The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Should the U.S prioritize tax increase over spendings cuts?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,475 times Debate No: 28651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




Contention 1: Improves Social Needs and Public Welfare
Tax increases will enable the government to ensure that services to citizens are available, and necessary expenditures on infrastructure are met without the need for excessive bond issuances.

According to the New York Times, there is a direct correlation between the amount of money provided to Congress for the national budget and the quality of living in the US. In a study conducted by the Bureau of Economic Statistics, in the past 7 years, the average standard of living has been determined through looking at adjusted income per person and the poverty rate. In the years with a higher annual budget, the standard of living has risen higher than in years with a lower annual budget. The Board of Economic Advisors concluded from this study that the national budget reflects directly upon the standard of living in our country.

The government on us imposes taxes so that they can benefit us. Taxes are imposed so that roads get fixed. They are imposed so that we get an education. They are imposed so that people don"t invade our country. They are imposed to protect our rights. What right do we have to say that the government shouldn"t impose taxes on us? If we don"t pay for government programs, that money comes from excessive bond issuances.
According to the Department of Labor and Infrastructure, the lack of funding in their departments have caused the pushing back of almost a decade"s worth of renovation and projects to the point where many projects may never be finished.

By raising taxes, we will be able to ensure that our nation is up to date and has all the necessary expenditures to develop, and we can lower the poverty rate and invest more heavily in programs that will help improve the living conditions and living quality of Americans today.

Increasing tax rates also mean new jobs. The tax rates were increased in 1990 and 1993. Capital gain rates were cut slightly in 1996. And, 21 million new jobs were created in the 90s. That is about a 20% increase in the number of jobs available in the United States. The infamous Bush tax cuts passed in 2001, and even before the Bush recession began, job growth lagged behind GDP growth. After the Bush recession, we had a net job growth of 0%. And, thanks to population growth, no new jobs means record high unemployment, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Contention 2: Can reduce debt
We are currently in a 16 trillion dollar debt that is rising at the rate of 6 billion dollars every single day, according to the Department of Treasury. That"s almost 4 million dollars every minute.
To put our current situation into perspective, judge, our national debt at present is greater than the combined economies of China, the United Kingdom, and Australia combined. Should the burden of this debt be spread to all Americans, each American family in the US would owe about 50,113.78 dollars to various countries in the world.

The biggest problem right now is that we don"t have enough money to pay for some of our major programs and we are getting sucked into a death trap.
For example, 41% of our taxes are spent on Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare benefits according to However, when we pay our taxes for social security, it does not go to a private bank account where it is set-aside just for us. It goes to paying for the current recipients of these benefits.

But the problem is that over our lifetime, Americans still deposit less than the average American will take out of this funding. Every single year, for every dollar put into Social Security, more and more is being taken out.
The Bureau of Economic Statistics released a report in 2009 stating that at the current tax rate, by the time our generation gets to retiring age, there may not be enough money to pay for our social security benefits, and this is just one program of many.

Contention 3Deficit Spending Helps The Economy

: Daniel Mitchell, Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, Heritage, THE IMPACT OF

The economics of government spending is not limited to cost-benefit analysis. There is also the Keynesian debate. In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes argued that government spending"particularly increases in government spending"boosted growth by injecting purchasing power into the economy. According to Keynes, government could reverse economic downturns by borrowing money from the private sector and then returning the money to the private sector through various spending programs. This "pump priming" concept did not necessarily mean that government should be big. Instead, Keynesian theory asserted that government spending"especially deficit spending"could provide short-term stimulus to help end a recession or depression. The Keynesians even argued that policymakers should be prepared to reduce government spending once the economy recovered in order to prevent inflation, which they believed would result from too much economic growth. They even postulated that there was a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment (the Phillips Curve) and that government officials should increase or decrease government spending to steer the economy between too much of one or too much of the other. Keynesian economics was very influential for several decades and dominated public policy from the 1930s"1970s. The theory has since fallen out of favor, but it still influences policy discussions, particularly on whether or not changes in government spending have transitory economic effects. For instance, some lawmakers use Keynesian analysis to argue that higher or lower levels of government spending will stimulate or dampen economic growth.


