The Instigator
RightWingConspiracyGuy
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Sieben
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget proposal should be passed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Sieben
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,153 times Debate No: 16298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (57)
Votes (12)

 

RightWingConspiracyGuy

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Secondly, I would ask that no one accept this debate unless you feel strongly about the topic. I am looking for a serious, well-informed debate about what is possibly the most important problem our nation currently faces. So if you don't care all that much about the budget issue, please don't accept this debate.

The Path to Prosperity is defined as the Fiscal Year 2012 budget resolution: "House Concurrent Resolution 34" (1)

I will now begin my affirmative case:

CONTENTION 1: THE PRESENT SITUATION IS UNACCEPTABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE.

a. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, if we continue on our current economic path, our debt will equal 900% of our Gross Domestic Product. (2) Think about that. That means that even if we confiscated every single penny earned in the entire nation and spent it all on the debt, we would only have paid off one ninth of the debt.
b. Greece's debt is 109% of its GDP. (3) It is considered a financial black hole. Institutions such as pension funds can no longer buy Greek bonds, leaving the country struggling to pay its bills as interest rates on existing debts rise. (4)
c. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of entitlement programs alone will exceed the total amount of money collected by the United States government by 2050. (5)
d. A U.S. debt crisis would lead to sharp declines in the dollar and in the price of these bonds, causing a deterioration of the balance sheets of large financial institutions. The resulting panic would be orders of magnitude more disruptive than the financial crisis in 2008. (6)
e. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States will have a deficit of over 61% by 2084. (7) This means we will be spending 61% more than what we take in every year.
f. In 16 years, we will be spending twice what we spend on the entire military just to pay off the interest on our debt. (8)
g. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently 13.5 million unemployed Americans, or 8.8%. (9) This is not even counting those who have given up looking for work.

CONTENTION 2: THE PATH TO PROSPERITY WILL SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS.

a. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, the Path to Prosperity will dramatically reduce the United States' debt and even completely pay it off. (10)
b. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Path to Prosperity would create a budget surplus by 2040. And that's not all. This surplus would continue to consistently grow for years afterward. (11)
c. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity brings federal spending to below 20% of the Gross Domestic Product. (12)
d. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity reduces the deficit by $4.4 trillion. (12)
e. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity will result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs over the next ten years, bringing the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015. (12)
f. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity would cause 1.5 trillion dollars of real GDP growth over ten years, result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year. (12)
g. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity lowers the top tax rate to 25% for everybody, which has been shown to actually increase tax revenues. (14) However, these tax cuts remain absolutely revenue-neutral by also eliminating the tax deductions and loopholes that allow some corporations to pay less or even no income taxes. (12)
h. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity would cut domestic government spending to below 2008 levels and then freeze it for five years. (12)

CONTENTION 3: CLEARING UP SOME COMMON MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS.

Myth 1: The Path to Prosperity ends Social Security and Medicare.
Fact: The Path to Prosperity saves and strengthens Social Security and Medicare. It makes no changes to these programs for Americans 55 and older. The government guarantee remains in place for both of these programs. It protects both of these programs for those 55 and older and saves them so they can provide benefits to future generations of Americans when they retire. This budget spends more each year on Social Security and Medicare. Additional support would be provided to those with low-incomes and poor health. Failing to act would mean the end of these programs as we know them. Without action, the Social Security Trustees report that beneficiaries will either see a 22 percent benefit cut or a corresponding hike in payroll taxes. Similarly, the Trustees for Medicare say that "Without corrective legislation, therefore, the assets of the trust fund would be exhausted within the next 7 to 19 years" (13)

Myth 2: The Path to Prosperity cuts benefits for low-income individuals on Medicaid.
Fact: The Path to Prosperity strengthens the Medicaid program by converting the federal share of the Medicaid payment into a block grant just like the government did with welfare in the late 1990s. The initial allotment would be exactly as much as the states are receiving to pay for Medicaid today, and it would grow every year to account for inflation and population. This would allow states to tailor their programs to their low-income populations, allowing states maximum flexibility to focus their benefits on the specific needs of the state. (13)

Myth 3: The Path to prosperity cuts taxes for the rich.
Fact: The Path to Prosperity reforms the tax code to make it simpler, flatter and fairer. While The Path to Prosperity proposes lower rates to promote growth, it also ends deductions that go overwhelmingly to a relatively small class of mostly higher-income individuals. And it targets the carve-outs and loopholes that have allowed some corporations to avoid paying taxes altogether. This is not a net tax cut-it is a revenue-neutral reform to make our economy more competitive and help spur job creation and economic growth. It gets the government out of the politically-driven business of picking tax winners and losers. And it spares American employers from having to choose between hiring more workers and paying the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. (13)

I would like to wish my opponent good luck, and look forward to a good debate.

(1) Can be found at http://budget.house.gov...
(2) http://budget.house.gov... [page 8](3) http://www.heritage.org...
(4) http://www.cnn.com... [section: What does the credit rating downgrade mean?]
(5) http://budget.house.gov... [page 16; figure 3]
(6) http://budget.house.gov... [page 22; section: Financial system breakdown]
(7) http://www.heritage.org...
(8) http://budget.house.gov... [page 23; section: The Path to Decline]
(9) http://www.bls.gov... [2nd paragraph]
(10) http://budget.house.gov... [page 5; section: Debt and Deficits]
(11) http://www.cbo.gov... [page 2; paragraph 3]
(12)http://online.wsj.com... (13) http://budget.house.gov...
(14) http://www.heritage.org...
Sieben

Con

=== Prestandards ===

In order to promote fair debate, the following prestandards are defended:

1) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I run utilitarianism in round 1, egalitariansim in round 2, and justice in round 3, I can just pick up whichever my opponent fails to address in round 4. Because we have limited space,dropped arguments ought to count as concessions.

2) Supporting citations must be clearly articulated in the debate. Writing: "Abortion is wrong [1]" is problematic on two counts. First, it does not justify a ballot because this is not an substantiated argument - it's an appeal to authority. Second, it is abusive because the debater is trying to glean offense outside of their round.

To the voters: Honor my prestandards. My opponent is completely free to argue against them. However, if they still stand, they apply. I bring them forward not to gain special personal advantage but to ensure a principled debate.

== Pro Case ==

http://operatorchan.org...

Contention 1: The Present Situation is Unacceptable and Unsustainable

a) k

b) k

c) k

d) k

e) k

f) k

g) k

Contention 2: The Path to Prosperity Will Solve All These Problems

a/b)

i) Appeal to authority. Pro has not presented any analysis. This is a violation of prestandard 2. He is trying to run his case off an external website.

ii) Turn his appeal to authority. The CBO is always wrong. Their numbers are systematically biased towards underprediction of deficits and overestimation of revenues [1]. Their track record estimating the costs of government programs, such as Medicare, has also been horribad. CBO estimates are off by up to 113% when compared to actual spending [2].

c-f)

Really going to rely on my "appeal to authority" line here. He gives no logic. Just "The WSJ says I'm right". That's cool. But can he prove he's right? No.

So don't vote for him. He's not debating. He's evidence spamming. This is supposed to be between me and him, not me and the WSJ. The WSJ is not on your ballot.

Contention 3: Clearing Up Some Myths and Misconceptions

i) K. In debate we call this a "spike", where you address your opponent's arguments before they make them. They are non-offensive, so they don't help you extend validity to the resolution. My case does not rely on maintaining current levels of medicaid spending, so I don't really give a hoot.

ii) I'd just like to point out that these are copypasta from The Path To Prosperity. Again, it's an appeal to authority. I'll attack the credibility of TPTP in my case (incoming toilet paper pun btw).


== Con Case ==

Framework: The resolution states "should", which implies a moral theory. I will not bother to actually construct one unless the issues become clutch. I fully intend to secure an uncontroversial moral advantage.

