The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

The U.S. federal government should increase social services for persons in poverty.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,715 times Debate No: 11599
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (6)




Hello. I am hoping that this will be debated in a CX fashion. I would like to forewarn my opponent that I will only be pasting card title and source when I post my case, simply for sake of space. If card legitimacy comes up I will happily post the full cards. I will begin with my case and then a basic summary. Thank you for whomever accepts my debate.

The thesis of this case is that SNAP is an extremely successful program that only needs more expansion. Ir works perfectly with the people it affects, but it does not sufficiently cover all the people needed. Increase of this is an obvious need. Therefore I affirm the resolution:


Observation I: Significance/Harms

A. One-sixth of America, almost 50 million, lives in a food insecure home and the number is increasing. FRAC 09

B. Families need more money for food as prices increase. Milam 09

C. The number of people experiencing food insecurity has doubled since 2000. FRAC 09

Observation II: Inherency

A. Needs increasing- Prior expansion not enough. Britney 09

B. Food Stamps Need More Funding. Frank 09

To solve for the above mentioned harms my partner and I offer the following plan:

Plank I: Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will be doubled to $100 billion
Plank II: Funding will come from a .5% tax on all goods except food and medicine which will provide $50 billion
Plank III: The affirmative reserves the right to legislative intent
Plank IV: Enforcement will be the Department of Agriculture

Observation III: Solvency

A. Food Stamps target the poor and are empirically successful.
Center on budget and policy priorities 4-3-09

B. The food stamp program must be expanded- It is the most efficient program and only needs more funding. RESULTS 2009

C. Food stamps efficiently solve hunger.

Observation IV: Advantages

A. Food stamps help stimulate the economy.

So in summary, SNAP is a program that has been shown to not only help people in hunger better than any other program, but also to do it faster than any other program. The problem with it is that is simply does not cover enough people. By expanding SNAP we can sufficiently solve for the harms stated.

I do hope this is accepted and, remember, CX format. Thank you.


Simply remember that I am not a CX debater, and thus, I'll probably get much of the format wrong. Oh well. That's DDO.

I negate that Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

For the sake of the debate, I hope it's clear that social services are generally defined as government subsidies, benefits, and services such as social security and medicare, subsidized food and housing, and free or discounted health care. The money to fund these social services is obtained through taxation, and increasing these social services would require a proportional increase in taxation.


I believe that my opponent may be employing a very sneaky tactic. If you'll look at his arguments, it's clear that he has provided absolutely no analysis. Only a list of brief claims, followed by a short cite. If it turns out that my opponent was attempting to bait me by presenting a remarkably bare case structure, only to unleash his full analysis of this structure in the coming rounds, I should think that counts against him. If not, we'll continue as normal.

1. Significance/Harms

I won't contest this observation. I'm sure that these claims are true (I trust your warrants), and have no bearing on either side of the case other than clarification.

2. Inherency

a. I wont contest this. I'm sure the needs of some people are increasing as a result of the financial crisis.

b. Arguing that food stamps need more funding presupposes first that it's morally permissible to infringe on the property rights of some people through mandatory taxation for the sake of people in need; that is, the rights of some take priority over the rights of others; furthermore, it presupposes that food stamps (i.e. subsidies) are a proper way to deal with economic hardship.

3. The "Planks"

I'll respond to the four "planks" as a, b, c, and d, respectively.

a. Privatize. As opposed to allowing government bureaucrats to force charity upon us, let private agencies (and private benefactors) provide voluntary aid to those in need.

b. Once again, he presupposes that taxes are a justifiable means of obtaining funding for anything. At the point that the government is forcing citizens into the dichotomy of "give up your money (taxes) or give up your freedom (jail)", it's clear that increasing taxes only allows the government more access to the rights of private individuals.

c. Okay. Pro can maintain a monopoly on legislative intent, inasmuch as the privilege isn't used in an attempt to force myself into an indefensible position. If he abuses it, he loses it.

d. The function of that department has nothing to do with providing social services to the impoverished []. Even if the plan to increase the coverage of "SNAP", the Department of Health and Human Services would probably be the one to do it.