I'd like to thank richarddong for this debate. It's my first on the site since the 2012-2013 season began, so I'll see if I can put to use what I've learned.

Before I begin, I'd like to remind voters that the burden of proof in this debate rests on pro. Depending on how my opponent responds to this, I may be addressing this later in the debate.

Living Standards

We can start off by looking at the word "correlation." To win this point, pro must prove actual causation. His statistics from the Bureau of Economic Statistics, the New York Times, and the Tax Policy Center fail to do so. A variety of outside factors have to potential to impact living standards, including movements within the private sector and rampant government spending.

Pro's attempt to provide partial causation, through his analysis on public programs, falls short as well.
  1. These programs can potentially be privatized, which would increase efficiency and decrease the amount of money the government spends. Consequently, living standards would improve as the programs are made to be more efficient, and the deficit is reduced as government spending drops.
  2. These programs can be funded without increasing taxes. By decreasing government spending on harmful expenditures, the tax revenue that was previously being put toward funding such a program can be rerouted to pay for education or infrastructure. Consequently, living standards are increased because the important programs are being funded. At the same time, the deficit is being decreased as wateful government spending is being slashed.
  3. Certain programs, namely welfare benefits, do not benefit the economy. Consequently, increasing taxes to fund these programs places an entirely unecessary burden on taxpayers, and increases government inefficiency, which tends to spill over into other programs.
Separately, I'd like to note the negative effects of tax increases in regards to living standards. Tax increases harm the economy, which is a prereq to living standard solvency. Increasing taxes on individuals causes them to have less money available for their own use, reducing their personal living standards. Increasing taxes on businesses causes them to hire less people, increasing unemployment and pushing a vast amount of people into poverty.


My opponent never explains why tax increases provide better debt solvency than spending cuts. When attempting to reduce the deficit (and consequently debt), you can do so by decreasing spending or increasing revenue. Decreasing spending by a dollar decreases the deficit by a dollar, meaning spending cuts can also provide debt solvency. What we must look to in this round is who can provide the best debt solvency with the least economic harm.

That being said, we can first look to the fact that tax increases are less efficient for reducing the deficit. Tax revenue cannot be increased at 100% efficiency; there are various loopholes in the tax code which prevent this from occuring. Thus, debt solvency does not appear at a 1:1 ratio with tax increases. It does, however, with spending cuts. In the context of this debate, reducing spending by a dollar is a dollar off the deficit, plain and simple. There is no "spending cut" inefficiency that undermines the ability to solve for debt. In fact, spending cuts actually decrease overall inefficiency by decreasing waste, and thus provide debt solvency at either 1:1 ratio or a 1+:1 ratio.

Secondly, we can look to the fact that reducing the deficit/debt through tax increases is far more economically harmful than doing so through spending cuts. This will be discussed below, under the economy point.


This will be split into two sections.

First, tax increases harm the economy
: Christina Romer and David Romer, from the Department of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, found that "tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent" ( William Hauser provides partial analysis as to why this occurs: "Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income." (

The analysis is fairly simple: Increasing taxes on individuals, as mentioned above, decreases the amount of money they have to spend, and prevents them from being full-fledged consumers. Increasing taxes on businesses causes them to divert money away from productive investments so that they can avoid the new tax rate, in addition to straight up causing them to decrease hiring.

Second, spending cuts do not harm the economy:

We can begin by looking at the negative effects of spending in certain areas. Take note of the direct quote from my opponent's source, "The Keynesians even argued that policymakers should be prepared to reduce government spending once the economy recovered in order to prevent inflation, which they believed would result from too much economic growth." Unfortunately, this is already occuring. Government spending significantly increases inflation, by providing short term demand for a product and failing to provide long term supply increases.

