The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

The US should use negative taxation over welfare checks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: Select Winner
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,619 times Debate No: 56407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)




First round is acceptance. Key terms to know before voting on this debate....

- NIT's

- EITC (Earned Income Taxation Credits)

- Welfare spending

Good luck to my opponent. I hope to have a great debate.



I accept.
Let's see what you got.
Debate Round No. 1


I, Negative Income Taxation Liability Pockets

There is a huge problem regarding negative taxation. The idea is to make sure every citizen has a income, but the process its extremely destructive. What happens, is the IRS pays into others taxes, negating them, and giving that person more money then their tax threshold allowed,

Or in layman's terms, paying however much ever a US citizen goes in debt. These are called liability pockets, and they must be reimbursed by the IRS to the tax payer. Meaning negative taxation is taking US citizens dollars, and using them to pay others bills. All liability pockets are filled following IRS policy, which means not only are we paying others debts, but were also doubling our spending.

II. Negative Income Taxation Discourages Work

Back in the 70's, many people in America were considering using NIT's in exchange for welfare. The government ran multiple studies on NIT effectiveness, and everyone concluded by saying that NIT causes people to work less than welfare. Trust me, I was very puzzled upon reading these results. They both accomplish the same function, so why does one cause people to work more?

I didn't see the correlation at first, but upon further examination, it became abundantly clear. There is a old saying called "Don't give a man a fish. Teach a man to fish". The NIT method pays for everyones needs and expenses, whereas welfare gives that person a monthly check, allowing the man to use that money to his benefit.

To clarify, one method pays directly for all expenses that negate that persons tax threshold. Welfare gives people money based on their income, and allows that person to use that money with more flexibility. Hence, one method is teaching someone to fish, and the other is giving someone a fish.

III. Negative Income Taxation Causes Collateral Expenses

This is a very important point the audience should consider. Under the NIT, the USFG pays for all expenses under the tax threshold of a person. Even if that person is on earned income, the USFG is still forced to pay the negated taxes. Meaning, someone may be able to pay back their debts over time, but the annual return will force the USFG to pay said debts, even though citizens are perfectly capable of paying them.

This was one of the biggest arguments used against the NIT in the 70's. There is actually a fix, but not a good one, and I'll that in my next contention. The point is that unlike welfare, the US government is paying expenses that the people they are stimulating can afford. No one is helped by collateral expenses.

IV. EITC's Make Changing the Status Quo Pointless

EITC, a abbreviation for earned income taxation credits. EITC's are a form of welfare that we give people who earn income. It is a form of NIT, and the primary fix to contention 1 +3, although it only addresses 50% of the problem. The IRS gives credits to people who are earning income of any sort, meaning that as long as their making self serving, they will receive negated taxes. People

This contention is astoundingly simple. By making the NIT the preferred system, then we would simply make welfare the conduit for earned income credits. Which means the welfare bureaucracy would still exist (I suspect this will be the oppositions primary argument). The opposition must accept one of the following.....

#1 The EITC would have to be abolished all together, meaning people will no longer be rewarded for working.

#2 The EITC would simply shift from the NIT to welfare

This will be a hard choice for my opponent. There is no plausible way he can argue #2, and if he argues #1, he would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we don't need EITC credits, which are actually quite popular among conservatives.

V. Conclusion

I will simply lay out what my opponent must refute, and him having the affirmative stance, he has the BOP. He must prove that liability pockets are not a major threat. He must affirm that negative taxation causes more work. He muse argue that the collateral expenses are not sufficient for resolution negation. And finally, he must prove that the EITC is not important in America.

I look forward to seeing my opponent fill a incredibly impossible BOP. Good luck!


I’m not very good with intros in debates, so here are the reasons why NITs are better than welfare:

1. It would be more efficient.
Over the current system, there would be one welfare agency, instead of multiple. Welfare payments being made by various departments (human services, labor, agriculture, housing and urban development, and education) could all be consolidated to one section of the IRS.
Under the current system, there is already tax oversight on the returns that produce negative tax incomes, so there would be fewer bureaucracies, which would streamline the operation and ultimately cost less.