Morality requires that we choose our best available option. No one thinks that saving 1 drowning person when you could save 2 counts as "moral". So second-best plans fail the moral criterion.

I think TPTP is probably better than the status quo, but it isn't moral because there's a whole bunch of obviously superior alternatives. As long as I can demonstrate that TPTP should be "Plan B", I win.


Contention 1: TPTP is a dumb idea

a) Military Budget

i) TPTP will "Provide $692.5 billion for national defense spending in Fiscal Year 2012" and "Reduce inefficient spending by $178 billion, following guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.Reinvest $100 billion of these savings into key combat capabilities, and put the rest toward deficit reduction."

So this is a total of $692.5+$100 = $792.5 ~ $800 billion

ii) First, it is unclear how much spending this is compared to the status quo. On the one hand, 2012 DOD spending is projected at $707.5 billion. This would imply that TPTP wants higher military spending, which increases the deficit and kills more brown people. But broader definitions, including satellites and veterans pensions, range from $1.03-1.415 trillion [3].

iii) So which is it? The document doesn't clarify. TPTP masquerades as superior policy, claiming "exhaustive review of the pentagon's budget" and to "root out waste". There is no proof of these claims. $800 bn for national defense isn't a plan just like a $100 bill isn't a grocery list. TPTP's clearest proposal is to stop "terrorists from repeating the atrocities perpetrated on American soil on September 11, 2001" This is an amateurish and highly rhetorical document.

iv) There are really obvious ways in which the military budget could be cut. Cato has put together a big ol' list [4]. A very promising cut that could be made is to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle:

"The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is 14 years behind schedule and 160 percent over budget. It serves an archaic mission—amphibious assault on a hostile shore. The last time such an amphibious assault occurred was the Inchon Landing in September 1950. In the highly unlikely event that the United States again employs Marines in this way, existing platforms, including the Assault Amphibious Vehicle 7A, will suffice. This proposal would save the approximately $11 billion needed to complete the program and purchase 573 vehicles. "

v) We can also probably get rid of the 30 or so military bases in germany and be just fine [5]. The long story short is that we can sit around and identify *specific* ways for the military to save money. These are not included in TPTP.

b) Agriculture

i) TPTP will: "reduce the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels" and "reform the open-ended nature of the government’s support for crop insurance". This policy recommendation is defended by generic free market rhetoric, but they never explain why the programs can't be removed completely. If the free market is cool then you should probably just get rid of farm subsidies.

ii) Wikipedia writes [6]:

"A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. and Canadian prices of sugar are twice the global price and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers. "

There are also countless papers linked on the wiki page showing the negative health effects of HFCS. So can we stop subsidizing it? Again, another really obvious and uncontroversial proposal ignored by TPTP.


Contention 2: TPTP does not treat fundamental problems

a) Accountability

i) At best, TPTP is a plan. But no one will follow the plan if they have no incentive to do so.


ii) Voters have no incentive to pay attention to politics because the chances of a vote mattering are virtually zero. I don't except to be challenged on this, but I'm prepared to show probabilistic analysis. So because our system relies on voters as a system of checks and balances, and because they will routinely fail,a policy recommendation is castrated no matter how good it is.

b) Focus on GDP

i) GDP = C + I + Xnet + G [=] dollars. It only measures how expensive and numerous goods and services in the economy are.

ii) It does not measure the satisfaction of individual wants and needs, which is the WHOLE point of an economy. So TPTP misses the boat by focusing on boosting numbers rather than individual choice.

Sauces:

[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

[2] http://takingnote.tcf.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
RightWingConspiracyGuy

Pro

I thank Sieben for conceding my first and third contentions. These are obvious facts and I had hoped that I would not have to defend them.

And so I will now begin my argument:

1. DEALING WITH HIS PRESTANDARDS.

Prestandard 1 is conceded.

“Because we have limited space, dropped arguments ought to count as concessions.”

My opponent has dropped arguments g and h of Contention 2, and has thus conceded them. This alone is enough for me to win the debate.

Prestandard 2 is contested.

My opponent is simply using this prestandard to dismiss all of my factually based arguments instead of legitimately answering them. He is saying that my arguments are not substantiated- that they are an appeal to authority. This is partly true. Every good argument must have some sort of appeal to authority. It’s called factual reasoning. Anything else would be simply mindless venting of subjective opinion. My arguments consist of contentions that logically follow from premises, which are based only in fact. To accept this prestandard would be to disqualify informed debate entirely, leaving the only option to be a childish “uh-huh/uh-uh” repetition.

2. DEFENDING MY SECOND CONTENTION.

(a/b)

i. Again, my opponent is trying to wield his faulty second prestandard by claiming, in effect, that these arguments are unacceptable because they are facts, when in reality, this adds to their credibility.

ii. First, his own first source, which is simply an opinion page anyway, contradicts his claim. In the very first paragraph of the article, it clearly states, “The discrepancy here does not prove that the CBO is wrong or bad at making these kinds of predictions.”[1] In addition, it only examined one very specific instance when the CBO was wrong; an instance where two unexpected wars were declared shortly after the projections were issued, thus adding quite a bit of unexpected spending. To conclude from this very specific and abnormal example that the Congressional Budget Office is always wrong is entirely illogical.

As to his second claim, it is worth pointing out beforehand that his source is a blog. This means it represents some person's opinion that he or she has decided to broadcast. It is not at all reliable as an empirical source. However, even assuming that this opinion blog is somehow dependable, my opponent is misrepresenting it. The overly dramatic figure of 113 percent was again only in one specific instance, which my opponent is again trying to use to conclude that the Congressional Budget office is always wrong. Again, this is illogical. Also, this statistic actually supports my case. According to my opponent’s source, “savings turned out to be 113 percent greater in 1999 than the budget office forecast” (my emphasis) [2]. And so, if anything, the Path to Prosperity’s positive projections from the CBO are actually overly conservative by as much as 113%.!

(c-f)

My opponent really does only rely on his “appeal to authority(i.e. fact) line” here. And, since I have proven that his second prestandard is wholly without merit, he has no legitimate answer to these arguments. He says that I am not using logic to defend my case. This is simply not the case. Although it is true that these claims are ones of fact, not logical syllogisms, they are simply the factual premises that are used to logically prove my case. And so in this case, since I am only asserting fact, it is entirely acceptable to rely on one of the most reputable financial publications in the world.

To entirely debunk this “lack of logic” myth, here is a valid syllogism that uses my factual premises to logically prove the resolution.

Legislation that fixes major problems and has benefits that outweigh its disadvantages should be passed.

The Path to Prosperity fixes major problems and has benefits that outweigh its disadvantages.

Therefore: The Path to Prosperity should be passed.

Given this logical proof, the only way you can disprove the resolution is by arguing either that legislation that fixes major problems and has benefits that outweigh its disadvantages should not be passed or that the Path to Prosperity does not fix major problems and does not have benefits that outweigh its disadvantages, both of which are factually false.

3. REFUTING THE NEGATIVE CASE.

First of all, my opponents philosophically ungrounded assertion that second-best plans are immoral is outrageous. This is to say that the only morally acceptable proposal is an entirely perfect one. And no matter who is determining the value of any given plan, no plan is absolutely perfect. To use my opponent’s analogy, if this moral theory were true, since it would be impossible to save all three drowning people, no course of action would be perfect, and thus it would be immoral to save any of the drowning people. Therefore, if the Path to prosperity is significantly better than the status quo, which my opponent has conceded, I should win this debate.

Now concerning my opponent’s contentions:

Contention 1:

First of all, this contention relies almost entirely on Wikipedia, a notoriously undependable source that, according to the United States Judiciary branch, is inherently unreliable because "it can be written and edited anonymously by anyone.” [3] In other words, for all we know, some middle-aged, burger-flipping college dropout from Yugoslavia could have written that article. The only source used other than Wikipedia is a single article from the Cato institute (It should also be noted that the use of any source at all violates his own prestandard). And so the only factually reliable statement made in this entire argument is that there are several ways in which the military could be cut. This statement is tautologically true and irrelevant, and therefore should be disregarded.

