Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid.

At this point in the debate, the voters must make a decision. Either interpret the resolution as my opponent has interpreted it, allowing a corrupt, immoral, and uncaring society to become justified, or the way I have, balancing the economic capitalism with societal morality. My argument against my opponents interpretation stands that it is non-controversial. I still believe that to be true. My opponent explains, "The controversy was SUPPOSED to be where my opponent argued that CEOs didn't actually do anything, and thus didn't deserve the money. You never made this argument, and instead have tried to remove the phrase "Under capitalism" from the resolution." However, two problems lie in this argument: A) I actually HAVE argued that throughout my speeches (when I requested him to provide some logic and some reason that the CEOs are getting paid more than average workers, which he never truly provides), and B: one point of argumentation does not make a controversial topic. He claims that CEOs make multi-billion dollar decisions, yet he never tells you what these decisions are. In fact, I find it hard to believe that one man could alone decide how billions of dollars could be either gained or lost in a business. Why should we listen to an argument so vague and without any evidence or reason to back it up? Which returns me to my original point with Contention 1: The CEOs are really simply an unnecessary part of the corporation. Yes, they do a job, but when it comes down to it, their job is pointless if all the miners (or whatever other low-end workers) decide to quit working. My opponent argues that the low-end workers are replaceable, but if they don't get replaced, the business completely collapses. You can't run an oil production company off of executives arguing in chairs alone. "Actually, I am PRO-Labor Unions. I think that labor unions are great. They set a natural minimum wage through their own work, as opposed to government making an artificial minimum wage. However, in the end, the business is what determines the pay, because they have the money. The labor union can get a whole bunch of people to protest for more pay, but if some people are willing to be paid less to guarantee a job, the labor union can't stop that, and shouldn't be allowed to stop that." How much more contradictory can an argument be? He argues that labor unions are good for getting a set minimum wage and protecting workers rights, yet it doesn't really matter if the union can't do anything, because it's justified whatever the business decides to pay its workers? Does that mean that the workers really don't matter whatsoever, that there is no moral disparity between providing money to the workers and running an efficient business since the workers don't deserve pay anyway? My opponent is arguing an incredibly flawed perspective on how business morality should function. "he fact is, if qualified people are willing to work for $25 an hour, why pay any more? Meanwhile, if a CEO will only work for millions, but the stockholders realize that choosing him over another person will be well worth the salary, the CEO should be hired." There are dozens of problems with this philosophy. First of all, as I have previously said, low-end workers are typically in a situation where their job is all they have – they can't quit, because it is all the money that they have to survive on. This makes it difficult for them to demand more pay at the risk of their job. This gives the executives and stockholders total control of this man's life. Secondly, it is often the executives that decide their own salary, based on my opponent's proposed method for determining. If it is simply the stockholders that decide it, then that means that the people with most shares controlled would be the dominant voices in determining salaries. Interestingly enough, the majority of shares are owned by executives themselves. This would then mean that executives decide what income they get for themselves and other executives. And even if you don't assume corruption such as that, the stockholders still have no basis for their decision according to the affirmative position. All he provides you is the concept that executives make "multi-billion dollar decisions." Again, what are these decisions, and why is it that these decisions fall to one man alone? Moreover, does this make the job worth more than the man who puts his very life on the line for his job? Whether it is the stockholders that determine pay or not, we must question whether their judgment is fair or not. So it comes down to one question. Will you assume that capitalism is all that we look at, ignoring all facets of reasonable morality, or do you accept that any society, capitalist included, must have some basis in morality to make fair decisions. My opponent insists the resolution limits the debate to capitalism alone, yet read what the resolution says: "Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid." This simply implies we look to a capitalist society. Yes, we should be looking to capitalist philosophies, which would say that a man deserves pay for the work that he does. But look to basic moral standards outside of that. Is sitting in a chair, making bargains with other executives really worth as much money as risking your life on an oil rig? Clearly, the only way to make a fair, justified decision is by voting negation. Thank you.