To support the labor or conservative parties in the uk is foolish

My opponent says: "My opponent seems to think corporations are bad. I will argue the contrary argument in this case. The Labor Party, Liberal Democrat Party, and the Conservative Party should have ties with corporations in order to improve the economy further. How strong of ties they should have with corporations ia different matter altogether." Firstly, I don't think that corporations are necessarily bad, it more complicated than that. And secondly I agree that the government should have ties with organisations, though only to better the society. The 'ties' I speak of are ones that let the owners of corporations exploit us. The fact that they avoid tax and have had a blind eye turned to loopholes, effects us. Tax is your money, government don't have any money, they only decide what you should pay for. Letting companies get away with tax evasion is favouring them over us. We go to jail for it. Bankers where actually paid bonuses when the rest of us where taking cuts. Not money to help them 'get back on their feet' to stabilise the economy, but to just boost their wealth. Does that sound like a government who's number 1 priority is the people? I'm saying that corporations do need ties with the government, but its not that that's the problem. It's the type of ties, the actual relationship they currently have, that I'm talking about. My opponent is using definitions to make his case, the definition of a corporation doesn't depict the reality of it in today's society. Nor does just saying that ties are needed, dispute the fact that corporations in the UK/USA are being adhered to over the common folk. My opponents first argument is that corporations have been more productive than any other organised body. Probably true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Corporations being productive doesnt account for our politicians neglecting their democratic agreement to adhere to them, over the betterment of the population. Not even for the greater good, for the bonuses don't help us in the future, or at all. My opponent then goes on to offer us a textbook definition of capitalism: "Corporations are organizations that operate based on consent. Consumers give them more power by choosing whom they wish to buy from. Consumers receive the products they like. The corporations, unions, employees, and other businesses reap the profits when consumers purchases from them[2]. It is a consensual agreement among the consumers and the producers. By allowing corporations to function, the Labor Party and the Coservative Party allow the economy to grow and consumers to chose the products they wish. Yes we all know how it works on paper, socialism works on paper too. But in reality, greed has gone to far and caused the system to generally neglect the population in favour of the corporations. We all know this to be true. Lighbulbs aren't designed to break for your benifit. Did you know the top 0.01% of Americans are allowed to have as much wealth as about 45% of the rest us? So that's 360,000 people owning the same as 162 million people. It's hard to even grasp how unequal our society is and the only people to blame are the government. (Don't hate the player, hate the game). The gov't make the game. Capitalism works on paper, but in reality the profit margin has gone to far, and now capitalism doesn't work so much for the benifit of the consumer, but rather for profit of huge businesses. And, at the expense of the consumer, the employee and the environment. For its the massive corporations that are the problem. For they get so big they can engulf all competition and have a monopoly on the market. How does planned obselecence fit into your theory? It has been left out because this sort of thing is the hard reality of capitalism that is left out of the textbooks. For the textbooks where made by that capitalist society! Your second argument is not relevant for you misunderstand me. I want diversity and enterprise, I just think that the giant profit organisations are adhered to by our government far too much and thusly the will of the people comes second place which it should obviously not in a democracy. So therefore I argue it's false to support them if you want a better world for everyone. Thank you I agree with your note, I apologise for any offence, I mearly wished to provoke a response. Though I agree with what I have said, I'm not a bully, I just wanted a quick argument and response. My apologies once more.