Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

Answers to my opponent's questions: 1) Anarchists pose little to no threat as far as I can see. Are you judging them because they don't believe in government? I am saying that since income inequalities exist everywhere, they don't pose a serious threat. 1) Provide me with some way that people can successfully force an issue such as lowering income disparities. 2) Provide me a reason you think the government is at fault. 3) Senators are both working towards and making little progress over the matter. 4) It's unlikely that all politicians always listen to the public. But that would be an issue of human nature/politics and not the subject of this debate. 5) I never said that big business was solely to blame for income inequality. There are other factors such as education and specialized skills. And the source you were looking for is here: http://online.wsj.com... 1) Corruption, by definition, is bribery. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) See answer I made to your previous question A friendly reminder to my opponent to respond to my questions in round 3. You were supposed to answer them in this round. I understand that you are not quite familiar with PF debate. ----- Speech 2: One does not normally think that income disparities can affect democratic deals, therefore Pro has the burden of proof. So far, Pro has based his entire case on refuting my case. Therefore if my case stands, I win the debate. If my opponent succeeds in refuting my case, he still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that current income disparities threaten democratic ideals to win the debate. Let's examine my 3 contentions and see if they still stand: Contention 1: Income disparities are natural My opponent has agreed that this is true. He claims however that extreme income inequalities lead to social unrest and could possibly lead to a revolution. However, how likely is that to happen in the US? If the public doesn't like how a politician is doing things, they could boot him or her out of office in a few years. Our election system was set up so that the public wouldn't have to resort to violence to get bad officials out of office. With that said, it's more likely that high income inequality helps democracy, since it inspires people to become politically involved and use democratic rights instead of take them for granted. Contention 2: The government does not favor the rich My opponent agrees with my contention, but states that the working class mistakenly blames the government for the large income disparities, and might force the government to infringe on the rights of business executives. However, the government was created with a system of checks and balances. Congress cannot infringe on businessmen's rights because they want to or because the public wants them to. A bill that attempts to allow that would be killed under the Chief Justice's gavel. Therefore how the working class interprets government actions is not relevant in this debate. Either the large bonuses are unlawful and should be taxed, or they are lawful and the public cannot do anything to change that. Contention 3: Income does not influence political power My opponent claims that money influences politics in many ways, one of which is funding a presidential candidate's campaign and bending his will. I provided my opponent with two sources that suggest the contrary. True, presidential candidates need money, but they have many ways to get the money they need, including taking a huge loan from the US treasury. Any corporate grants would be appreciated, but not essential. There is also a limit on how much money individuals (and corporations) can donate, designed so that any person who would like to bend the potential president to his or her will will find that his or her potential influence is very restrained. Thus money and politics are two separate things. Income disparities are natural, are not part of the government's will, and don't influence politics. I have refuted my opponent's rebuttals and with those, his case. Based on my analysis at the beginning of this speech, the debate should go to CON. Thank you.