Nike should be banned from the USA!

I will try and respond to my opponent's points and would like to iterate that as Con in this debate I have accepted the Burden of Clash and therefore to win this debate I only need to show that my opponent's arguments do not support the resolution, not why Nike should not be banned from the USA. ///Round 2, Point 1/// This entire point has nothing to do with the resolution because Nike is not ripping off the consumer because Nike is not the only show company in America. For instance, the shoes that I am wearing right now I purchased for $10 at Wal-Mart; they were on sale. People choose to buy Nike, I don't understand why but they do. I do not understand why you bring up the fact that middle and lower class families can't really afford these shoes. So what? A company shouldn't be banned because some people can't afford it. If we use that logic then almost every product in America would be banned. You claim that these people either go hungry for Nikes or resort to crime, the solution is much simpler: Don't buy Nikes. I will tell you that I do not buy expensive brand-name clothing. This is because, as you said, they do not work any better and are a lot cheaper. ///Round 2, Point 2/// My analogy about Harvard and MIT is an analogy to show the power of names. The point I was trying to make was that it is the Harvard name that gets a person status. Lets say Bob has a law degree from Flibbledorp University (a place that I have made up for the purposes of this debate), Flibbledorp teaches the exact same law classes that Harvard does, there is literally no difference, but Flibbledorp is a fairly new college so not many people know about it and it's name holds no weight. ///Round 2, Point 3a/// I did not say that it justifies it. I said that they are doing nothing illegal which is quite different. In America laws aren't explicitly made because things are morally wrong. They are made based on how they apply to the US legal system. There are many things that are both legal and, in someone's eyes, immoral. the rest of this point is basically just an attack on my character that doesn't have anything to do with this debate because this debate is not about my moral character. Also, the Constitution doesn't say 'liberty and justice for all,' that phrase is found in the Pledge of Allegiance which is not a legal document. ///Round 2, Point 3b/// To say that Nike and other corporation do not help the economy of these countries is just not true [2]. The situation may not be ideal but it is hardly harmful. Nike does not even control any of the 'sweatshops' overseas. The sweatshops supply them with a good that, contrary to my opponent's point, they pay for. They are also aware of the unsavory working conditions and are making an effort to change them [1]. Based on this point it would seem to me that my opponent thinks that Nike controls these factories. The truth is that they were there before Nike was. ///I am very sorry if i was insulting during this argument, but i believe that the morals behind your argument are abhorrent, and need to labeled as such./// The morals of my argument would matter if this debate were about morals, I am very aware that to most I have horrible morals. The only person that I care about is me. I ask that my opponent stop using these appeals to emotion and stick to the debate. [1] http://preview.tinyurl.com... [2] http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...