seldiora ought to be at least employed in an internship

If you look at my resume, I have plenty of skills and evidence to back it up. I have years of experience in Java, C++, C, and have recently learned Python, shell script, AWS web services, so on and so forth. If you look at techrepublic's list (https://www.techrepublic.com/article/top-10-programming-languages-employers-want-the-most/), insights ( https://insights.dice.com/2020/01/10/16-top-programming-skills-data-jobs/), quickstart (https://www.quickstart.com/blog/10-programming-skills-employers-look-for-in-a-candidate/), it's obvious that my skills hit a lot of their desired jobs. I am a quick learner and efficient at doing projects, as seen on my codeabbey account where I quickly finished off half the questions needed for the certificate. I also have the AWS Associate certificate, which is incredibly impressive for an entry level job -- it is basically saying I understand all the basics about Amazon Web Service, verified by a standardized test that Amazon itself has designed. 

My opponent probably is looking at my job experience, and thinking, why is it not enough? It does not do to be reliant on your own mother for a job. She herself is already earning money and paying for our living. Eventually she will retire and I will have to work on my own. As such, I should have a better job than "Global Technology", a proper internship to give myself ability to work in the real world, with actual companies. These more proper, professional companies are sure to impress part time or even full time jobs, as https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/resumes-cover-letters/do-internships-count-as-work-experience indicates, they'll more likely trust a well known company with references better than my mother. As for the military, its pay is hardly enough for a living, especially since I'm in the reserves. Even if I moved to active duty, 20,000$ is hardly worth the effort, given I'd have to keep up my physical body and also risk my life, should we get into a war and deploy myself. It's just not logical.

Also, my resume looks heckin cool. That's some design right there. It's not just blocks of text, it's blocks of material put together, with logos on the side, different colors, what have you. Recruiters ought to be a bit impressed by that alone.

Unless my opponent can overcome these ideas, he loses the debate.

Thanks, Seldiora.
Resolved: seldiora ought to be at least employed in an internship
CON agrees to all of PROs definitions. PRO omits the definition of “ought” so CON will present the universally agreed definition:

CONTENTION 1: SOCIETY DOES NOT OWE YOU WORK
By saying that “seldiora ought to be employed,” PRO is saying that seldiora is owed a position due to their credentials and experience.
Society does not owe you a position of work just because of your credentials and/or experience. 
America is a free-market society where employers can choose some and reject others for any number of reasons, or for no reason at all. 
Being employed by an employer is a privilege and not a right. By affirming, voters would condone the demanding of work on a “moral obligation” basis, and thus violate the principles of civil liberty America is based on. 
CONTENTION 2: SELDIORA WOULD MOST LIKELY BE BETTER OFF STAYING WITH GLOBAL TECH
According to Inc:
“In the World Bank's annual report on the ease of doing business, the United States ranks eighth out of 190 countries. But it was all the way down at No. 51 on the ease of starting a business, a ranking that weighs factors like procedures, time, and costs. That's a drop of six places from last year, the country's biggest decline in any category.”
This means that it is very difficult to start a business in the US, but (relatively) easy in comparison to keep it stable or growing once the initial startup is finished. 
Seldiora’s mother has already spent the time and money to start her own business, “Global Technology.”
Seldiora’s experience and qualifications are particularly relevant to a tech startup, so as the company expands and grows he will be able to keep up in the ranks (and since his mother is the founder, he would have extra wiggle room as well). 
Finally, although a morbid subject, his mother is aging. Assuming she keeps the company, Seldiora may eventually inherit it. This would place him as one of the few business owners in the country, and would give him virtually unlimited upward mobility, something he cannot find in other avenues of employment.

Seldiora is indeed qualified very well for a tech position, which enhances CON's reasoning behind him staying with Global Tech.

PRO makes the assumption that his mother's retirement marks the end of the company and its growth. CON argues that if Seldiora and his mother work, they can grow their startup to a very favorable position by his mother's retirement. 

Tech companies are in higher demand and are more profitable than ever before, and by following smart business strategies Seldiora could eventually become CEO of a highly successful company. 

my opponent has only chosen one specific definition of "ought". Consider the other definitions -- , advisability--ought to take care of yourself, natural expectation--ought to be here by now, or logical consequence. When you consider it as an advise that companies should hire me, or expect that, if I apply, I should have what it takes to be hired, then it makes much more sense. My opponent also only appeals to America as a potential outlet for jobs, but I should be able to relocate anywhere, if I was truly free. Unless my opponent proves that no government in the world should give its people or immigrant jobs, if they are able and willing to work (and otherwise no money whatsoever), then he has failed his argument.