4. Solvency

a. Whether they're successful is irrelevant, considering that - at best - one is helping the poor at the expense of the middle and upper classes. Again, Pro presupposes that the rights of some take priority over the rights of others. The 5th Amendment argues that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process of law []; that is, unless one has committed a criminal offense by infringing on the rights of another. Penalizing a person due to his success to reward someone due to his poverty is neither constitutional nor morally permissible.

b. The program is efficient in sacrificing the rights of the materially secure - that's nothing to brag about.

c. Private charities operating on voluntary donation (instead of stolen money) would be the legitimate response to hunger. Efficiency takes a back seat to ethical legitimacy, because the ends - no matter how desirable - don't justify any means that can get the job done. The need or pitiful condition of one person doesn't create any kind of a positive obligation upon me to provide aid. I have the RIGHT to do so, but not the DUTY. To say that the obligation exists is to say that, for whatever reason, I am obligated to sacrifice my rights for the sake of another person; unfortunately for Pro, all men are equal where rights are concerned. I can't stop the impoverished person from exercising his right to seek food, so long as he respects my right not to be stolen from - a right which this plan perpetuates the infringement of.

5. Advantages

a. Subsidizing something only gets you more of it. If you subsidize poverty, you get poverty. His evidence claims that food stamps will stimulate the economy, but that wasn't the case with the New Deal, or the Great Society, or the stimulus packages advocated by the Bush and Obama regimes [][][]

Pro's case is based on a few things. It's based on superficial claims, unwarranted presuppositions, faulty priorities, and a hint of conditionality (for focusing solely on SNAP). I offer no case of my own, and state only that, whatever the solution, this isn't it.

Vote Con, and I'll see you all in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1


I will be refuting my opponents attacks against my case going straight down the 'flow'.

Significance/Harms- Opponent did not attack and, as he stated, it must be known that he agrees my harms are very current and real.

Inherency- First of all, my opponent points out that I am assuming that is it morally right to force these people to pay mandatory taxes that won't actually help themselves. First of all, these people are living in the United States. As government works, the people abide by the governments laws, rules, and expectations in exchange for what the government has to offer for them (eg protection, security). As the amount of people hungry are increasing, this poses a risk to those not currently affected, because evidence shows they might be in the future. Because these people live here and abide by the government, it is the governments responsibility insure the safety of these individuals. So it is in fact the moral thing to do by implementing this tax. Secondly, my opponent addresses that I am assuming that food stamps is the proper way of dealing with economic hardship. It is unclear as to whether my opponent was referring to hunger, or another problem. If it was another problem, this is not the bases of my case AS it is meant to solve hunger. If my opponent was referring to hunger as this problem than my solvency states food stamps is, in fact, the proper way of dealing with this hardship.

As he labeled my planks a, b, c , and d I will refute them in this format.

a. Opponent states we should use private programs to accomplish this task I've provided. [conditional, no ev, would have already worked.] I will use three points to refute this.

1. This is a conditional argument. A conditional argument is one that the Aff cannot meet while abiding to the resolution. Because this is CX type debate it is unfair for the opponent to bring up such an argument, therefore, it should be thrown out and unconsidered.

2. The opponent has no evidence supporting his proposed action. He cannot tell us the success rate of these programs, who will oversee them, if they will cooperate, or even what they are. It would be irresponsible for the government to rely on programs they can't control to solve a problem of the utmost significance.

3. Thirdly, there is no program that will be created so that means these programs must already exist. Because hunger is STILL increasing we know that these programs do not work. Why should we use programs that have never worked to try to solve this epidemic hunger? Simple answer --- we shouldn't.

b. See my section in the inherency section for my justification. I would also like to throw in that this is an insignificant tax on the individual level. For instance, on a purchase of $100, this tax would only make me pay 50 cents extra. This small amount will not cause dis rest because it is so insignificant for the individual.

c. Legislative intent, or fiat, is only something that makes the topic more debatable. For instance, if there is a law forbidding food stamps in the U.S. fiat would give me the power to stop that law. This is in no way abusive to the Neg.

d. SNAP (the food stamps program used) is headed under the department mentioned. [] So it seems obvious that this is the correct agent of action and enforcer.

Solvency- Once again I bring back the point of the person/government symbiotic relationship. The people live here and therefore they relinquish some rights to the government. This includes their right to not pay compensation to the government. Secondly, this is such and insignificant tax on the individual level that it will not hurt the upper and middle class, as stated earlier. Thirdly, if you don't agree with any of my previous arguments, according to CX rules and regulations fiat gives me the right to go around the fifth amendment or any other law/policy/ordinance standing in my way.

Solvency(b)- Once again see previous point.

