative case because it is simply a reason to vote affirmative. As a final note in the off-case section: please do not accept my opponent's objection to the second shell because he himself claimed that CG were part of an individual's income in his last speech. If he would like to retract this claim, then he loses the round because his case is nontopical because it would be claiming that progressive income taxes are unjust because they do not tax non-income profits (this is like saying that the police department is evil because it does not put out fires). If he does not retract his claim, then you can vote affirmative based on the theory shells above. Thus, my opponent has placed himself in a double-bind and you should vote affirmative no matter his next course of action. My opponent's attacks on my case were brief, but I will address them anyways. AFFIRMATIVE CASE In contention 1, I explained that because the rich obtain their wealth through an accident of birth, which is morally arbitary, they do not necessarily deserve the wealth that they "earned", so the government has the right to tax them at higher rates than those who did not benefit from the lottery of birth. His first response to this was that it benefits his argument because the progressive income tax actually maximizes the wealth of the wealthy. The problem with this analysis is that 1) the case that he is examining, namely that of the United States, does not include a truly progressive system because there are loopholes and exemptions and 2) other progressive system actually do tax captial gains as income, so his case is too specific. His second attack was that people are not motivated to move into higher income brackets because they will be taxed more. This contradicts his entire case because the point of his analysis was that the rich actually preserve a greater proportion of their income than the poor do through CG exemptions. If we assume that his case is true, then there is no disincentive to move to a higher income bracket because one would be preserving a larger proprotion of his income by doing so. This means that you can extend the analysis that proves that this social immobility is a result of a lack of a progressive system and that a progressive system is needed because the social immobility exists. In contention 2, I explained that the wealthy owe more to the system and thus should contribute more to its well-being because they have a greater interest in preserving it. His only response was that he conceded to the contention with the caveat that it was irrelevant. Since I have proven that my case is the only topical one in the round, he has explicitly conceded to contention 2 and you can vote affirmative off of its existence since it independently justifies the affirmative case. Because my opponent and I both agree that this is true, progressive income taxes are just and you must vote affirmative in this round in order to preserve fairness and integrity. In contention 3, I explained that PIT actually preserved the buying power of the wealthy and thus provided them with free services while allowing the government to support the welfare of the indigent. His response is that those without capital gains are funding the system. First, cross-apply the two theory shells here because this rebuttal is nontopical. Second, keep in mind that a system with capital gain exemptions is not truly progressive, so his response is completely meaningless in the context of the round. Thus, you should vote affirmative based on topicality and the fact that my opponent conceded the vast majority of my case. I eagerly await the second negative rebuttal. Thank you.