In short, if the claims made in this contention were even dependable, I could concede them all and it would make no difference. Indeed, we could cut the military more (which would not be a good idea considering we are currently fighting three wars), and we could substantially alter our agriculture policy. We could even assume that these changes would be beneficial. However, this is entirely irrelevant because we are not debating an anonymous, formless plan that makes some vague, undefined changes in agriculture or defense; we are debating whether or not House Concurrent Resolution 34 should be passed. Therefore, this contention is immaterial to the debate and should be completely disregarded. irrelevant

Contention 2:

a) i. The argument that that the Path to Prosperity will not be followed is simply factually false. It is a piece of legislation. If it is passed, it becomes law. There doesn’t need to be an incentive to follow it, people are obligated by law to do so.

ii. This debate is one of values (The Path to Prosperity should be passed), not one of practicality (The Path to Prosperity will be passed), and so political feasibility or infeasibility is wholly extraneous to the matter at hand.
b) The notion that GDP is not relevant is utterly untrue. According to the US Department of Commerce, GDP is the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States.[4] Therefore, if the GDP grows, the amount of goods of services is growing, and the economy is growing. This is clearly a good and relevant thing.
In conclusion, I have refuted every single one of my opponent’s arguments and validly defended my previous contentions against my opponent’s attacks. Therefore, my case still stands and I should win this debate.











I thank my opponent and patiently await his reply





[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

[2] http://takingnote.tcf.org...
[3] http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us... [footnote 3]

[4] http://www.bea.gov...





















Sieben

Con

==Pro Case==

To be clear, Pro's 1st and 3rd contentions are "conceded" because they aren't really contentions. Pro cannot and does not make any offensive extensions from these.

==Prestandards==

1) Drops are Concessions

Pro claims I dropped arguments g and h of his contention 2. I dropped the tags, but they all use the same WSJ source. Since I am attacking the source they are not dropped.

Pro is also wrong that they are enough to auto-win him the round. Even if he can secure benefit from his WSJ card, he still has to show how it outweighs my mitigating concerns.

2) Supporting Citations

Pro misses the thrust of this prestandard. It's that you can't just spam evidence - you have to explain it. There are two reasons for this.
First, using evidence without explanations means that you are running your case off an external website. This is necessarily abusive because we have 8000 characters max. Pro entirely IGNORES this aspect of evidence spamming.

Second, Pro says that there needs to be some appeal to authority in order to have an argument in the first place. This is obviously false because we are arguing right now without asking the WSJ for help. So we can make analytical arguments without citations or appeals to authority.

Pro's pleading only applies to empirical components of arguments - such as the unemployment rate or GDP. This is problematic too, but Pro's contentions center around the validity of a HYPOTHETICAL UNTESTED PLAN, which is not empirical.

Pro should be able to explain why his plan is so good instead of cherry picking media outlets till he gets the answer he wants.

Contention 2:

a-b)

i) Extend - Pro is running his case off an external website. Even if you think the WSJ is right, he still has to reconstruct and defend their reasoning here in the debate.

If you don't buy that, here are many pages explaining why Pro is wrong [1] [2] [3] [4]. So either you believe that Pro shouldn't be allowed to make arguments outside the round, or you vote Pro down for failing to address my evidence spam.

ii)

I don't care if my source is an opinion page. I can very easily find another tabulation of CBO errors. They are objective facts, and Pro is not bothering to contest them.

Pro goes on to say that maybe it wasn't the CBO's fault because Congress did some weird stuff and there were wars. This is a straw man. I never argued that the CBO was at fault. I argued that their estimates were inaccurate. Maybe they're really smart and do the best they can, but their numbers still turn out wrong. So don't let Pro use them to justify his case.

Pro critiques my second source, again complaining that it's a blog but not actually contesting the factual content. He tries to claim victory here saying that the apparent CBO bias actually goes in his favor because he'll be able to reduce spending by more than he predicts.

But the actual reason given is uncertainty, so CBO can't be accurate. This is good enough for me. How can Pro plan spending for the next 10 years if all the CBO's estimates are wrong? He can't.

c-f and g and h)

Pro defends his source because he thinks the statements made by the WSJ about TPTP are factual. They're not. TPTP hasn't been implemented yet, so we have to use our REASONING powers to figure out what its consequences will be. Pro does not explicate his REASONING anywhere. His claim is literally "The WSJ says I'm right so you lose".

But realize that this article is featured in the WSJ's opinion page and was WRITTEN BY PAUL RYAN HIMSELF. So according to Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan's plan will work. TROLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!!!!

Okay.
Breath Sieben...

There is literally no way for this evidence to be less credible.

He goes on to make a syllogism that is unconnected to anything in this point. It is addressed implicitly elsewhere.


==Con Case==

Framework:

Straw man! Pro says I think morality requires a perfect plan. It doesn't. It only requires that you choose the BEST plan you know about. This is really obvious. If you have Plan A that can save 500 people and Plan B that can save 1000, you should go with Plan B (all other things equal). Plan A is better than nothing, but it isn't moral if you could have chosen Plan B.

So Pro's claim is that TPTP is better than the status quo. He concedes that there are really obvious things the TPTP is missing. This necessarily means that TPTP is NOT the best plan we know about.

Contention 1:

You know, he complained that I dropped the tags on his WSJ "source", and then he turns around and drops the tags on all my contentions. Whatever.

a)

i) Pro says maybe my source is unreliable because the government said so. Well the government lies too [5] so now we're tied for trolling. And if you look at the citations on the wiki article, you will see that they go directly to government sources.

ii) Pro completely drops the whole thrust of this sub point, which is that the TPTP's stance on military spending is unclear. So how can he claim benefit?

iii) Dropped as well. TPTP has no authority because it contains no analysis. Just hollow chants about efficiency and good government.

iv) Pro says that using an external source is a violation of my own prestandards. Actually I'm not evidence spamming because I quote the whole damn paragraph. It is also not a (logical) appeal to authority because it is a list of factual statements which Pro does not even contest.

b) Agriculture

i) Dropped. He doesn't explain why TPTP stops short of the free market if the free market is so durn great.

ii) Dropped.

iii) (Added) Pro concedes these are all good ideas. So why don't they count? Because they're not an official bill.
But since we can draft new official bills using our brains, and since moral theory persists REGARDLESS of written legal documents, these arguments still count.

iv) (Added) But even if you don't buy that, there is prima facie concern raised. Why does it leave out so many obvious good things? Why can't we get rid of our military bases in germany? Pro never explains. These omissions and a quick survey of the document should convince our readers that it is a very amateurish political stunt, not a serious attempt at national policy.


Contention 2: TPTP does not address fundamental problems

a) Accountability

i) Pro believes in Legal Mysticism where simply because something is a law means that it gets followed. This is demonstrably false because laws are broken all the time.

ii) Even assuming TPTP were to be passed, it would not be followed. Pro wants to throw out all the practical considerations because he thinks this is a moral debate. But consequences matter in morality. Bad decisions were made by PEOPLE, and their incentives need to be changed before we can expect different behavior.

b)

i) GDP measures output in dollars. So when I produce a t-shirt, GDP goes up $10. If I find a way to make a t-shirt for $3, GDP will fall by $7. This is a contraction in GDP but it's better for everyone because I'm using fewer resources and providing cheaper products. So big GDP is not automatically good.

ii) Dropped. Individual choice ought to be valued above numbers on the national balance sheet. The focus of his analysis is wrong.

== Conclusion ==

Pro's case can be reduced to: "Paul Ryans plan will work because Paul Ryan said so". Pro does not even try to explain why. Neither does Paul Ryan. When we look at his documents, they are so poorly detailed that we can't even tell what would change about military spending. This is a political stunt and nothing else. Vote it down.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] http://articles.cnn.com...