Solvency(c)- The opponent states that he a person has no DUTY to help others. While not, the person does have a DUTY to the government. (See previous points.) This DUTY is carried out in things such as taxes, this one being very minute. If a person does not want to pay taxes than they no longer have the right to be part of the government. If they remain in the U.S. than this person will be thrown in jail for abusing the rights no longer offered to them. As I said, it's a symbiotic relationship and we owe our government. Also regarding the private charities, see Inherency section. No evidence. Haven't already solved. You see my point.

Advantages- My opponent states that because other subsidies have not stimulated economy in the past, this one won't either. First of all, The Stimulus Act, New Deal, etc. have not increased food stamps. These are the things that directly stimulate the economy. For every $5 used with foodstamps there is $10 in economic stimulus. []

I will also refute the Negative's conclusion.

He states that I base this case on superficial claims while every single card is backed up with evidence. Masses of reliable evidence proves legitimacy. Opponent states I assume to much but my assumptions are only based on common fact and easy logic. States I have faulty priorities but I have proven Solvency so this is not true. As for conditionality, this could be said about any program or programs.

*In Summary*
So I have refuted all of negatives attacks which mostly said the same thing, just worded differently, and I have proven that my plan is fault free. It implements an insignificant tax on the individual level and uses the most sufficient and successful program possible. Everything is in order, as it should be, and I urge you to vote Affirmative.

Thank you and I look forward to the second round.


1. Harms

Note that, while I concede the existence of these "harms", that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with my opponent's plan for dealing with them. We simply agree that they exist.

2. Inherency

a. Regardless of whether or not the taxes can be used to a materially beneficial purpose is irrelevant. I am opposing taxes based on the lack of moral merit. Simply because one is born into the United States does not mean that the US Government has a higher claim to the life, liberty, or property of individual citizens than the citizens themselves. To claim that taxes are a moral means of funding government programs is to claim that stealing from some people for the sake of other people (i.e. violating the rights of some for the benefit of others) is ethically justifiable. All men have an equal claim to rights, and one man's need imposes no obligations on other man apart from a negative obligation not to be a hindrance to the man in need; note that the needy man has NO right to steal from me (whether he does it himself, or through the government) as a means of fulfilling that need. Helping the poor may seem like a noble cause at face value, but forcing individuals to "ante up" under threat of imprisonment isn't the proper means of fulfilling that intention.

b. While he argues that people may benefit from these services at a later date, it's no more justified to sacrifice or steal from others than it is for others to sacrifice or steal from you. Simply because some people may find the probability of receiving free aid at the expense of the rights of others appealing does not mean that the plan is ethically legitimate. If one is troubled by the possibility of going hungry, one should invest his money, save it in a bank, buy private insurance, or look to a private charity - not rely on the governmental theft as a means of parasitic existence.

c. Though he claims that his solvency argument proves that food stamps are a proper way of dealing with the harms we agreed upon, he doesn't actually back up this claim. His point on solvency argues that it's effective, efficient, and that it should be expanded. In terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, it may be a proper solution; however, recall that a given end doesn't justify the entire range of means available to that end. Sentencing every defendant to death may reduce crime (a desirable end), but that doesn't mean that a blanket death sentence is morally permissible. In the same spirit, efficacy and economic efficiency are admirable goals, but not when they are achieved at the cost of the rights of any man or group of men. The protection of rights and the prevention of the initiation of force supersede any secondary goals such as those.

3. The Planks

a. I'll cover his three responses.

A. He could always argue against the privatization of social services. The affirmative's inability to cope with/absorb the concept of privatization isn't the fault of the negative. At best, he's playing on a technicality.

B. Two words: profit motive. Look at things like insurance, electricity, cable/satellite, gas, and all private services rendered. Because companies seek to maximize profit, they must compete with other companies offering the same service, meaning that they will have to offer the highest quality at the lowest price to outshine their competitors. The free market thus optimizes production of goods and the distribution of quality services at fair prices. [] In the case of nonprofit organizations, private investors are often more dedicated/motivated to their cause by virtue of their participation being voluntary. At the point that you subject social services to the nightmarish bureaucracy [] and obligatory donations for which government is so infamous, it's clear that - as with mainstream goods and services, privatization is far better, and doesn't violate rights. It's a win-win.