2. It will force people to budget.
By only paying someone once a year, it forces people to learn to save. By being better stewards of their bank accounts, it is more likely to result in better uses of money.
Further, having a lump sum can provide for better spending habits in the form of capital purchases or large bulk. For example, having the money to buy a freezer, and then buying products to freeze, thus saving money in the long run.

3. Most importantly, the welfare will be reported.
Imagine if a charity or debt collector or government agency could ask to see your tax return (SOP for bankruptcy and divorces). On this tax return, they would see the TRUE amount of income for the year.
Further, it would be harder to assume that a family is living on more than their reported income, since there would be no further government intervention. And, since private charities can discriminate where government cannot, they are more likely to make sure the money is used properly. For example, a deacon to a church might stop by to see how things are going, and upon discovering multiple empty liquor bottles, may decide to stop offering help.

4. Welfare doesn’t work.

The war on poverty hasn’t alleviated poverty, and since then, the NIT has been implemented. In 1975, the EITC was enacted. This was passed well after Milton Friedman was talking about NITs. The only logical reason was that welfare wasn’t good enough.

To the rebutalls:
I, Negative Income Taxation Liability Pockets

There are currently NIT Liability Pockets. As Con stated, the EITC is one. Ergo, welfare has obviously failed.

Further, I don’t know what he calls welfare, if not liabilities, fiscally speaking.Why is one type of liability any worse than another?

“Or in layman's terms, paying however much ever a US citizen goes in debt”

This statement is utterly false. According to Con, the government pays a mandatory minimum income. This has nothing to do with debt.

However, there is already a mandatory minimum income, in the sense that it is not taxed. These are the standard deduction, which was revolutionized from its flat tax-style deduction of 10% of income, to its current flat rate.

“Meaning negative taxation is taking US citizens dollars, and using them to pay others bills”

This is exactly how welfare works.

Lastly, what is the social security liability, if not a liability? Whose tax dollars are paying for those checks?

II. Negative Income Taxation Discourages Work
The moral hazard is true of any charity.
Welfare also discourages work.
I am unaware of any requirement to work for food stamps or collecting unemployment or social security. If people want to live a meager existence by mooching, they will.

The NIT, as proposed by Friedman, is not some luxurious windfall.

“Hey, deadbeat family, here is $10K. That is all you get for the year. Have fun.”

Remember, there is no government aid now, so that is not a whole lot to work with.
Ergo, they will likely work.

Also, Con’s analogy is inapt, since the issue isn’t learning to work, it is actively doing so.

It is more the adage: Why buy the cow, when the milk is free? Why exert the effort, if I can get something for nothing? Some people are always moochers.

III. Negative Income Taxation Causes Collateral Expenses

This is no different than welfare.

Taxes are spent to be given. There is no difference.

I have no idea why Con is talking about debt. The NIT, welfare, nor EITC pays debt for another. If the individual uses the money for debt, which they often do, that is not the same as saying the government is forced to pay the debts.

I’m pretty sure the USFG doesn’t pay for debts eliminated in bankruptcy.

IV. EITC's Make Changing the Status Quo Pointless
Con admits that the EITC is NIT, and the fact that it came after welfare is evidence of welfare's existence is proof of its inadequacy.

The EITC creates negative tax incomes, and is not considered welfare.

The EITC, as do many actual welfare programs, does encourage people to do stupid things, like not get married or not work more. The NIT will be no different. People are going to abuse the system. At least with NITs, you will know how much these particular people are costing everyone else because it is reported on the tax return. It isn't lost in some budget report for one department over here, and a breakdown of payment made by that department over there.
It will be reported clearly, as the EITC is currently.

