In the U.S current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

Thank you, CON.==DEFENSE==Con said " in my opponents first contention he said that many poverty stricken family's don't go to college because they can't afford it, but if they focused and did well in school they could get student loans and scholarships. Especially being in poverty there are Evan more scholarships out there for low income families. "There are many flaws in this argument.1) "focused and did will in school they could get student loans and scholarships." Scholarships are only given to the best of the best. And CON fails to reconize the fact that, often, these students cannot focus in school. Impoverished comunities often have bad influences, such as drug dealers, within them that are quick to exploit students. 2) Furthermore, poor schools can only afford under-credentialed teachers... Rich schools hire the best possible teachers in order to attract rich students. Furthermore, failing school facilities bring more negative stigma to poor schools. The experiance poor students have in poor schools are very different from rich students in rich schools.With this, we can see that poor students have a far less chance of gettting student loans and scholarships, as they often are in failing schools that do not help them.Con also said that, " As for the food problems yes it is true that 7 of 18 food assistance programs are associated with healthy food, but that is the choice of the people who get it. If someone get food stamps and the choose to waste it on all chips and soda. Well then we cant control that. That decision is in the hands of those people."1) This shows that CON agrees with the fact that poor people recieve less nutrition, which in turn drastically affects their health and wellbeing. Furthermore, sometimes these people do not know about the risks. Advertisements in today's world can easily influence people into making bad choices. But they are more likely to affect poor people, as they are less educated.2) Sure we can't force people to spend money on certain things...But we can give them insight. We can give them knowledge about the health impacts. We can give canned food, which forces them to eat healthy, as they have no other option. Furthermore, I believe you are misunderstanding food programs all together. They do not "give you money." But rather they give you actual food and meals.Con also said that..."I'm not exactly clear on what he means by influence, but I'm going to assume he means political influence because he mentioned campaing. but Evan if you are of low income they have fund-raisers, and endorsements, and there parties will help them with cost"1) First off, who is going to fund someone who they have no clue is? In order to attract sponsers, you must first get your message out and convince this. Now doing this is very time-consuming and expensive. Do poor, struggling people have the time to spare? Do poor, struggling people have the money to spare? They cannot even get into the very basis and foundation of fund-raisers. They cannot convince people to fund them.2)Endorsements...How will this help poor people get their voice out to the masses of America?3)"Parties will help them with cost" Once again, these parties will not reconize poor people, simply because impoverished people cannot convince them. ==Rebuttals==I will now attack their cases.Con says "Now to rebuild my own case. First America is the land of opportunity, you have a choice. You can better yourself if you truly want to. it doesn't matter if your poor, or rich, that is the great thing about America you can be a nothing and have a very successful life."1) This is very untrue in today's world. People are often held down by the circle of poverty and tied back by impoverished communities, with bad influences. 2) Sure America is called the land of opportunity, but how often do people make it out of poverty? And also, Con says that "you can be a nothing and have a very successful life."Once again, this does not apply to everyone. Consider an example. In a company, out of ten applicants, Person A is chosen. This one continues on to work with 10 other co-workers at Rank 1. Out of those 10, their boss choses, once again, Person A is chosen to be promoted. He then moves up and works with 10 other co-workers at Rank 2. Their boss, chooses Person A to be promoted to Rank 3. Now let's recap. For every one person who makes it to rank 3, 99 people are left behind. And the chances of you reaching rank 3 is around 1%. This example is similar to the real world. Rarely does any one actually go from poor to rich, from nothing to everything, and from a nothing to a household name. Con says "The government will help you and assist you, but again it is the choice of the people who receive that money to choose what they want to do with it. "1) First off, who said the government will help and assist you? And in what manner do they help you? And finally, why are they receiving money for? The government doesn't simply go around passing out money. If that was the case, we wouldn't be paying taxes.2) I've actually never heard of the government giving you cold hard cash. No program out there does that. There are tax breaks although, and rich people get more tax breaks than poor. http://www.nytimes.com...3) Can you care to explain how this is relevant to the topic?Con says "Finally it will hinder job growth. we need the rich to run businesses and we need the poor and middle class to work those jobs."Con simply repeats their argument from their previous speech.I've already said that....1) Buisinesses means an occupation, profession, or trade2) The purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.http://dictionary.reference.com...Do the middle class have an occupation, profession, or trade? Yes, they must! How else would they have the sufficient income to be deemed "middle class". Logically.1. If everyone was at the same financial level, they are earning the same amount of money.2. If someone is earning money, they have an occupation, profession, or trade that allows them to earn that money.3. Therefore, if everyone is at the same financial level, they all have an occupation, profession, or trade that allows them to earn money.3)-- And finally, we must acknowledge the fact that their are other countries. Even if we were all at the same financial level, we haven't said anything about the financial levels of other countries. Ever heard of international trade?==NEW ARGUMENTS==1)Unfair Tax Cuts-- The Rich are recieving unfair tax breaks, and in turn, the middle class and the poor class are paying more to make up. Is this fair? Step back and ask yourself, is the government treating everyone equally? This is another violation of democratic ideals. Our country was founded upon the principles of equality and fairness.http://www.aflcio.org...http://www.faireconomy.org...;==OLD ARGUMENTS==I'd like to take some time to remind and reinforce some of my past arguments.1) Education - I've stated this before, education is vital. Poor people are often put at a lower chance at good education than rich people. And this gap in education is extremely unfair. Poor communities are more subject to exploitation, bad influences, and poor voting percentages.2) Influence - The rich have much more influence over politics than rich people. Large corporations can donate sums of money to cantidates, in hope to gain their favors. Thourgh independent expenditures, rich people can influence politicans. An independent expenditure is made by an individual or organization that is not connected with a candidate's campaign, but favors that particular candidate. Rich people can run ads that don't mention a particular candidate by name, but support issues that the candidate is known to stress. Also, the rich have the resources to lobby.http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu...;