C. His argument here is essentially "if those programs really worked, they would already exist." My response is this: [] Welcome to Fallacyville, Pro. Population - You. :)

b. The numbers are not what I am concerned with; it is the principle upon which the numbers are based. At the point that he is asking to increase taxes, he is condoning legalized theft (which is what taxes are, since you're threatened with imprisonment if you don't give up your property), and is essentially adding insult to injury. Whether slightly or entirely, rights violations are NOT okay.

c. I know that. I just wanted to ensure that you wouldn't use it in a subversive manner.

d. Hmm. So it is. Glad we've cleared that up, though it was only a minor objection. Thanks.

4. Back to Solvency

a. People don't give up rights because of where they live. Just because one lives in the United States does not mean that he gives up his rights to life, liberty, and property - these are his natural rights as man, and no government can take that away, regardless of how many people are backing that use of force. Men can elect leaders for themselves - not force others to accept their policies. Additionally, paying government is one thing - the government's forcible theft of a man's property (under threat of imprisonment) is an entirely different ballgame.

A. Whether or not the tax is "insignificant" is irrelevant. No government has the right to steal, regardless of how many people benefit from that rights violation, and of how many people are backing the government's actions. No man, group of men, or political leader has a higher claim to an individual's property than that individual.

B. If you want to argue that you can bypass the Constitution, that's fine. I wasn't aware that you could use your powers to institute a law which contradicts the highest law in the land, and violates the rights of some people because "other people need it". Good luck with that.

b. He wants you to look at the previous point; I urge you to do the same here.

c. A person has no positive duties to the government, nor to any other men. He isn't required to sacrifice himself for another man, group of men, or elected official. A man's only duty is to preserve himself, and to respect the attempts of others to preserve themselves. If Pro wants to argue that a man is morally bound to submit his life, liberty, and property to the whims of the government (or other ruling faction), I again say: good luck.

A. Refer to the point on Inherency concerning privatization, since I'm running somewhat low on characters.

5. Advantages

a. He says that the New Deal never increased food stamps. I beg to differ. [] Also, all that the article gives us is Nancy Pelosi's statement that food stamps will stimulate the economy. That's not really what I would consider to be "solid proof".

6. Conclusion A (Yes, I'm actually covering this)

Proof has two parts. Evidence, and logic/analysis. I'll agree that he has provided a fair deal of evidence (or, at least, a lot of claims with a tag on the end; however, his analysis is lacking (though he claims - without warrant - that he based his assumptions on "easy" logic). Furthermore, proving solvency doesn't prove that his priorities aren't wrong. It just proves that he can use awful means to achieve a seemingly desirable end. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness aren't higher priorities than protecting rights. Concerning conditionality, he's affirming that social services IN GENERAL ought to be increased - not that one particular program works, and should be expanded. If he wants to jump on me for conditional arguments, he should probably check his own case structure first.

I look forward to seeing Pro for our final round. I've never debated this topic, so it's been quite an experience. And, for the final time: Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, once again, down the 'flow'. Here we go:

1. Harms

Opponent agrees that the harms are existent and current.

2. Inherency

a. The opponent does not understand the point of my arguments. We seem to be in agreement that the tax will be beneficial, but he feels it would be 'immoral' to impose such a tax. He feels that people have certain rights, such as property, and taking that away for the benefit of other people is immoral. But he does not seem to understand the fact that these people aren't paying the tax because it will help others; they're paying it because they want to continue having the freedoms and amenities their government has to offer. This is part of the something called the 'Social Contract Theory' in which people band together or follow a greater force, and give up some of their inherent rights so that they may benefit from the relationship. Because the U.S. construct was laid out using social contract theory, if we are to use our government for benefit, then the tax is moral by every means. So the matter comes to not whether it's moral, but to if the tax will actually work. My opponent did not disagree that the tax itself would bring about the funding needed for this project so I completely win on this sub-point. It is not immoral and it will work.

b. My opponents first err in this argument, is that he says that the government is a service. Services are things that can be accessed to meet ones own benefits. The relationship between a citizen and their government is one of symbiosis. My opponent uses an example of two people; one steals from the other to help a greater cause, and the the other loses whatever the guy took. But my opponent fails to recognize that citizens are always indebted to their country so long as they use it. So this 'stealing' situation is not what is actually happening, and should not be considered. The relationship between a shark and a pilot fish perfectly shows what a symbiotic relationship is. A pilot fish follows the shark around eating small bits of food off the shark, cleaning it. In accordance, the shark offers the fish protection. The only source of cleaning for the shark is this fish, so the shark gives up its right to eat the fish. The only source of protection for this fish is the shark, so it gives up it's right to complete freedom. This relationship is moral and beneficial to both parties, and is a pristine example of what my tax does, and how it is justified. My opponent also says there are other ways for these people to get food, but if those other sources had the possibility of working, they already would have. But hunger is increasing so they obviously do not.