V. Conclusion

I do not understand why Con is telling me what I must argue.

I do not need to prove any of the things he says I do. Hell, I don’t even need to prove welfare is bad. Just that the NIT is better.

Con has already said the NIT is “quite popular”, and has, as far as I can tell, not shown why welfare is any better, since the downfalls of the NIT are the exact same as welfare.

They can be abused. They are disincentives. They cost money.

At least, NITs are more transparent, absolute, and efficient.

[On a related note, I find it quite hypocritical that Con forces a self-described impossible BOP on to Pro, when he makes comments stating how BOP is to be on the instigator.]

Debate Round No. 2


I. Opposition Tactics

My opponent is not defending himself this debate. He is taking all the points I make about NIT's, and saying they also exist in welfare (whch they don't), before delving into a emotionally charged statement, which is called appealling to emotion. He is not arguing from a practical or logical sense. I just wanted to state this to the audience, in case they did not notice this last round.

II. EITC means welfare fails, because of NIT liabillity pockets

This made no sense whatsoever. First of all, the earned income taxation credit has nothing to do with welfare. It is something designed for negative taxation. Second, how can welfare have negative taxation liabillitys, if it isn't negatively taxing. My opponent is not making sense, and it's confusing me greatly.

Honestly, his statements make it sound like he doesn't know what liabillity pockets are.

III. Government does not pay into the debt line

Unbelievable. Con doesn't seem to know what he's arguing. Yes, negative taxation pays into a persons debt. The government will pay your taxes directly, and push that back farther than your expense was worth. IE, your tax return will consist of money you didn't make. This is fine, but one must consider both the collateral expenses and the liabillity pockets that develop.

IV. Social Security Liablillity

This has nothing to do with the debate. You should not of brought this up. Yes, I support social security, but that is another time and place, and another example of trying to make this a liberal or conservative debate. (Although negative taxation is a left wing movement).

V. Welfare also discourages work

My opponent completly misunderstood my argument. The US ran two federal studies, with both concluding that people work less under the NIT system compared to welfare. My opponent is trying to cover these studies by scapegoating welfare again. This is the tactic I reffered to in the beggining. He can either address the fact I have gave him, or he can keep trying to change the subject.

VI. Upset over 10,000 income

I quote this, because me and my opponent need to get on the same page. This is not a government aid vs no government aid debate. This is a government aid vs government aid debate, which means, he is only hurting himself by making these arguments. Not to mention, contradicting himself. He keeps stating that government aid is bad, but then goes on to defend the NIT, which also gives citizens 10,000 dollars. It just uses a different system.

VII. Welfare causes collateral expenses

At this point, I highly doubt the opposition is reading my arguments. Welfare does not cause collateral damage in the same way the NIT does. With negative taxation, you have to push back every tax in a persons bill. This means that the government is actually paying more than the persons needed income. If someone were to be raised to the 10,000 line, on welfare they would directly hit the mark. On NIT, they might go over 1000 -2000.

This is a true collateral expense.

VIII. The EITC proves welfare is inept

This contention is extremely silly, and once again, the EITC has nothing to do with welfare. He states that since we put the EITC into effect after welfare, it somehow proves that welfare doesn't work. Lets get something clear. The EITC has a completely different function. It is a minor credit (Meaning it doesn't fullfill all your expenses), for people who earn income. Most of the people on it also get welfare.

What I was actually saying, which my opponent didn't understand, is that if you make NIT's the predominant system, then people with earned income would just recieve a welfare check. My opponent must either support removing earned income credits, which will come with a BOP for that premise, or be in favor of having both welfare and NIT's, which does practically nothing.

IX. NIT's are not welfare

Really? You are paying poor people money they don't have. That is known as welfare. Both systems accomplish the same goal, just with different methods. If my opponent truly understood what he's advocating for, then he would stop making arguments about giving poor people money, because that's exactly what negative taxes do.