Debate Round No. 2
RightWingConspiracyGuy

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank Sieben again for continuing this interesting and entertaining debate.

With that, I will proceed:

==Pro Case==

I thank my opponent for conceding my obvious first and third contentions. Hopefully, we will have no need of returning to this subject.

==Prestandards==

1) Drops are Concessions

My opponents claim that He did not drop arguments g and h of my second contention is simply false as a matter of empirical fact. He says that since he has claimed to refute my completely reliable source, he has refuted my specific arguments. However, if this were the case I would automatically win, since I have soundly refuted the few sources my opponent did cite, which were mostly blogs or even Wikipedia pages. Therefore, since I have refuted my opponent’s sources, I have refuted his arguments and I win. VOTE PRO!!! The End. Obviously, this claim is absurd. In addition, to quote from our first prestandard, written by my opponent, “Because we have limited space, dropped arguments ought to count as concessions.” Notice he does not say “dropped sources ought to count as concessions,” he clearly states that unless you answer the specific argument, you have dropped, and thus conceded, it.

Furthermore, these concessions are indeed enough for me to win the round. To claim that I should not win the round because of this is to claim that a bill that increases tax revenues, lightens the onerous tax burden currently inflicted on the American people, remains completely revenue-neutral, eliminates completely unjust and unnecessary tax loopholes, and significantly slows the detrimental upward path of our spending and debt should not be passed, because my opponent has conceded all of these things.


2) Supporting Citations

Here my opponent claims that I am “evidence spamming” because I don’t explain my evidence, I only cite it. This is simply not the case. Every single one of the reputable sources I have cited has been adequately explained just as much as many of my opponents’. For example:

Me: “According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity lowers the top tax rate to 25% for everybody, which has been shown to actually increase tax revenues. (14) However, these tax cuts remain absolutely revenue-neutral by also eliminating the tax deductions and loopholes that allow some corporations to pay less or even no income taxes. (12)”

Sieben: “CBO estimates are off by up to 113% when compared to actual spending [2].”

Me: “According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, if we continue on our current economic path, our debt will equal 900% of our Gross Domestic Product. (2) Think about that. That means that even if we confiscated every single penny earned in the entire nation and spent it all on the debt, we would only have paid off one ninth of the debt.”

Sieben: “Their(The CBO) numbers are systematically biased towards underprediction of deficits and overestimation of revenues [1].”

And so I have clearly not engaged in what my opponent vaguely call “evidence spamming.”

Also, my opponent says that we can obviously validly argue without facts because we are arguing without facts right now. No. He is arguing without facts. Which is exactly the reason why he is not actually arguing at all, he is simply venting his unsubstantiated opinion.

Furthermore, my opponent also claims that I have no empirical sources, which is an interesting argument coming from someone who routinely cites Wikipedia and obscure blogs. Anyway, economics is a precise science. Given a set of facts, you can concretely predict what will happen. I would also like to point out that Sources don’t get much more empirical than the Congressional Budget Office; and that, according to the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the CBO’s projections have historically been accurate to within 2% of actual outcomes [1].

Contention 2:

a-b)

i) No, it is not my responsibility to construct every single one of my sources arguments in this debate. The claims I am making are not entailed logical proofs, they are simple, unassailable statements of pure fact, which I use to support my logical proof that the resolution is true, to which my opponent offers no answer of any kind whatsoever.

Also, my opponent’s absurd example here clearly has no connection at all with how I cite my sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] is indeed evidence spamming; it offers no explanation. But my method: (explanation of cited source’s factual claim) [1]

(explanation of cited source’s factual claim) [2], etc. is clearly not. His “evidence spamming claim is simply ludicrous and should be given no credibility at all. Also, to prevent another irritating attack from my opponent, I will answer rather easily his evidence spamming. First of all, his first three sources are not even arguments of any kind at all; they are simply info pages (from the ever-reputable Wikipedia, by the way), on Keynesian economics, Nihilism, and Minarchism. And his last source is again an opinion blog post which makes no arguments and consists of groundless, flaming rhetoric. It was posted by a blogger named Birdman372537(really?).

ii) I am indeed bothering to contest the factual accuracy of my opponents outrageous claims about an entirely respectable government agency. His claims come from an opinion page that could have been written by anybody and are therefore not reputable, unlike the two government research agencies that say the CBO is accurate to within 2%. [1]

c-f and g and h

Again, my opponent pulls out his much-used “reasoning” card, which I have already refuted under subpoint i of section a-b above. I will not bother to refute it again here.

He also makes the claim that the Wall Street Journal article I have cited is written United States Representative Paul Ryan. This is true. However, it has no bearing whatsoever on the factual validity of its claims. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable institution with a reputation to uphold. If it thought the claims made in an article were lies, as my opponent seems to, they would certainly not have published it. For example, they certainly would not have published an article written by the distinguished Birdman372537. And even if the Wall Street Journal had decided to publish an article it knew was riddled with dirty lies and false claims, it would be utterly irrelevant. An official Representative of the United States of America is completely reliable in itself. My opponent has not offered any logical reason why my source is unreliable, he has simply committed the Genetic Fallacy and stated the obvious fact of where my argument came from, as if that settled the issue. It does not.

==Con Case==

I will now reveal how obviously absurd my opponent’s moral reasoning is by using his exact words.

“Plan A is immoral.”

Plan A saves 500 people from death.

Therefore: It is immoral to save 500 people from death.

Again, my opponent’s moral claims are shown to be illogical and abhorrent.

Contention 1:

CONCEDED. It makes no difference! So what if more could be done? It doesn’t matter unless my opponents reprehensible moral logic is valid, which it is clearly not. (note that I concede that TPTP is not perfect, not my opponent’s rhetorically charged title, “TPTP is a Dumb Idea.”)

Contention 2:

a/b)

House Concurrent Resolution 34 (TPTP) is not a moral law that can be broken, such as those banning murder or theft. It appropriates funds. Only the Congress can do this, and it really doesn’t matter if the people feel like obeying it or not. If congress doesn’t appropriate the money, the money simply isn’t there to spend. Also, my opponent has completely ignored my empirical source that clearly means that GDP growth is in fact very good.


In conclusion, I have again refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments, and therefore my case still stands.

I thank my opponent and await his reply.

Sources:

[1] http://www.cbo.gov... {figure 1}

Sieben

Con

=== Pro Case ===

Prestandards

1) Drops are Concessions

Pro says that his g and h arguments still stand because he has defended the WSJ source. This is dealt with elsewhere in the debate. Just remember that I haven't DROPPED the WSJ argument, so he can't claim auto-victory on these points.

Pro tries to weasel around the prestandard's intention by saying that even though I didn't drop the source, I dropped the argument. Notice that he's not claiming I dropped arguments a-f even though their logos is exactly the same and g-h.

I just made a typo in round 1, later clarifying that I meant my arguments to apply to all his WSJ claims. I think the audience should recognize this as a desperate attempt to win on a trivial and harmless non-technicality.

2) Supporting Citations

Pro says he is explaining his evidence because he's quoting it. But he only quotes the parts where Paul Ryan describes his intended outcomes. "TPTP will be good and lower deficits". He never quotes Paul Ryan explaining which laws will change, what items are on his budget list, etc. He just says "bad things are bad and we're going to get rid of them".

That's not a plan.

So no. He is not *explaining* the source. He is only taking quotes that make blank assertions. Those are not arguments, they are victory chants.

Pro goes on to sort-of-not-really attack my use of sources, which really only consist of simple facts which Pro never bothers to contest.

Pro goes on to say that he is arguing with facts, claiming that economics is a precise science. He has no source or reasoning. He is just trolling. I merely have to remind the audience that the stock market is volatile, economic downturns exist, and no one can predict the future.

Even still, Pro's burden is to PROVE his arguments. Not say "hur hur Paul Ryan said so".