c. My opponent states I have shown that SNAP is efficient, the fastest, has worked in the past, and should be expanded, and agrees with me, but states that I have not shown the full range of solvency. He says it is the best in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, but that more is important than just that. He does not, however, point out what else I need to actually solve. He goes on to use an analogy where the government gives everyone who commits a crime a death penalty in an attempt to decrease crime. But this is not what my plan does as it does not meet the citizen/government relationship at all! This is a crude analogy that is completely unrelated to my case. With this case, no one gets hurt, no one dies. In fact, just the opposite happens: people get healthier, the economy strengthens, and the U.S. rids itself of hunger. Whatever my opponent was trying to allude to is in no way a view of what my case actually will accomplish and how.

3. The Planks

A. There is no lack of understanding on the Aff's part. The fault is the Neg's as he fails to provide evidence or logic of any kind backing up his claim. In policy debate it's very important to have reason and facts on your side, and the Neg fails to show any of these, even again in the second round. It is not the Affirmatives fault that he argues against the legitimacy of an attack with nothing supporting it.

B. My opponent does not present a Counter-Plan but provides information that create a conditional argument against the Aff. In CX this is highly abusive, because the Aff finds it inherently almost impossible to refute while remaining within the resolution. As the Aff must remain topical, conditional arguments should be thrown out and unconsidered. As my opponent stated earlier 'you abuse, you lose'. Even despite this abuse I will continue refutation on this subject. A big problem with private services (excluding charities which I will get to in a moment) is that their goal is not to help the people they serve, but to help themselves. They will not consider any needs of the people or problems in their own system if it is not monetarily beneficial to them. This will all-in-all not help the people as much as something thats goal was to only help the people (U.S. Government). In the matter of charities, they're not a stable source of funding like a tax. It's completely reliant on people's desire to help others, which accounts for only a small portion when compared to everyone in America. So using charities would be an obvious stability problem, and the last thing epic problems need are unstable programs supposedly supporting them. So concluding this point, for the big businesses it is a win, but for us, the people, is a big LOSE.

C. My opponent is indeed correct. Just because of the fact that thousands of private programs over the last 50 years have gone into effect and none have solved, this does not mean that it won't solve in the future. Surely if we just wait fifty years more, or maybe even 30, one might actually work! Unfortunately, hunger is increasing at a rate that cannot take 30 years of waiting. We need action and we need it now. No waiting around for these programs that haven't worked even with 50 years practice. The government is the only thing that can provide this, not private businesses.

b. Once again I refer to my symbiosis argument made countless times. This is not theft, this is business.

c. Alrighty then, I haven't abused the right.

d. Of course, I find it of most importance to clear up all objections, because everyone counts to me.

4. And Solvency

a. My opponent makes an err that refutes this argument completely. Natural rights of man - life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Not property. My plan does not take away man's inherent rights.

A. Again the gov. is not stealing. See symbiosis argument. (This is just my point that the opponent repeatedly makes the same argument, just twisting it a little each time.)

B. Fiat my friend, fiat. Anyway you have a debt to the government. That money is not your property, it's theirs because they are taxing it. End of story. It's that simple.

b. I'm sure the reader is tired of going back on previous points but you should do the same here.

c. This time the Neg completely disregards how government works and goes along with his personal feelings. While emotion and feeling are fine and all, they have no place in a policy debate round. I have proven that we owe the government because of social contract and that is why this tax is worthy. While luck is fine and all I don't need it to show what our country was founded with.

A. Inherency point.

5. Advantages

a. While I failed to realize it dealt with foodstamps it doesn't matter because this plan is from the 1940's. And once again, what you consider proof is your feeling based off your debate. And not important in this context, no offense.


I will not cover refutation of conclusion because it's not needed as arguments can be cross-applied to it and I only have 400 characters left. In essence my opponent made two attacks. 1. Tax is immoral. and 2. Private is better. All attacks where based off this. I have refuted ALL of his attacks and shown WHY the Affirmative should take today's debate r


I'm skipping over the "refer back to..." arguments. Just to clarify.