X. Welfare costs money

Wow, so does negative taxation. I am going to define it for him, as he doesn't seem to know how you negate taxes.

Definition of 'Negative Income Tax - NIT'

A guaranteed minimum income plan advocated by economist Milton Friedman in 1962 where federal income subsidies are provided to persons or families whose income falls below a certain level. Negative income tax (NIT) would allow claimants to receive income through the simple filing of tax returns rather than through the claiming of welfare benefits, ideally eliminating the need for a complex welfare bureaucracy.

They do the exact same thing. Welfare pays all money below 10,000, and negative taxation pays all money below 10,000. The difference, is that one actually spends above 10,000 because it is also paying for people's taxes.

XI. NIT's are more efficient

My opponent argues that welfare creates a complex beauracracy, that complicates the system. You don't think that NIT's do that as well? You need to increase the IRS budget, because they have to negate all of your taxes, which is just as complex as welfare checks. Even if this were true, which it is not, it hardly weighs against the cons.

XII. Welfare and budgets

This makes little sense. Welfare makes you budget just as much as NIT's. The difference is that with welfare you are are budgeting for a month, and with NIT's, you are litteraly giving someone 10,000 for a year. That is not a good thing. It means that circumstances will drain nearly half of the people of their money by the end of the year, and they wont be given more money until the next year.

While this seems fiscally responcible in a way, their will be a lot of dead and starved children and adults.

XIII. War on poverty is pointless

How are NIT's different. You are still giving people money they don't have. That is also a war on poverty. He is giving emotionally charged rhetoric, although his system does the exact same thing. If this turns into a conservative vs liberal debate, I will be very dissapointed.

This contention should be regarded as holding little to no weight whatsoever.


Con has dropped the arguments of:

A larger amount can be used for capital to actually save money, like buying a freezer, then freezing food while on sale.

My self-described most important argument that government aid would be more transparent. If it shows right there on the tax form, then everyone can see the amount paid, and to how many people.

For example, you can see here exactly how much was spent on EITC, child care tax credits, refundable college credits (all NITs) and even deductions and exemptions. Where are the following breakdown for welfare?

Con has refused to state how large these liabilities are, thus creating boogy-men that cannot be addressed. The only evidence Con stated was that they exist...ed 50 years ago. Further, most of his arguments were spent trying to pigeonhole me, misrepresent me, or defame me.

As far as has been proven, the cost to tax payers is the same with either method, but with NITs, they will be more consolidated, and they will be more transparent.

Con did not negate the former, nor even address the latter.

To the rebuttals:


My opponent seems to have a desire to mislead the audience. There is no effective difference between welfare and NITs. Con says they are not the same thing, which they are different, but not in the sense of fiscal policy. They both are payment by government to others, designed to aid the needy. The only difference is how they are dispersed. This is not a relevant distinction, nor is it enough to warrant a mislabeling of appeal to emotion. It is a simple fact: welfare and NITs are effectively the same thing, and any emotion against welfare would logically be against NITs, as they are with EITC.


It could be true that I don't fully understand what they are, but that is the fault of Pro for not expalaining them, then saying they are not as how he explained them.

This argument is quite clear and misrepresented here.

Before the EITC, there was welfare, and only welfare.

Con states EITC is NIT.

The conclusion is that NITs have phased into the current tax law because welfare, for whatever reason, is undesirable.

Con's failure to understand the arguement is not cause for his dropping the historical fact that NITs have become as favorable, if not more, than welfare.


Con does not seem to understand that taxes are not debt, they are a potential liability, given numerous factors.

NITs do not pay debt, as it is money given.

Welfare, at best, pays for liabiliites, like food or shelter, which, for all intents and purposes, is the same as just giving them money to pay the "debt" of food and shelter.

Ergo, instead of paying credit cards to pay for food, the welfare pays for food. Hmmm, seems like NITs might grow the economy a smidge.


Falsely states "another example", which is ad hom regardless.