Jim Powell of the Cato Institute finds that government farm subsidies, college loans, transportation subsidies, and mortgage subsidies significantly increase inflation in their respective areas. Directly quantifying this data is uneccessary, but amounts range from a 440% inflation in the cost of college to a 50% inflation in transportation costs ( Subsidies are entirely unecessary, and only serve to create economic bubbles which lead to eventual collapse. Thus, cutting these not only provides no negative impact to the economy, but actually provides a net economic benefit.

Welfare expenditures are another prime example of harmful spending. The Brookings Institute notes that "Common sense tells us that if able-bodied people get welfare benefits without doing anything in return, their incentive to work and achieve self-sufficiency will be diminished. This common sense view is also supported by a host of research studies. Reviews of the empirical evidence on this issue have consistently shown that welfare reduces work effort." ( Once again, cutting spending in this area will not only provide no negative impact, but actually increase work incentive and provide an economic boost.

Next, we can look to wasteful spending. Spending cuts, again in the context of this resolution, are aimed primarily at reducing government waste. This "waste" ranges from larger programs, such as welfare and certain forms of defense spending, to smaller inefficiencies such as spending $100 on muffins. Removing these programs results in negligible harms to the economy, while providing a large amount of debt solvency.

Finally, I'd like to conclude by extending my previous point on privatization into an "even if" argument: Even if my opponent can shown that government spending funds programs that benefit the economy, reducing government spending simply opens these services and industries up to the private sector, allowing for more efficient and better handled economic growth.

I'll refrain from drawing conclusions until the next round.

Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: Developed nations have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. We affirm the resolution.

Aff: Likely Effects of Global Warming

Heinzerling 2007 [Lisa Heinzerling, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, "Climate Change, Human Health, and the Post- Cautionary Principle," Georgetown Law Journal(forthcoming), September,]
According to the latest scientific research, we can expect the following in our warming world: disease-carrying insects will alter their ranges, appearing in places they have not been before and where humans have not developed immunities, causing more widespread incidence of vector borne diseases such as malaria; after a slight uptick, crop productivity will decline, causing a concomitant increase in the risk of malnutrition; water supplies will decrease due to reduced snowpack and increased drought; storms will become more frequent and severe, threatening Katrina like consequences for human health and welfare; flooding will grow more frequent and severe due to storms and sea level rise; diarrheal disease will increase due to floods and drought;17 cholera will grow more frequent and toxic due to higher water temperatures;18 sanitation facilities will fail more often due to more frequent extreme weather events, leading to increased spread of infectious diseases;19 ozone depletion will worsen with a changing climate,20 leading to increased incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and immune deficiency;21 increased pollen production will exacerbate allergies;22 hunger and malnutrition will rise due to drought and extreme weather events.23 Reviewing this list, it appears that there is almost no component of human health that will be untouched by climate change. And the list does not end here. The shrinking resource base of a warming world will also increase the likelihood of refugee crises, violent conflicts, and even wars.

Explanation: The outcomes of global warming will affect every single part of human life and nature, including society and welfare.
Developing, poorer countries are strongly affected but lack resources
Xinhua 2010
The core of the ongoing UN climate talks is that developed countries should take on their historical, legal and moral responsibilities for climate change, China's envoy on climate change negotiation said Monday.
Jamieson 1997 [Dale Jamieson, Henry R. Luce Professor in Human Dimensions of Global Change, Carleton College; Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder; and Adjunct Scientist, Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, National Center for Atmospheric Research., "Global Responsibilities: Ethics, Public Health, and Global Environmental Change," Indiana Journal Of Global Legal Studies, October 1,]
The people who suffer and die as a result of global change-induced health problems will largely be those who now have inadequate nutrition, lack access to clean water, and fail to benefit from the most basic advances in public health. This is because infectious diseases take their heaviest toll on those whose health is already compromised, and because poor people do not have the resources to permit them to adapt to global change, such as reengineering coastlines, installing air conditioners, or even to purchase drugs. Adopting the second paradigm of moral responsibility implies that we should act now to benefit those who live in misery, whatever the cause.
Explanation: Developing and poorer countries are harmed by the warming effects more than developed nations with more resources.