1. Inherency

a. My opponent presupposes that the government is the source of rights; however, government exists for the sake of protecting man's rights, not deciding to whom rights are delegated - this is because rights are an inherent part of man's nature, as they ensure his survival against the whims of the men who would surely subjugate him if he did not have the rights necessary to exist independently. Regardless of what Social Contract Theory states, man's rights are inherent, and commissioning a government does not force one to lose any rights. A government may regulate the use of force, but individuals cannot vest in their government any more rights than the individuals themselves possess. Since individuals cannot INITIATE force, but can use it in retaliation (i.e. self-defense), the government has the same right, defending individuals from the initiation of force by criminals who would seek dominion over the person or property of another man. This means that government, by definition, requires voluntary, non-coerced participation to remain legitimate. At the point that the government taxes (steals), it is initiating force against the inherent right to property, regardless of the compensation offered in exchange. If individuals wish to pay for government services, they can do so voluntarily (as they do with cable, gas, electricity, water, and other pay-as-you-go services). If they don't pay voluntarily, they just don't receive the services of government. If they don't pay taxes, they get thrown in prison because they refused to forfeit control of their property. Which one is REALLY the ethically legitimate system? You decide.

b. Again, the symbiosis argument. He makes the argument that people are "indebted" to their country by using its services; however, the resolution sets up a system in which the government is an agent of parasitism, since the property rights of some are compromised for the sake of subsidizing the lives of others. At the point that the government prioritizes rights in this fashion, the relationship is parasitic, not symbiotic. Additionally, keep in mind that Pro's system has one group of people paying taxes, and an entirely different group benefiting from it. If citizens wish to voluntarily invoke government services (like police protection), one must be allowed the opportunity to voluntarily pay for it, just as they would make monthly payments for utilities. To take the money under threat of imprisonment is theft, regardless of what ends the stolen money is put toward. If Unicef broke into my house and stole everything I owned to fund a children's hospital, it would still be theft. Finally, note again the appeal to probability - "If those other sources had the possibility of working, they already would have."

c. Pro misconstrues my argument - my point was that, while SNAP may be admirable in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, economic gains don't equate an ethical justification which the plan clearly lacks. My argument, in its most basic form, is that the ends don't justify the entire range of means available to that end. The analogy (the government using a universal death penalty to reduce crime) proves that, while the desirable end may be achieved (reducing crime/hunger), the means employed toward that purpose were far from desirable (murder/theft). In layman's terms, stealing from one group of people to help another group of people assumes that the rights of some are more important than the rights of others, which obviously isn't true - all men are equal in the validity of their rights.

2. The Planks

A. I'm not sure how he can claim that I don't provide evidence or logic. I provided a long and detailed explanation - with examples - of the advantages of privatization over government intervention. It's self-evident considering that private companies are more motivated to outdo their competitors to maximize profit; ergo, they'll have to lower the cost to consumers while increasing the quality; ergo, the free market will produce better results than the stagnation of the bureaucracy. Again - you decide.

B. The conditionality objection isn't relevant; he could have argued that government intervention is preferable to private action - he didn't do that, choosing instead to attempt to win the argument through technicalities; however, he later remarks that, because private companies aren't motivated by altruism, they will do a terrible job. However, sophisticated technology like the computers we're using, the iPods we probably have, and the cell phones we're likely both carrying aren't a result of wanting to "help people". The fact is, wanting to make money is a strong reason for companies to provide the best product or services possible, and at the lowest price possible. The government, on the other hand, is mired in political considerations, bureaucratic red tape, and election concerns. Private companies needn't worry about any of that. In terms of charities, whether or not a lot of money is raised is irrelevant; keep in mind that the needs of one person (or group of people) don't impose any obligation on the people around them, nor does that need give them a legitimate claim to the property of other individuals. One person's need doesn't give him the right to steal to fulfill that need.

C. Correction, Pro. The poor people have a need for "action"; however, that action shouldn't include leeching off of people by virtue of their success. Violating the rights of others for the sake of one's own rights isn't morally permissible. Sure, private programs may not fill each and every need, but that's just how it is. One person's misfortune doesn't grant him any special entitlements, especially those requiring the penalization of productive, successful individuals.

b. Business implies voluntary exchange. This program isn't voluntary for the people forced to fund it.

c. Circumventing the Constitution might have been a bit much.

d. Okie dokie.

