All apposed to out sourcing must put up or shut up!!!

I would like to begin my response by first thanking my opponent. My opponent does not quite seem to understand the fact that he carries the burden of proof. Throughout his responses thus far, he has provided no evidence proving that CONSUMERS ARE THE MAIN CAUSE FOR OUTSOURCING. I presented my response to his assertion (which I will note that he did not support with evidence), and he agreed with everything that I have stated thus far. My opponent does not seem to understand his own argument, and rendered the resolution a scrambled mess in both his constructive and in the topic title itself. As follows is what my opponent had stated in his constructive: "Now what I mean by this title is if you are not willing to or able to pay the extra cash needed to make everything in America shut up with the complaining BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MAIN CAUSE. " –olle15 Grammar mistakes aside, I took the convenience of highlighting the "resolution," or the point my opponent must prove in order to win this debate. As I have stated earlier, he carries the burden of proof. He MUST PROVE that consumers are the MAIN CAUSE. In his rebuttal, my opponent stated that I was supporting his argument by stating that consumers are part of the reason outsourcing exists. My opponent has COMPLETELY misconstrued the resolution THAT HE HIMSELF SET FORTH. We are not arguing whether or not consumers contribute to outsourcing, WE ARE ARGUING THAT CONSUMERS ARE THE MAIN CAUSE. Now I will continue on to a rebuttal of a rather interesting opinion my opponent has. -- "the fact that there have been call backs does not change the fact that they are what everyone wants. " – olle15 -- When I first read this I felt like reaching through the internets and punching my opponent in the face. According to his logic, we all want lead-based paint on children's toys. This assertion on his part is DISGUSTING. Apparently my opponent is fine with the fact that over 9 million toys on US shelves were coated with lead-paint. Maybe my opponent is unaware of the numerous health hazards caused by exposure to lead-based paints. Lead is toxic to human beings, attacking all of the body's organs. It is especially dangerous to children, attacking the nervous system of a developing child, basically fucking a child up completely by screwing their organs and central nervous system during a period of growth. CHILDREN DIE FROM LEAD-POISONING. LEAD-POISONING OCCURS THROUGH INGESTION OF LEAD DUST. Just an FYI: . http://en.wikipedia.org... LEAD-PAINT TOYS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT. But this is what my opponent is advocating with this opinion. Maybe he has a hard time with children and wishes to seem them suffer through a painful life. Or maybe he played with lead toys as a child. It's obviously something to be concerned with. The logic my opponent is applying is ATROCIOUS. I would continue to attack the rest of my opponents case, but he changed the resolution during his rebuttal, stating: "…my debate is not about whether outsourcing is right or wrong or who is really is to blame IT IS THE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T COMPLAIN…" --- olle15 So now my opponent has changed the resolution. Or changed his mind on the resolution. Yet he continues on in his "rebuttal" of my points. Regardless, he is still Pro and still bears the burden of proof. However, he has still yet to produce any substantial information or even evidence to prove the resolution. I'm fairly new to debate, but I'm certain you can't change the resolution halfway through the debate. Maybe your original post wasn't very clear. Maybe you should think a little more clearly before posting, maybe check to make sure your responses are coherent. But, for the sake of an entertaining and enlightening debate (think flex-case in pf), I will accept this resolution change. Under this new resolution, I re-present my original contention on hazardous lead toys made in outside countries. To reiterate, consumers MUST have the ability to raise their voices in protest against obviously inhumane business practices. Free business is great and all, but when businesses sell lead toys, they produce a large social externality for society. Consumer watch-dog groups were created for this very reason; to protect the consumers. If consumers do not "complain," or more correctly bring issues with products to businesses, then businesses will continue to produce such externalities that are extremely harmful to society and the economy itself. As I have stated, and my opponent agreed upon, businesses need consumers to survive. If consumers do not tell what businesses what they do and don't want, then businesses will go bankrupt and ECONOMIES WILL BE RAVAGED. The ability and right to "complain" is essential for businesses and consumers remaining within a mutually beneficial relationship. By allowing dialogue between the two parties to occur, you also have a much greater equalization of information, thus destroying the massive externalities commonly created by informational asymmetry. . http://nobelprize.org... The following Nobel laureates in economics, Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, and Andrew Spence, received their prestigious awards by conducting research into the field of informational asymmetry and the negative impacts it can have on a society. The paper brings up a much more technical approach to the subject and will be an enlightening read to all those interested. I am advocating that consumers must have the ability to voice their opinions, which ultimately helps the economy move in a much smoother manner. I ask my opponent: If consumers should not be able to complain, especially about shoddy or dangerous products, then why does every successful business spend a good deal of money on customer relations and feedback? Why would they want comments? Why is market research an industry unto itself? Everyone acts in their own interests. Contrary to your logic, businesses actually WANT more feedback from consumers. Consumers are benefiting businesses by commenting on products and services. It is in both the business and the consumer's best interests to communicate to one another, be it through "complaints" or a letter of admiration. I end with the following statement: Debate is most beneficial to its participants and the audience when everyone walks away with a new look upon topics, and new facts that encourage intellectual growth. Regardless of your position, I hope that you will walk away from this debate just a little bit more informed than you started out with.