Pro vaguely complains that my sources were from wikipedia, even though I already pointed out the wikipedia articles used reputable sources. Pro has not contested any of my facts directly, so we'll leave it at that.



Contention 2:

a-b)

i) Pro just blankly asserts that Paul Ryan's plan is PURE FACT. No. Facts exist. Paul Ryan's plan has not been implemented yet. It does not exist. How did he calculate that his plan would reduce the deficit and end corruption? Pro never explains.

He is running his case off an external website. It's totally abusive because we have limited character space.

Pro complains that my [1][2][3][4] IS evidence spamming. I'm glad he agrees. Wouldn't it still be evidence spamming if I extracted quotes from those articles saying stuff like "Deficit spending is good"? You have to explain your sources. It isn't enough to say: "the source says the source is right".

But again, Pro tries to rebut the sources saying that they are just info pages. Well the information applies to TPTP. It says that TPTP is wrong. Problem?

ii) Pro says that the CBO has been super accurate, but this is according to the CBO itself. I'm beginning to believe that Pro doesn't know what "conflict of interest" is. He quotes Paul Ryan to defend Paul Ryan and now the CBO to defend the CBO. It's ludicrous...

In the report, he points to figure 1, but it doesn't say they are 98% accurate, it says they fail estimating the GDP by up to 2%. Given that the GDP grows 2-5% every year, this is up to a 100% error rate. Pro is just mathematically ignorant.

Pro continues to attack my sources because they are blogs. But if you look, they link to where they get their data. It's mostly from the CBO's RAW reports, not their self processed documents that Pro cites. So again, prefer my sources.

c-h)

Pro says that we don't have to use reasoning because TPTP's claims are empirical facts. Well they haven't happened yet so they aren't empirical or factual. They're hypothetical.

Even well understood physics, such as projectile paths, have underlying REASONING behind their predictions. If we were having a debate about projectiles, I would expect Pro to show his physics calculations. Since we are having a debate about economics, I expect some economic analysis. Pro has none. He is not even trying to prove his case.

Pro concedes that Paul Ryan is indeed his only source on TPTP. He thinks this is okay because it is from the WSJ. Pro has never given us any reason to think the WSJ journal is credible on financial issues. The WSJ's job is to make money and Paul Ryan is a flashy politician. Put two and two together? Okay.

You can also look directly at Paul Ryan's work and see that it's garbage. I've been trying to explain that he doesn't really have a plan. His total incompetence over the military issue should prove that he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't know how much he's spending. He doesn't know what he's spending it on. He doesn't know what to do with existing military resources. He just thinks that "waste" is "bad". That's not a plan. He's a hack.

Pro briefly acuses me of making the genetic fallacy. I'm not saying Paul Ryan is wrong because he published in the WSJ. I'm saying that having a post on WSJ's opinion page doesn't automatically make you right, particularly if your work is verifiable crap.


==Con Case==

Framework:

It is immoral to save 500 people if you could save 1000 (all things equal). Derp. This is pretty simple. Why should we pass TPTP if we have SO many better alternatives?

Contention 1:

a)


Pro concedes that if my moral framework is valid, then this contention is valid. Okay.

Pro dropped all the arguments he made on these points. Pro doesn't take his own arguments seriously. Why should you?

i) Dropped. My source is cool.

ii) Dropped. TPTP fails hard on military spending.

iii) Dropped. TPTP has no analysis. It's just a political stunt.

iv) Dropped. My use of sources is fine.

b)

i) Dropped. Pro can't explain TPTP's logic. That's his job...

ii) Dropped.

iii) Dropped. Morality does not constrain us to Paul Ryan's retarded document.

iv) Dropped. Prima facie concern raised over the sheer incompetence of TPTP.


Contention 2)

a)

i) Pro does not rebut my charges of Legal Mysticism.

ii) Pro's plan does not address the fundamental problems of our political system. At best, it is just a bunch of plans. But "decisions were made by PEOPLE, and their incentives need to be changed before we can expect different behavior."


b)

Pro says something... completely incoherent about only Congress being able to appropriate funds. Its total nonsense and he doesn't draw impact anyway.

i) Pro ignores my analysis. Big GDP is not automatically good as per my thought experiment. Pro's source on this does not offer any explanation.

ii) Dropped again. Individual choice is superior to a big number.

=== Conclusion ===

Pro's case comes down to this:

Paul Ryan is right because Paul Ryan said so
The CBO is good because the CBO said so
Big GDP is good because the government said so

These are not arguments.

Pro has dropped the majority of my case, failing to defend or answer even really basic questions about the document. I think I know more about TPTP than he does. I guess Pro only read the introduction...

Debate Round No. 3
RightWingConspiracyGuy

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent again for so passionately repeating his arguments.

As this is my last argument, I will only be able to briefly refute my opponent’s arguments, and then go on to summarize the course of this debate. Also, I would request that my opponent post no new arguments in the final round, as I will have no opportunity to refute them; as well as the audience to disregard any arguments my opponent makes in the final round if there are any.

=== Pro Case ===

Prestandards

1) Drops are Concessions

My opponent claims here that he has not dropped my arguments g and h because he has attempted to refute my extremely reputable source. However, he has not even attempted to refute the specific arguments. To quote his own prestandard, “Dropped arguments ought to count as concessions.” Again, no mention at all of sources, only arguments. The idea that my opponent made a typo when writing his prestandards is so ludicrous that I will barely bother to address it. He had time to think about and edit his argument, and to all of a sudden bring up that it was only a mistake is suspicious at best.

2) Supporting Citations

This is not a debate about the interpretation of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 34, nor is it about the specific aspects of standing law that it alters. It is about the effects it would have on this country and whether or not it should be passed. And so the claim that I have to say exactly how and where every single miniscule thing in the bill is done is simply ludicrous. I have accurately cited reliable empirical sources stating clear and simple facts that lead to an inevitable conclusion: The Path to Prosperity should be passed. My opponent has not bothered to legitimately contest these facts; he has merely constantly complained that I haven’t cited the entire chapter they came from. Also, it is worth pointing out that my opponent has completely neglected to say a single thing about my previous quotes that show my citations actually tend to be just as long as or longer than my opponent’s.

He also says that I have not really attacked his sources. This is not the case. I do directly contest his sources, on the grounds that they are not really sources at all. They come from Wikipedia, which, according to the court system of the United States, is “inherently unreliable.” My opponent goes on to claim that his Wikipedia articles used reputable sources (the CBO, perhaps?). This begs the question, why does he not simply cite these sources?

Contention 2:

a-b)

Here my opponent again attempts to contest my factual reasoning with flaming rhetoric and… well, that’s really it. Just groundless rhetoric. He makes absolutely no actual arguments in this paragraph. I would also like to point out that no one is saying the Path to Prosperity would end corruption, and it is not me that is saying the Path to Prosperity would lower the deficit; it is the Wall Street Journal. My opponent again repeats his increasingly tiresome “evidence spamming” pseudo-argument. I have repeatedly refuted this argument, and do not have time or space to do it yet again.

Furthermore, he also assaults the well-established science of economics, repeating his previous argument and claiming both that my source defending the CBO’s economic projections comes from the CBO and that is does not actually say what it says(?). Neither of these claims is true. First of all, my opponent has completely ignored that my sources are actually Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, both credible government agencies which I dearly hope my opponent will not also attack as not credible (all while continuing to cite Wikipedia). Secondly, my opponent appears to claim that my source (which I thought was too unreliable to even bother refuting anyway), doesn’t even say what the Congressional Budget Office says it does. He claims that I am mathematically ignorant, but I am sorry to say that the statement my opponent says I am ignorant of, that “since the GDP grows 2-5% every year, this is up to a 100% error rate,” is incoherent in itself. I am sure I could refute it if I had any idea what it was talking about, but unfortunately I do not. The fact still stands that the Congressional Budget Office’s projections are reliable.(just a side note: my opponent goes on to defend his blog-sources by claiming that they cite the CBO, which is horrible and evil and wrong and bad and tells filthy lies.)

c-h)

This section consists entirely of my opponent’s again-regurgitated “evidence spamming” pseudo-argument, mixed with vicious rhetoric that accuses respected Representatives of the United States of America of being “hacks” that produce “verifiable crap,” as well as saying that the Wall Street Journal is not qualified to comment on matters of economics. I admit it, I did scandalously assume along with millions of other people the WALL STREETJournal is credible on matters of WALL STREET. I simply have no time to waste on this entirely ridiculous section.