Developed Nations Have Harmed Other Countries in Their Race to Profit and Must Repay

Explanation: Developed nations, in their race to industrialize and succeed, neglected the environmental effects to other countries. They must now pay for these damages by mitigation.
1.1.1Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta
By Amnesty International
"While the priority is to prevent pollution that leads to the violation of human rights, swift and effective clean-up and rehabilitation of pollution and environmental damage, once these have occurred, is critical to the protection of human rights. If pollution and environmental damage persist, then so, frequently does the associated violation of human rights, driving people deeper into poverty through long-term damage to livelihoods and health.
Clean-up of oil pollution in the Niger Delta is frequently both slow and inadequate, leaving people to cope with the ongoing impacts of the pollution on their livelihoods and health. Failure to swiftly contain, clean up and remediate oil spills can increase the danger of fires breaking out and causing damage to life and property. Fires may be started deliberately or accidentally but can be devastating.
Both the government of Nigeria and Shell - the main oil company operating on land in the Niger Delta - have a responsibility to clean up oil operations and come clean about the human impact of the oil industry in the Niger Delta."

Responsibility to Future Generations

M. Frischmann 2005 [Brett M. Frischmann, Assistant Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago School of Law., "Some Thoughts on Shortsightedness and Intergenerational Equity," April 4]
It is rather easy to understand that we ought to care for our own future and thus condemn shortsighted decision-making that will come back to haunt us. If the costs of decisions made by each generation are borne by that generation, then there is a decent libertarian argument that we do not need to examine intergenerational equity. Instead, we can simply let each individual (generation)

3.635decide for him or herself (itself) whether to invest for the future, so long as costs are not externalized. But it seems that the present generation has mastered the art of pushing the costs of shortsighted decisions onto future generations (stop for a moment and think about any of the following: Social Security, the National Debt, Global Warming, and so on)
What is intergenerational equity? Intergenerational equity is a principle of distributive justice. It concerns the relationship among past, present, and future generations. There are many ways in which we might conceptualize the basic contours of an equitable relationship among generations. From a social contract perspective, we can imagine that all generations (or members of generations) are partners in a social contract defining rights, duties, and obligations among generations (or members of generations).
Explanation: The current generation has an obligation to keep the world clean and livable for the people to come and not neglect generational equity and the future environment for short-term gain.

Low-Cost Methods to Mitigate Warming

Worstall 2012 [Tim Worstall, Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, "The Cheap Way To Deal With Climate Change: Iron Fertilisation Of The Oceans," July 19,]
It"s been known for a long time that certain parts of the ocean are iron poor, a nutrient needed by various algae. Add the iron (as Saharan winds carrying iron rich dust into the Atlantic often do) and you"ll get algal blooms. What wasn"t certain was whether the carbon in such algal blooms sank to the ocean floor (in the end, to become new sedimentary rocks) or were released back into the water on the death of such algae. This experiment says that some portion does sink and that thus some carbon is sequestrated. Is this a complete solution to anything? No, not at all: there"s not enough of the ocean which is iron poor for us to fertilize to absorb all emissions. However, it is helpful: which is the first part of the equation. The second part is, well, how much does this cost? To which the answer is to any reasonable level of accuracy.