He notes that I would eventually inherit this very small company, however, I have zero management experience, and it's not recognized as an actual formal company (look it up, any "Global Technology" would be replaced by a same name big company). As such, it is extremely flimsy; our "customers" are only borrowed from her actual company she's working for (Booze-allen) and if I were to apply to booze-allen they would likely immediately realize some suspicion when they hear the specific project that they are familiar with. Her "company" actually only consists of herself and me, sometimes one or two of her very close friends, but otherwise is a very free-lance based idea that is horrible in the long term. I also haven't mentioned this in my resume, and apologize for lack of information, but I'm actually not getting paid, because it would be pointless -- she is the one who manages finance and has experience with managing money; I would have nothing to buy for myself in any case. She is greatly worried about my future though, we have enough money to get by, but nowhere near enough to pay off student loans, my own house, living expenses, so on and so forth. Every one around me with similar age already has a job. Remember that some colleges even help offer their own students jobs, understanding that they have hard work to pay off tuition, and end up with a win-win situation. Consider that in the opening I admitted that internships can be unpaid. With just as much benefit to the company as myself, why shouldn't they hire me to allow me to gain experience in a bigger, more formal company?

Conclusion: My opponent has interpreted ought wrongly, and even if we accept his definition, he has not proven that every country's ideals, being different and contradictory, all do not have obligation to give someone a job, especially if that someone is NOT being paid. I have proven that it would go down a bad slippery slope as the "company" is very small and easily collapsed; her earnings are meager in comparison to what is necessary for a real independent living. I have proven that I am willing to go unpaid and have the least amount of lost to the company. If I mess up, I am even willing to compensate for any losses the company may have received due to me. Unless my opponent can negate the idea that I can benefit a company greatly, he fails the utilitarianism check in that the greater benefit is the superior moral choice.

PRO states that there are alternative definitions to “ought.” 
CON counters that the majority of these alternative definitions do not fit the context of the Resolution, and if they do, they do not alter the meaning in a meaningful way. This effectively leaves CON’s first contention in R1 completely unrefuted.
Advisability
CON asks the voter to consider grammatical context.
In cases of advisability, the word “ought” is linked to the preceding noun or pronoun in the sentence. For example,
“You ought to be more careful.”
The word “ought” is linked to the pronoun “you.”
In the resolution: “Resolved: seldiora ought to be at least employed in an internship”
The word “ought,” if interpreted as advisability, is linked to “Seldiora.”
Under the context of the resolution, advisability would simply be advising Seldiora to be employed. 
Clearly, under this particular context, “ought” is not referencing advisability.
Natural Expectation
CON argues that cases of “natural expectation” would not alter the meaning of the Resolution in a way that refutes CON’s R1 argument.
RECALL CON’s R1: “By saying that “seldiora ought to be employed,” PRO is saying that seldiora is owed a position due to their credentials and experience.”
Under the resolution, if PRO were to argue that it is a natural expectation for Seldiora to be employed, it would be the same as arguing that Seldiora is obligated employment. CON’s R1 argument would stand unrefuted.
Logical Consequence
Logical consequence does not make sense given the context of the Resolution. 
Logical consequence is a reaction. In other words, it only works if there is a preceding action or condition to react to in the first place.
The resolution does not give an action to react to, thus “ought” does not reference logical consequence.

The resolution does not ask whether seldiora will get hired if he applies, the resolution asks whether he is obligated a job. PRO says yes, CON says no. 
FOREIGN NATIONS

If Seldiora were given a job by the government of a foreign country, as PRO seems to advocate for, that would be government distribution of labor (i.e. Communism). 
If capitalism and the free movement of private labor were stopped, that would be a negative effect in any country seldiora chooses to move to. Capitalism has reduced world poverty by 86% in 36 years.
On the other hand, communist ideals have led to about 61 million deaths in the Soviet Union, 78 million deaths in China, and roughly 200 million deaths worldwide.
GLOBAL TECH
If Seldiora’s mother is unsuccessful in her startup, this was not implied in the description or R1 of the debate.
PRO gives additional information about the Global Tech startup in their R2, and it becomes clear that it is not truly established as a startup like he implied earlier. 
Thus, CON operated under the assumption that Global Tech was an established startup with a fair and working business model. Normally, CON might contest the misleading information as unfair, but in this case the information is highly personal to PRO.
So, in this case, CON will forgive PRO for the confusion and simply asks voters to drop their 2nd contention argument from consideration entirely. 
SUMMARY:
CON’s original definition of “ought” is by far the most sensible one, and thus CON’s first contention stands unrefuted. 
PRO gives new information in their R2 which completely opposes their initial implication that Global Tech was a legitimate and working startup. CON forgives PRO, and asks that voters drop CON’s 2nd Contention from their consideration entirely. 

I concede. I didn't think of the titular semantics when making this debate.