==Con Case==

Framework:

My opponent has devoted a blurb of a whopping total of less than 30 words to this issue (if you count “derp” as a word), which is arguably one of the most important in this debate. In these less than 30 words, he has simply regurgitated his previous argument, not even offering any variation on it at all. Spoiler: the first words of his argument are “It is immoral to save 500 people.” This morally reprehensible logic is clearly unacceptable and, solely on that basis, I should win this debate. Unless, of course, you would be just fine with watching passively as hundreds of people burn to death. In that case, Sieben definitely wins.

Contention 1:

It is true that the Path to Prosperity is not perfect, but once again IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE PATH TO PROSPERITY SHOULD BE PASSED.

Contention 2:

My opponent seems to not realize that if Congress does not appropriate funds, they are not there. The Congress does not say, “It would be nice if you would spend about this much money, if you want.” It says, “This is how much money you will spend. If you want more, too bad.” This is not an incoherent statement, nor is it Legal Mysticism. It is the way our government works.

CONCLUSION

In this argument, I have presented source after source, time and time again to prove that the Path to Prosperity should be passed. My opponent has not even attempted to answer any of these factual arguments. Instead, he has merely constantly whined that I didn’t cite enough of my sources, or that my sources weren’t reliable, or that I hadn’t reasoned through my citations. The list of refuted complaints goes on and on. However, the list of actual arguments does not go on and on. In fact, there were no actual arguments on my opponent’s side, only disgruntled moans of annoyance. And so, in conclusion, I ask you to consider these questions. What does my opponent have? Nothing but a laundry list of unsubstantiated complaints. What do I have? An equally long list of sound arguments, supported by valid logic as well as undisputable, empirical facts, all leading to the inevitable conclusion:Representative Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget proposal should be passed.

Closing, I would like to remind my opponent of my previous request to not post any new arguments in the final round, as I won’t be able to refute them. Also, as I originally stated, I was looking forward to a serious, well-informed debate about what is possibly the most important problem our nation currently faces, not mindless semantic nitpicking. I am sorry to say I am truly disappointed.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who spends himself in a worthy cause, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

- Theodore Roosevelt


Sieben

Con

=== Pro Case ===

Prestandards

1) Drops are concessions

I have not dropped the WSJ source anywhere. Pro wants you to believe that his sub points are distinct arguments. They are not. They use the same logos - "because Paul Ryan said so in the WSJ, they are true". So the judges should consider his WSJ contention 1 big argument and recognize that I have addressed it.

I really did make at typo with the tags, and it makes no difference. My argument against a-e is the same as f and g.

2) Supporting Citations

Pro says he shouldn't have to spell out everything in TPTP. But if he doesn't explain ANYTHING. He can't even answer a really really simple question about the military. Just "hur hur the plan will work so sayeth Paul Ryan on the WSJ's opinion page".

So again, his quotes are basically just victory chants. They claim TPTP will accomplish some goal, but do not explain how. Pro does not explain how.

Pro says he attacks my sources. He attacks their CREDIBILITY, which is problematic, but he doesn't extend that to actually claim that their factual content is wrong.

Pro brings up his own dropped argument against wikipedia - namely that the government says its bad. I pointed out that the government lies too (OMG!) and that my wikipedia article got its sources from the Dept. of Defense. So *shrug*.


Contention 2:

a-b)

i) Dropped. Paul Ryan's plan has not been implemented yet. We do not know for sure what its effects will be. We can try to use REASONING to figure it out, but Pro has presented NONE.

Dropped. He is running his case off an external website. This is abusive because we have limited character space.

Evidence spamming point also dropped. Either Vote Pro down for evidence spamming, or vote him down for failing to address Keynesian economics.

ii)

Pro's only defense for using the CBO to evaluate the CBO is that the government is super trustworthy. He does not prove this anywhere. I'll just point you to my previous source proving that the government lies.

Pro completely blunders the GDP estimation point. The CBO has guessed GDP within 2%. But GDP only grows about 2% per year. 2/2=1. Their margin of error is 100%, not 2%.

c-h)

I do not only rely on my "evidence spamming argument", but Pro is spamming evidence. The TPTP is about a hundred pages long and Pro is just saying "Hurp - this plan will work you can read about it here".

Pro drops the physics/economics comparison. Even if economics were an exact science, he still needs to show his reasoning behind his predictions.

Pro says the WSJ is super credible because it calls itself the "WALL STREET" journal, therefore it must know about "WALL STREET". He completely drops my arguments about the WSJ being profit oriented. It has no reason to seek out the truth... particularly on its opinion page where a politician can do his little dance and no one (except Pro) will take him seriously.

Pro also fails the challenge that Paul Ryan's work is garbage. If you are in any doubt over this debate, please open TPTP and start reading it. It is garbage. Seriously just look at both Pro and Paul Ryan's total failure on the military issue. Neither of them have any idea what they're talking about.

=== Con Case ===

Framework:

It is immoral to save 500 people > If < you could save 1000 (all things equal). TPTP is, at best, the 500 person option. Morality requires that we choose from many better plans.

Contention 1:

a)

i) Dropped. My source is still cool.

ii) Dropped. TPTP and Pro fail on military spending.

iii) Dropped. TPTP is just a political stunt. It has no reasoning.

iv) Dropped. My use of sources is fine.

b)

i) Dropped. Pro can't explain why TPTP will work.

ii) Dropped.

iii) Dropped. I'm allowed to use other plans.

iv) Dropped. Be concerned that TPTP was written by a flag waving monkey.

Contention 2:

Aww that's so cute. We are all aware that congress appropriates funds, and may be constrained by a budget. Durrrrrrrrr not topical to this contention.

a)

i) Pro doesn't understand my charges of legal mysticism. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean anyone will follow that law.

ii) Dropped. Pro's plan does not address the fundamental problems with our system.

b)

i) Dropped. I win GDP.

ii) Dropped. You can totally ignore all of TPTP. Even if it is a flawless art piece of state policy, its focus is on making numbers on a balance sheet bigger. Pro dropped and therefore conceded that we should value individual choice instead.

Conclusion

Pro only has one source: Paul Ryan. According to Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan has a good plan. The WSJ let Paul Ryan use their opinion page because it makes them money. This is not acceptable.

If you are in doubt, just look at my attacks on the document. They go totally unanswered.

There are numerous other problems with the round... Pro has basically run his case off an external website. He has misunderstood his own CBO source. He has dropped the vast majority of my arguments, implicitly conceding them. etc. You can vote on any of these points alone.

Lastly, his Theodore Roosevelt quote implies that Paul Ryan is really just doin' the best he can god bless em'. This was spiked by my prima-facie argument that Paul Ryan's document has so many errors and omissions that it is NOT a serious piece of legislation. Paul Ryan is probably mentally handicapped.

This is a political stunt. That is all.