Social security is welfare. It has a massive liabilty, which is paid by others (via payroll taxes).

Con cannot be spreading the lie that there is no liability when it comes to welfare.

If there is not enough tax revenue to cover the welfare payments, that's a liabilty. It doesn't matter if the liabilty is before taxes are collected or after *(NITs, vs collecting taxes then dispersing them)


First, I am unaware of these studies, as it appeard Con only gave one source, which was about the value of the EITC, which is NIT.

Second, again, I don't need to prove anything, as I have already stated I don't need to claim NITs will provide more work than welfare.

Third, Con dropped the argument regarding collecting welfare while not working.

Fourth, even if the studies were cited in the sources, he did not state the findings. I should not have to search through studies to find the amount that entails "less". For all we know, it could be within the standard deviation.


If I was upset with $10K in welfare being spent, then I’d be upset about $10K in “income” being paid. This was never my argument, as I clearly said I only need to prove that NITs are better than welfare. It was wholly implied that both are government aid.

I also never stated government aid was bad, as that is not relevant to the resolution.

Also, we have no idea what the number would be, nor how many people would opt for the maximum amount.

Further, it makes no sense that people would be less inclined to work. Again, I state that you do not need to work for many types of welfare currently. However, with NITs, the more you work, the more you make.

Assume $10K and 50%. If I do nothing, I get $5K. If I make $2K, I get $4K, which is $6K. If I work some, I get more. Always, up to the point of maxing out.

By the way, what is the point of maxing out for welfare benefits? Oh, that’s right, it depends on what you are applying for…..more complexity, more bureaucracy, and less efficient.

VII. Welfare causes collateral expenses

Con never states these liabilities, nor does Con really state how the collateral damage is different. He admits it requires taxes to fund welfare, yet…somehow direct negative taxation has more collateral damage.

The Dept of Human Services has a budget of $779 billion (page 72) for Medicare and Medicaid. Serving 106 million people. That is $7,351 per person. If enough money is collected in taxes….how is that not an issue? Further, this is about ¼ of the US federal budget. Don’t tell me that doesn’t have repricussions


I’m pretty sure you’ve this is duplicated, or at least so similar, it is redundant.

But, the logic is, welfare failed, so NITs were enacted in the form of EITC.

Stop telling me what I need to argue.


This was taken out of context. I clearly stated that both systems are similar. The distinction was clearly about how the money is paid, and how it was spent.


Con has proven my point, and has not suggested nor provided any evidence that shows that NITs will cost MORE money than welfare.

So, assuming the costs (i.e. benefits paid) are the same, my argument of consolidation of NITs holds, since the administration costs would be less.


Does Con really not see the difference in efficiency?

NIT = I file a tax return and get my aid.

Welfare – I go to the Dept of Agriculture to get my food stamps.

I go to the Department of Housing and Development to get rent vouchers.

I go to the Department of Human Resources to get insurance.

I go to the Social Security Administration to get my disability payments.

That is four agencies doing what one could. How is that not inefficient? Besides the duplicated efforts, laws, labor, and time, there is the red tape that must be sorted out between different departments that can cause issues. The IRS can streamline all government aid with various schedules and forms to be completed.

It is clearly more efficient to have one deal with everything, than at least four, plus the IRS for EITC.


First, there currently are dead and starved children and adults. This is not proof that NITs are worse than welfare.

Second, this is false information, as we do not know what the minimum tax refund amount would be. In 1962, and in examples, it was stated $10,000. We do not know the current amount. However, the amount is irrelevant, as whether it was $10K or $100K, the issue is principle, not amount.

Third, there is no reason to assume the money is eliminated after half of the year. This figure has no basis.

Lastly, Con is conveniently ignoring the ability of friends, family, and charity to chip in.

Forcing fiscal responsibility, even on the destitute, is not a bad thing.