3. Solvency

a. Really? Man has no right to property? The product of his life and liberty? Yeah, alright. Pursuit of happiness is the right to pursue one's own interests in a way that violates no one's rights. You can't do that if you have no right to control the product of your labor. Pursuit of happiness is contingent on the right to property, which your plan perpetuates the violation of by increasing taxation.

B. "Anyway you have a debt to the government. That money is not your property, it's theirs because they are taxing it. End of story. It's that simple." <--- What is this I don't even

Seriously, though, his argument is pretty circular, since he's essentially saying that the money one earns isn't one's property because the government says it isn't one's property. This just presupposes that one doesn't own the fruits of one's labor, and that the government has the right to take anything that it wants from you (i.e. that taxes aren't theft).

Basically, he's saying "it's not your property because the government is forcibly taking it from you." I don't know how else to show you that it's wrong, and I can only hope that his faulty reasoning is self-evident.

c. I'm not sure why he declares that I'm using emotions and feelings. I'm making the logically coherent argument that one's life, liberty, and property belong only to himself - not to any other man, group of men, or government. This is an argument not addressed by Pro - that no one has a higher claim to an individual's rights than the individual himself.

4. Advantages

a. The point is, New Deal didn't work - Great Society didn't work - Stimulus didn't work - you understand where I'm going.


Conduct: Tied/Con - too many technicalities on Pro's part.
S/G: Tied
Arguments: Con - obviously.
Sources: Con - Pro's sources were integrated in the case; Con used sources better.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
"Debaters are ENCOURAGED to develop argumentation based upon a values perspective"
"the debate SHOULD focus"

It does not expressly forbid these types of argumentation but rather says that they are discouraged the NFL in LD. However there are many states (Texas for instance) in which Plans, Counterplans, etc. are used at the district tournament.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
A) Yes they do. Take for example page 33 on Lincoln Douglas debate:

"Debaters are encouraged to develop argumentation based upon a values perspective. To that end, no plan (or counterplan) will be offered by the debaters. In Lincoln Douglas Debate, a plan is defined by the NFL as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. The debate should focus on reasoning to support a general principle instead of particular plans and counterplans."

B) That's not relevant. I was required to show "an official rulebook for any kind of NFL debate" and the official rule book for the official NFL national tournament certainly meets that definition.

Even if it did matter, these rules ARE "overarching" and broadly applied as opposed to being "for a single tournament". Every one of the countless number of district tournaments adheres to these rules, and you will also find that if you look at the invitation for MANY regular season tournaments, they will state something along the lines of "Debaters must abide by NFL rules". Take for example the Harvard tournament invitation ( which states: "NFL rules will govern all competitions".

So again, how do you intend to pay me?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Actually, Metz, pages 29-31 have some debate guidelines.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Not a rule book for a type of debate. its the NFL National tournament rules.
A) They do not outline what kinds of arguments are admissible
B) Its for a single tournament and not an overarching set of rules for a specific debate event.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
National Forensic League Manual
"Contains information on the rules and regulations for all main, supplemental and consolation events"

How do you intend to pay me?
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
look, if someone can find me an official rule book for any kind of NFL debate i will pay them $100. (rule book meaning X is allowed Y is not)

Frankly making appeals to rules is just bulls**t.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Policy debate has NO RULES. except speech times. I could dance on my head and call it an argument. and win. And it actually can happen. I saw someone run a star wars overview on a Nietzsche K. weird S**T happens.

Also if your going to say something i unfair your going to need standards to prove so. I have a ten point block on why fairness isn't a voter as well.

And also conditionality is not necessarily legit. Besides you didn't make turns so even if its run dispo he can kick it.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
1. Regardless of what form of debate you participate in, that paragraph does not constitute a valid argument.
2. Yes, I was refering to policy debate. Conditional means able to be 'kicked'.[1][2]

Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 7 years ago
*does not mean
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 7 years ago
Nails- My definition of conditional argument may not be the same as yours. I am a CX debater, and I was only going by CX rules and definitions. The fact that you do not know, understand, or agree with these rules, does mean that they have any less significance in a round. And I believe I specifically said this would be a CX round.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Baseballer2007 7 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:52 
Vote Placed by Metz 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 7 years ago
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:30 
Vote Placed by Paris 7 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
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 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06