Debate Round No. 4
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RightWingConspiracyGuy 5 years ago
RightWingConspiracyGuy
CLEARING THE AIR (AGAIN!):

Sieben: "Economics is not an exact science."
FACT: "Economics is not only a social science, it is a genuine science. Like the physical sciences, economics uses a methodology that produces implications and tests these implications using solid statistical techniques."
-The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 115, Feb. 2000

Sieben: "He's not debating. He's evidence spamming"
FACT: My opponenet's ENTIRE CASE depends on this ONE ARGUMENT. He has used it to basically disqualify all of my factually based arguments. He has said essentially, "Your entire case doesn't count because it uses too many facts instead of just spewing opinions (a.k.a. "analysis")." However, the fact of the matter is, if I am guilty of evidence spamming because my evidence explanations are too short, then my oponnent is guilty of the very same offence himself. For example:

Me: "According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity lowers the top tax rate to 25% for everybody, which has been shown to actually increase tax revenues. (14) However, these tax cuts remain absolutely revenue-neutral by also eliminating the tax deductions and loopholes that allow some corporations to pay less or even no income taxes. (12)"

Sieben: "CBO estimates are off by up to 113% when compared to actual spending [2]."

Me: "According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, if we continue on our current economic path, our debt will equal 900% of our Gross Domestic Product. (2) Think about that. That means that even if we confiscated every single penny earned in the entire nation and spent it all on the debt, we would only have paid off one ninth of the debt."

Sieben: "Their(The CBO) numbers are systematically biased towards underprediction of deficits and overestimation of revenues [1]."

And so, it is clear that, as I have said before, I am NOT guilty of evidence spamming; and if I am, then so is my opponent.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Again, it is good to have rules. You cannot make them up by yourself and ask voters to impose them."

Except my rules are justified. See they have justifications by them. You have never engaged them or shown why I am wrong to force them on my opponent.

Arguments in the last round? Hm? Any thoughts on that Roy? What about running your case off an external website?

"Ryan is widely acknowledged as an authority on the budget numbers. The argument against the Ryan plan from the Left is not that he fails crunching the numbers, it is that it will throw Grandma into a snow bank. Obama said, literally, that under the Ryan plan autistic children will be denied care. The Libertarian opposition. per Rand Paul, is that it doesn't go nearly far enough in quickly producing a balanced budget. Again, Ryan's numbers are accepted."

Appeal to authority. If you're going to have your case rely on numbers you have to be prepared to prove them.

"If there is something wrong with them, then a source should be given."

See this is where you are backwards. The burden is not on me to come up with evidence to disprove Paul Ryan, because Paul Ryan himself does not give evidence, just his opinion.

Its like there is no lower limit on how crappy a source is with you Roy. No matter how bad it is, you think I lose if I don't give a hyperlink URL in response. Nevermind that Pro can't explain Paul Ryan's plan or reproduce any of the numbers. Zzzz

"That's a purely theoretical debater's argument. If a member of Congress got up and said that about virtually any bill, the laughter would be bipartisan."

Except this is not congress. Pay attention.

"The argument against the WSJ should be have been that some source shows that the savings were not as much as claimed or that the cuts were too severe, so that the true numbers show the plan should not be adopted. You made no connection."

Except I'm sure that TPTP is better than the status quo. See the moral criterion.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Moreover, it's a high level planning document. You needed to establish why a high level planning document ought to have details beyond saying that $800 billion will be cut from Defense. "

First, that's your opinion. Pro never pointed this out.

Second, if Pro is going to claim advantages from his TPTP PLAN, then I need to see a PLAN. If he can't even tell me if $800bn will be an increase/decrease over status quo. When you say "$800bn will be cut from defense" it just proves again that you didn't read the debate.

"You cited CATO's list of possible additional cuts without reproducing their analysis. That shows you use references conventionally when you want to."

I quoted them in full. Read the debate. I did not say "We can save more money [1]" and leave it at that.

"No, you would have to establish that it was critical or significant to adoption of the plan."

Pro himself said it was because he's trying to reduce deficits. I pointed this out too. Read the debate.

"You conceded that TPTP reduces price supports. The idea that it ought to be rejected because it does not eliminate them is something outside the realm of politics. You argue that all supports should be rejected because sugar supports, long gone, led to health hazards. That's truly bizarre."

I don't even know where to start. This is so foregone. Eliminating price supports is within the realm of politics. That's because price supports are laws, and laws are political. I did not argue that all supports should be rejected just because of sugar imports. That is an independent point.

In fact I merely pointed out that since TPTP gives free market logic to defend reducing price supports, it should be able to give logic why it does not eliminate them entirely (as is the free market position). It does not because its an amateurish political stunt.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Pro did not say to go read the articles and use that a case. He used them to support results."

Just because you put [1] at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it actually supports your argument.

"You may think it unacceptable that people reference dictionaries, physics textbooks, and the WSJ for various facts, but debate done without factually references is unrelated to the real world. Perhaps you think WSJ numbers are unfounded opinion? That's not reasonable, as their business is economic numbers. Dictionaries are not just opinions about word meanings; they can be disputed, but not just flatl"

Okay, for the tenth time, you obviously have not read the wallstreet journal source. It is not a WSJ article. It is Paul Ryan writing about his own plan on the WSJ's opinion page.

Besides that, again I am not saying he's wrong just because authorities say it. I'm saying he has to actually prove his burdens, not give citations paying lip service to his position.

"No, it was not obvious. Just say that you concede Contention 1 and get on with the debate."

It was obvious to everyone else. You are being intentionally obtuse. I have no idea why.

"You seem to argue that he TPTP should therefore be rejected if it has any imperfection whatsoever. It's clear we are talking about legislation, where talking about rejecting the imperfect is silly. "

OH THANKS ROY. THANKS FOR USING YOUR OWN REASONING AGAINST MY CASE. Pro never wrote this ANYWHERE. You're iron-manning his case for him and then claiming he beat me. What a joke.

Additionally, I didn't claim that imperfection = bad, I claimed that if it was obviously inferior to some other plan, it can't be "moral" to pass it.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"I never said that debates ought to consist entire of facts. I said that debate on most subjects needs to reference facts. The way to reference them is to find sources. The source can be challenged, of course."

Except you said: "I think that debate is about making clear fact-based arguments and providing clear fact-based opposing arguments."

"You confirm exactly what I claimed. You are saying there is no such a thing a requirement to make a prima facia case."

No. You claimed we were obsessed with technicalities.

Why should there be a requirement to make a prima facie case? You can use really bad arguments if you want, and if your opponent doesn't rebut them he loses. This is because debate is a contest between two people.

"No problem if rules are agreed to. You asked the debate to be judges on rules not agreed to."

Except if people disagree on the rules the rules can still be valid. That's why I have arguments for them...

"Is completely straightforward sourcing. The refutation is to find another source that contradicts it. "

Wrong. His use of sources is an appeal to authority. He's just saying "i'm right because the walstreet journal said so". Your remedy, to find another source, is basically asking me to say "he's wrong because the new york times said so". Do you see how that doesn't resolve the underlying issue? That neither of us are arguing?

You are just fetishizing hyperlinks whether or not they are valid or contain any content.

"I gave the Census Bureau as an example of the logic of using sources. You cannot come back and claim the population is completely unknown because the Census Bureau s an authority. You could cite errors in Census Bureau methodology, etc."

No I can't, because all the sources do not contain the actual methodologies used. They just say "oh yeah we found out TPTP will do X".
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Ryan is widely acknowledged as an authority on the budget numbers. The argument against the Ryan plan from the Left is not that he fails crunching the numbers, it is that it will throw Grandma into a snow bank. Obama said, literally, that under the Ryan plan autistic children will be denied care. The Libertarian opposition. per Rand Paul, is that it doesn't go nearly far enough in quickly producing a balanced budget. Again, Ryan's numbers are accepted.

If there is something wrong with them, then a source should be given. Moreover, the relevance of the error should be established. I the cuts are more severe than claimed that supports the Grandma in the snow bank argument, but it defuses the Libertarian position. Con made no argument about impact of relevance.

I think Republicans acknowledge that it isn't a detailed budget proposal. Keep in mind that ever since Obama took office there has been no budget document at all.

Con's position in this debate was mainly that because it could be improved, it shouldn't be passed. That's a purely theoretical debater's argument. If a member of Congress got up and said that about virtually any bill, the laughter would be bipartisan.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
"You are also intentionally blowing the "K" thing out of proportion. Obviously I meant to imply that these sub points are irrelevant and I just concede them. The status quo is bad. I don't care."