I never said the war on poverty was pointless. This is, yet again, another misrepresentation of my arguments. I said it wasn’t working. I said welfare has proven unable to solve the problem, as evidenced by the use of NITs currently.

Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago

You should be aware that (a) it is your job to explain terminology you provide in the round, and (b) my comment about explaining terminology was a suggestion for improvement, not part of my actual RFD--you would have realized that had you actually read my RFD, but, oh, well.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago

Before I get into my decision, guys, I really shouldn't be having this much trouble figuring out where arguments link to what's actually happening. No one defines welfare, and NIT gets defined all the way in R3. Neither of you spend any time giving any background at all, excepting statements of harm. I never get an overview of what's going on " all I get is a play-by-play of what's being argued, and even that isn't integrated into a larger picture. I get a small amount of burdens analysis from Con that is, in many ways, placing what is obviously too much in the way of burdens on Pro, not to mention missing the point that he also carries a burden to support welfare. By the end of the debate, you guys expand out to THIRTEEN points, all of which are argued individually and never united into a cohesive picture of what's happening. You're essentially forcing me to do all of this for you.

And neither of you should be doing that. You both obviously have a good grasp of argumentation and the subject at hand, and it isn't that hard to help me with my decision instead of putting the onus on me to tease things apart.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
That said, I will work with the arguments as I understand them. Since many of these go unexplained " you guys generate link stories, but rarely any impacts or background " then come to some conclusion.


I'm really having trouble with the liability pockets points, and Con needs to spend some time explaining how they work and why they matter. I get the general gist " that more money is taken from taxpayers as a result " but I don't get any concept of how that money is taken, where it tends to come from, or how much it is. I need some examples, but I get nothing except assertions. And this makes all your points about debt similarly confusing, since I'm not sure what debt you're talking about and how much that amounts to.

You have to cite the studies, and provide some analysis of the reasons they give and not just your personal interpretation, mainly because I can't make heads or tails of your explanation. I don't see the difference between NIT and welfare that you're pointing to here. The flexibility of use of money doesn't change with when it's received " if anything, that flexibility decreases since one does not have that money to draw from over time, and instead is forced to wait for the next check. The logic here is just confounding.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
The collateral expenses point is, again, something that requires some background. I really don't get where these expenses are coming from and why they are unique to NIT. I don't get why welfare doesn't incur these same problems. If there's a reason why not, it has to be made abundantly clear, and I just don't see it. The closest you get is saying "unlike welfare, the US government is paying expenses that the people they are stimulating can afford," but that line doesn't clear up anything for me. It's just an assertion of a link in some larger story.

As for the EITC point, this line... I just keep reading it and re-reading it without any comprehension, despite it being "astoundingly simple": "by making the NIT the preferred system, then we would simply make welfare the conduit for earned income credits." I don't see how you can make that assumption. There has to be a reason why, when you prefer one system, the opposing system has to become the conduit, but that doesn't make logical sense, since the EITC is a form of NIT. Couldn't the NIT he's preferring be the EITC? Or couldn't it include the EITC? Why does he have to buy into #1 or #2? I need to see an obvious link here, because the simplicity of the position is lost on me.

In fact, the only point of offense that I'm understanding from Con comes as rebuttal, when he says that large payments may be necessary and take from that static $10,000 that these people have available. But if that's the case, I need a solid reason why welfare doesn't do that. Why does receiving a check on a regular basis change the calculus? I think you would have been better off arguing that having $10,000 in the bank makes one far more likely to be spendthrift than if they have far less coming every month or so.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago

I'm buying the two dropped arguments, but I can't fathom the impacts. The increased capital to save money in the long term is predicated on the idea that people will make good financial decisions, and that they won't have emergencies, as Pro states would be such a big problem. Even if it's true, I have a hard time figuring out just what the reduction looks like and why it matters so much. It helps, but not a lot. The transparency point is never impacted " Pro just says that it's great that we'll know where all the money is going. If there's a lot of misuse of money in status quo with welfare, make that clear. Misplacement of money might be a problem, but I'm not sure why. I don't understand why taking more time to go through and figure out what happened to a set stock of money is harmful either. Likewise, I buy that there's an efficiency upgrade, but the importance of this is never expressed monetarily or in man hours. I only get a vague sense of what it means. Tell me how many duplicated efforts I would be seeing here, give me some idea of how terrible the situation is now. I need background.