My opponent ignored all arguments and posted info on an unrelated resolution. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Sorry wrong one :( ]

We stand in firm affirmation of the resolution: US should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts. First, we will set down some criteria that either side will need to meet in order to win the debate. First and foremost, the resolution implies that either spending cuts or tax increases must be undertaken as a means of reducing the deficit to ensure long term economic prosperity.
Secondly, some combination of the two is clearly the right approach. The AFF, then, should acknowledge that some spending cuts are necessary, but maintain that greater emphasis should be placed on tax increases. The NEG should acknowledge that some tax increases are necessary while maintaining that the emphasis should be placed on spending cuts.
Thirdly, 60% of the budget goes to 3 things: health care, social security, and defense. Prioritizing spending cuts means prioritizing significant cuts to these big programs. Advocacy for cuts to other specific programs, such as the arts, should not be considered as voting issues, due to lack of impact.


An IEEE (Institute of Electrical/Electronic Engineers) guideline offers a very good definition:

The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain course of action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is recommended that).

From Google:

1.Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.
2.Indicating a desirable or expected state.


From Google:
1.Designate or treat (something) as more important than other things
2.Determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance.

Joseph E. Stiglitz [Prof. of Economics, Columbia University], "Stimulating the Economy in an Era
of Debt and Deficit," The Economics Voice (March 2012) <;
Under these circumstances, the traditional economists" solution has been to advocate the use of fiscal policy"tax cuts and/or spending increases. There is an especially compelling case for increasing public investments because they would increase GDP and employment today as well as increase output in the future. Given low interest rates, the enhanced growth in GDP would more than offset the increased cost of government spending, reducing national debt in the medium term. Moreover, the ratio of debt to GDP would decrease and the ability of the U.S. economy to sustain debt (debt sustainability) would improve. This happy state of affairs is especially likely given the ample supply of high-return investment opportunities in infrastructure, technology, and education resulting from underinvestment in these areas over the past quarter century. Moreover, well-designed public investments would raise the return on private investments, "crowding in" this additional source of spending. Together, increased public and private investment would raise output and employment in the short run, and increase growth and debt sustainability in the medium and long run. Such spending would reduce (not increase) the ratio of debt to GDP. Thus, the objection that the U.S. should not engage in such fiscal policies because of the high ratio of debt to GDP is simply wrong; even those who suffer from deficit fetishism should support such measures.

Explanation: Government public investments create growth and economic prosperity in the medium term. This is essential to the economic welfare and deficit reduction of the US.

Defunded Government Will be Unable to Maintain the Basis of our Economy
Johnson 2011 [Dave Johnson, "Conservative Tax Tricks " Did Tax Cuts Grow The Economy ," Campaign America's Future, April/18,]

Conservatives say that the economy boomed, and more revenue came in because of the tax cuts. What actually happened was government deficits and the resulting accumulated debt exploded, while our defunded government has since been unable to maintain the infrastructure and public structures (laws, courts, regulations, protections, schools, etc") that keep our economy competitive and our standard of living high. All you have to do is look at the record. Let"s do that here. (read this only if opponents want more evidence and examples) In 1981 " Carter"s last budget year " the on-budget (not from Social Security) tax receipts were $469 billion which was a 16% increase over the prior year. 1982 tax receipts were $474.3 billion, down to 1.1% over 1981, and the on-budget deficit shot up to $120 billion, a shocking increase of 62% in a single year! 1983 receipts were $453.2 billion, a drop of 4.4%, creating a deficit of $208 BILLION " an increase of 73%! In just those two years following the tax cuts our debt increased by $328 billion!

Explanation: All these things, which are defunded resulting from low government revenue, are what is generating a deficit. We must increase taxes in order to get more money to maintain the foundation of our economy and ensure long-term prosperity.