No, it was not obvious. Just say that you concede Contention 1 and get on with the debate.

"I argued throughout the debate that it is not sufficient for Pro to maintain advantage over the status quo because "morality" requires that we choose the best known option."

The resolution is that TPTP should be adopted. You seem to argue that he TPTP should therefore be rejected if it has any imperfection whatsoever. It's clear we are talking about legislation, where talking about rejecting the imperfect is silly. Moreover, it's a high level planning document. You needed to establish why a high level planning document ought to have details beyond saying that $800 billion will be cut from Defense. You cited CATO's list of possible additional cuts without reproducing their analysis. That shows you use references conventionally when you want to.

"Pro never answered so we don't know if TPTP actually saves money. That's kind of important."

No, you would have to establish that it was critical or significant to adoption of the plan.

"You also ask what my addendum such as sugar quotas have to do with anything. They prove that TPTP is plan B."

You conceded that TPTP reduces price supports. The idea that it ought to be rejected because it does not eliminate them is something outside the realm of politics. You argue that all supports should be rejected because sugar supports, long gone, led to health hazards. That's truly bizarre.

Again, it is good to have rules. You cannot make them up by yourself and ask voters to impose them.

The argument against the WSJ should be have been that some source shows that the savings were not as much as claimed or that the cuts were too severe, so that the true numbers show the plan should not be adopted. You made no connection.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
"First, your concept of debate is wrong. Obviously debate must consist of more than just facts because there are resolutions which do not depend (entirely) on facts."

I never said that debates ought to consist entire of facts. I said that debate on most subjects needs to reference facts. The way to reference them is to find sources. The source can be challenged, of course.

"Second, your description of how Kenyon and I conceive debate is wrong. ... We're going to vote in favor of square circles if the opponent doesn't rebut it, source or no source."

You confirm exactly what I claimed. You are saying there is no such a thing a requirement to make a prima facia case.

"Rule violations are an incredibly important part of debate when run properly."

No problem if rules are agreed to. You asked the debate to be judges on rules not agreed to.

"Your argument that Pro followed "standard debate practice" may be true. If it is, that is sad. Because he DID use an appeal to authority."

Is completely straightforward sourcing. The refutation is to find another source that contradicts it. I gave the Census Bureau as an example of the logic of using sources. You cannot come back and claim the population is completely unknown because the Census Bureau s an authority. You could cite errors in Census Bureau methodology, etc. Pro did not say to go read the articles and use that a case. He used them to support results.

"Your analysis of whether we can use Census data shows that you are intervening on Pro's behalf."

What? I was explaining conventional use of sources. You may think it unacceptable that people reference dictionaries, physics textbooks, and the WSJ for various facts, but debate done without factually references is unrelated to the real world. Perhaps you think WSJ numbers are unfounded opinion? That's not reasonable, as their business is economic numbers. Dictionaries are not just opinions about word meanings; they can be disputed, but not just flatl
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
Except the big bolded text isn't a description of how the plan would work. It just makes the empty claim that it "FIXES MAJOR PROBLEMS AND HAS BENEFITS THAT OUTWEIGH ITS DISADVANTAGES."

Where's the proof? Nowhere.

And dude, you don't have 20 sources. In your first round alone half of your citations link to the same paper. The rest are either links that that walstreet journal article, or don't have anything to do with TPTP.

You also say that only one of your sources was written by Paul Ryan, when in fact TPTP AND the WSJ source were (presumably) authored by him.

So I guess that's a lot of reasons to think you're a liar.

I also addressed the genetic fallacy. I don't think something is false just because Paul Ryan says it, but that doesn't make it true either. The burden is on you to explain his plan. If you can't, that means you automatically lose no matter what I do.

I'm still waiting on whether TPTP is an increase or decrease in military spending over the status quo. Its been weeks and you're still as ignorant as ever.

You also really don't have any empirical evidence. Its either from the CBO, who never themselves disclose their methodology (so I can't challenge it), and who are also frequently incorrect by up to 100% or whatever it was. Contrary to what you think, measuring error in absolute terms is entirely misleading. Just watch I can predict your height to the nearest kilometer.
Posted by RightWingConspiracyGuy 5 years ago
RightWingConspiracyGuy
CLEARING THE AIR (CONTINUED):

Sieben: "He literally has no reasoning himself why TPTP will work."
FACT: Yet again, this claim is simply factually untrue. I laid out an original, valid, sound, coherent, logical syllogism in BIG, BOLD PRINT in the second round (I might point out that it was actually my OPPONENT who completely lacked a formal logical proof for his side of the debate).
Let me repeat it.

LEGISLATION THAT FIXES MAJOR PROBLEMS AND HAS BENEFITS THAT OUTWEIGH ITS DISADVANTAGES SHOULD BE PASSED.

THE PATH TO PROSPERITY FIXES MAJOR PROBLEMS AND HAS BENEFITS THAT OUTWEIGH ITS DISADVANTAGES.

THEREFORE: THE PATH TO PROSPERITY SHOULD BE PASSED.

It doesn't get much more reasonable than that.

Sieben: "Both his sources were in fact written by Paul Ryan himself"
Fact: First of all, I have no idea where this "both his sources" language comes from. I did not use only two citations, I used nearly 20 (which, by the way is almost twice the amount my opponent used; not to mention that mine were the OMB, etc., while his were Wikipedia, blogs, etc.) Secondly, although it is true that ONE of my many sources, the Wall Street Journal article, was writtren by Representative Ryan, it is entirely irrelevant to the debate. For all of my opponenet's whining about reasnoning and complaining about my lack if explaining why, he seems to care very little about these things when it comes to HIS arguments. He has blatantly committed the genetic fallacy by simply stating the obvious fact that the Wall Street Journal article was written by Paul Ryan as if this refuted all my arguments. It does not. Simply because Paul Ryan says something about his plan does not make it inherently false. The fact that he backs up his claims with empirical evidence certainly helps his case. Perhaps my opponent could learn from Mr. Ryan's example and cite some EVIDENCE in his arguments.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this debate was closer than Sieben gives it credit but he is still the clear winner. Pro's arguments were riddled full of logical fallacies.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: What J.Kenyon said. Trolololololol honest voting ftw!
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as J.Kenyon's RFD. Paul Ryan saying his own plan will work is clearly not real evidence.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: On argument: (1) pre-standard 2 basically kicks all the pro's empirical arguments, so no strong offense. It is important to realize that Con made the point that for debate you need to actual debate, which means analysis as well as evidence spam. (2) I think the GDP argument outweighs because it answers fundamental about economic prosperity. On Source: the fact that most of Pro's sources were self-referential is really abusive and makes for bad debate.
Vote Placed by Extremely-Far-Right 6 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reasons for what RoyLatham said.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: What Roy Said.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con mainly refused to debate the resolution. aliming that citing the WSJ is an "argument from authority" is not sustainable. It's a reasonable source which Con might try to counter with better evidence, but needed to address directly. Demanding "prestandards" to the extent that Con did is a conduct violation; just don't tak the debate if you want different rules. It is refusing to debate the topic.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: what is wrong with the other people voting on this debate, Pro argued from both his sources and CONS sources arguments to Pro spelling and grammar away from Con because of the 'sauce' he quoted from conduct to pro for not swearing always arguing with mature sentences as opposed to 'durrr...' sources to Pro effectively defending the facts from the WJS which Con spent way too much space the whole debate on arguing against. and for arguing with CONS sources he would cite to contradict his own
Vote Placed by mecap 6 years ago
mecap
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very well put argument.
Vote Placed by Staerkel 6 years ago
Staerkel
RightWingConspiracyGuySiebenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provides little key arguments on why the plan will work. Used an external site, and most of his "evidence" is just that Paul Ryan said so.