I don't buy this point about the EITC being a show of welfare's failure. I think Con pointed out pretty decently that they are substantially different issues and that the EITC wasn't meant to cover for welfare's failures. Pro has to give some background on how the EITC links up with welfare, and I don't see it.

I understand that there's not a lot of distinction between welfare and NITs, but Pro's really not improving my set of knowledge enough to make that a point for him. It just means some points are non-unique, which I've already addressed. More importantly, I'm not sure why all of these arguments are appearing. In many cases, it actually hurts your case, since it's your burden to show that NIT is better than welfare. If at the end of the debate I believe they're equal, I vote Con.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago

I think both debaters really need to figure out what they're arguing and make a more convincing story. The fact that I'm still lost on this is a testament to how badly the explanations were made on both sides. I can tell you both have good economics knowledge, but, just as I would have to provide the background on what a satellite RNA is before using it in a science debate, you have to provide the background on your points here to ensure that everyone understands where you're going with your arguments.

The problem is that I'm left with uncertain points from Con and exceedingly weak impacts from Pro. I'm not really given a reason to vote for either of you because neither one of you puts in an effort to weigh the issues by the end of the debate. Con tells me what Pro must argue, but never tells me why. Pro tells me that he's shown some benefits to negative taxation, but only gives the most nebulous explanations for those benefits. Realistically, my vote could go either way, and it's not because the arguments are strong and there's a lot to pick from. I'm having a hard time finding one key thing to pull through the debate and actually figure this thing out.

So I'm trying to figure out whether I should punish the instigator for making this debate so vague, or if I should punish Pro for making NIT and welfare sound pretty much equal. In either case, guys, this is not the decision you want me to be making. I shouldn't have to be thinking this hard by the end of the debate, it should be clear-cut to me by this point what the issues are and what I should have to decide on.

So I'm picking up Pro. It's partially the punishment for the vagueness, but also because at least I have something that makes basic sense coming out of his arguments. They may be weak and nebulous, but I can buy that, maybe, some people will save some money in the long term. I don't know what that means, but it sounds beneficial to me.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
Liability: The state of being responsible for something
Pocket: a person or organization's financial resources.

Liability pocket: A personal responsibility for a person or organizations financial resources
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
Bsh, your RFD doesn't actually have anything to do with the debate. It basically says you voted for khos because I didn't explain economic terminology well enough (which isn't my responcibility)
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
Judging that you made this comment an hour a go, I would say I should technically remind you now. It's Wednesday.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
Please remind me to vote on this Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting--this debate contained far to much jargon for my tastes. Not all judges are economists, nor do we all have good foundations in economics. Con made a variety of claims, many of them simply bare assertions, and failed to really explain them. For instance, what on Earth is a liability pocket? I honestly have no clue after reading that debate. If no one informs me of what it is or how it should be weighed in the context of the round, it is nearly impossible for me to evaluate it. Pro also needs to make use of rich text options such as bolding headlines or highlighting key points to make his arguments more readable. Ultimately, I vote Pro because many of Con's supposed harms re: NITs seemed non-unique to his counterplan, and Pro was able to demonstrate dropped benefits to his advocacy, i.e. transparency and more prudent usage of private funds. I urge both debaters to focus more on explaining arguments than simply iterating them. Good round!
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I see good and bad points on both sides. Though I'm not very knowledgeable on economics, so I really cannot decide here. I'd have to see Negative Taxation in action to understand if Pro is correct as I really haven't a clue how it would work.