James Crotty [Professor Emeritus and Helen Sheridan Memorial Scholar Economics Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst], "The Great Austerity War: What Caused the Deficit Crisis and Who Should Pay to Fix It?" The Helen Sheridan Memorial Lecture, April 15, 2011. <;
Figure 4, based on a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of CBO data, assumes the Bush-Obama tax cuts will expire after 2012. It shows that the current and prospective deficit problems were exclusively caused by four factors: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Bush tax cuts; the revenue and spending effects of the economic downturn and projected sluggish recovery, and, to a lesser degree, measures taken to prevent a depression and financial market collapse.28 "The economic downturn, President Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years."29 Note that excessive spending on discretionary non defense spending, federal employee compensation, Social Security and Medicare, or other social programs do not appear on this list because they played no role in creating the deficits. Yet these are the programs the right-wing coalition insists must be cut to eliminate the deficit problem. In fact, the only responsibility of ordinary American people for the deficit problem was that they elected public officials who implemented and sustained the right-wing economic model and waged wars of choice. However, their culpability is diminished by two factors. First, the explanation of the causes of the crisis and the policies needed to end the crisis provided by our conservative corporate-controlled media is cut to fit the right-wing coalition's perspective on these matters. Therefore, most Americans do not understand the basic facts of the matter. Second, the political science literature documents that politicians only respond to the expressed preferences of the upper third of the income distribution.30

Explanation: The proposed cuts to our standard budget will not impact the deficit, as they are they not the cause nor the driving force behind the debt. In fact, these four factors are. Cutting into other programs would harm our economic growth and the people"s welfare.

There :D


Pro has completely ignored my round 1, and instead posted a few new arguments (I'll let voters decide if that's a conduct violation). Rather than respond to each individual point, I'll be making a list of issues which must be solved (voters) in this debate, and incorporate the new rebuttals as I go.


Weighing: Economic solvency is a prereq for increased living standards. Pro dropped this point. In addition, it relates to ultimate tax revenue for the government, as a stronger economy can result in increased revenue without increasing the actual tax rate. Finally, it relates to debt solvency, as a strong economy reduces the amount of welfare benefits that the government must pay out.

That being said, it's clear that the economy is the most important point in this round. Either side can win the other points in theory, but over the long term a strong economy is necessary to maintain American prosperity more than anything else.

Solvency: Again, this point will be split up into two sections: why tax increases harm the economy, and why spending cuts don't.

Tax Increases:

  1. Decrease the amount of money which individuals can spend. Consequently, the overall economic activity greatly decreases as citizen's money is instead being funneled into the government.
  2. Decrease the amount of money businesses have on hand. As a result, they decrease hiring and are prevented from growing to their maximum capability. While this alone decreases economic activity by a great amount, it also prevents individuals from gaining jobs, meaning unemployment will rise and gdp falls even more.
  3. Divert effort from productive investments to seeking "tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments." Rather than make an investment which benefits the economy as a whole, businesses and individuals instead make investments which exempt them from paying full taxes. As these kinds of investments are less economically beneficial than others, economic activity ultimately declines as a result.
  4. Overall, lowers real gdp by 3% for each 1% of gdp being taxed. Pro has completely dropped this, and failed to bring up a single statistic for his own side.
Spending Cuts:
  1. Decrease inflation. Pro's own source talks about the harms of the government creating demand for a product without increasing the supply. This is currently occurring in at least four areas, as I mentioned above. If spending is not cut, economic bubbles will continue to be created and then popped, leading to a continual cycle of economic collapse (as was seen with the housing market, and as may soon be seen with higher education costs). Pro also completely dropped this point.
  2. Increase work incentive, by eliminating certain forms of welfare. Pro completely ignore my point on work incentive, meaning you can flow it through entirely: Welfare causes certain individuals to not look for jobs, or to put the minimal amount of required work into their jobs. Cutting welfare spending increases work incentive and provide a boost to the economy.
  3. Eliminate wasteful spending, and consequently do not harm the economy. I can concede that certain government expenditures, such as infrastructure, are economically beneficial. However, spending cuts are aimed toward reducing government waste. This ranges from welfare, to defense contractors, to $100 muffins. These programs provide no benefit to the economy. Since my opponent only discusses the importance of programs that I'm not advocating cutting (actually, he doesn't even specify which programs these are), and then completely dropped my rebuttal, you must in turn completely ignore his point on the economy.
  4. Opens room for privatization. The private sector is capable of operating much more efficiently. Decreasing government involvement and the subsequent displacement opens job opportunities for the private sector, which can then gain an even greater economic benefit. Once again, pro completely dropped this argument, so flow the entirety of it through.
Additionally, pro never provided a figure for the economic harms of spending cuts. He quoted some people giving analysis as to why spending cuts are economically harmful, but this is outweighed by A) My own analysis and B) The fact that I actually brought up a statistic on the harms on tax increases. Since we have to weigh harms, con wins this point because he never even provides a harm to weigh.


This point will not contain a weighing section because A) I already discussed how it was outweighed by the economy, and B) Pro almost completely dropped this point.

Solvency: You can extend the entirety of my round 1 to refute the new argument brought up by my opponent in his last round. Pro claims that spending programs weren't responsible for the debt, but that is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that the U.S. currently has an extremely large debt problem. We must get out of it in the most effective, and least economically harmful manner. What originally caused the problem is not relevant - we need to look at what is best to do now.

That being said, flow through my previous rebuttals. I have shown that tax increases are muddled with inefficiencies, which means that increasing taxes by a dollar doesn't actually raise a dollar of revenue. I have also shown that spending cuts do not suffer these inefficiencies. Reducing spending by a dollar takes a dollar off the deficit, plain and simple. Since pro completely ignores this analysis, this point is a clear con win.

Additionally, as I stated in round 2, "we can look to the fact that reducing the deficit/debt through tax increases is far more economically harmful than doing so through spending cuts." Even if pro proved superior direct debt solvency, which he has failed to do, I have shown that tax increases would also ruin the economy.

Living Standards

Weighing: Obviously the least important point in the round. I have already shown how economic solvency is a prereq to living standard solvency, and pro completely dropped this argument. It has barely been in contention throughout the debate, and the impact is greatly outweighed by the other points on the flow.

Solvency: Pro completely ignored my rebuttal regarding causation. The entirety of pros point rests solely on correlation, which can be affected by a variety of outside factors. Again, pro never responded to this, meaning this is a clear con win.

Additionally, pro's argument on public programs providing a living standard benefit was completely dropped. To reiterate:
  1. These programs can still be funded without tax increases. By cutting government waste, we can divert the tax revenue that was going to that program and put it to use paying for a public service program. Pro's sole impact is negated, and he never responded to this.
  2. Privatization could increase the effectiveness of these programs, which would actually result in an increase for living standards. Again, no response from pro.
  3. Government waste provides no increase in living standards, meaning cutting this waste would not harm living standards. Yet again, no response from pro.

Pro dropped just about every point. For the point which he did not ignore, the economy, he simple restated his original contention. He provided no additional statistic to back up his claim, but merely requoted some additional faulty analysis.

Tax increases place an unnecessary harm on consumers, which decreases economic activity. They fund government programs which increase inflation, and lead to eventual economic collapse. Finally, they prevent privatization by creating government displacement in certain industries. They do not solve for debt, and they do not increase living standards. Pro dropped my analysis for every single one of these points.

Spending cuts do not harm the economy, decrease inflation, increase efficiency, and often times will provide an economic benefit. Pro again drops every single part of my analysis, and brought up no competing figures. Spending cuts do solve for debt, and don't harm living standards.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 3 years ago
No clue why the bottom half of my final round is a size smaller in font.
Posted by richarddong 3 years ago
Posted by Cody_Franklin 3 years ago
Make the voting period at least two weeks, and you have my attention.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Oryus 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter DS VB
Vote Placed by DarckShadows 3 years ago
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: I vote fairly
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
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: Pro dropped all of cons points conceding them to be true. He also posted a round of global warming, which is irrelevant. Con provided much more robust research on tax increases showing the detriment they cause to investing and economic growth. Con showed tax increases wouldn't fully fix the debt problem, and cutting spending would have fewer economic detriments. Overall, cons more robust case, not dropping arguments, and not posting an irrelevant round won him the debate.