The Instigator
cactusbin
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,433 times Debate No: 11615
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

cactusbin

Con

This should be a CX style debate. Pro will give a plan, Con will refute it. Anything (topicality, theory, k, da, cp, etc.) goes.

This (R1 Con) does not have any argumentation, in order to comply with cx standard rounds, pro must skip r3. Here is how the debate should go:

R1
Con - n/a
Pro - 1AC

R2
Con - 1NC
Pro - 2AC

R3
Con - 2NC
Pro - SKIP (don't post anything)

R4
Con - 1NR
Pro - 1AR

R5
Con - 2NR
Pro - 2AR

Only the tag and cites from the cards are necessary to be posted (author, year, work/url). If the legitimacy of a card is contested, post the card and complaint in the comments and the full text of the card must be uploaded in a timely fashion.

Looking forward to a good debate!
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Pro

The thesis of this case is that SNAP is an extremely successful program that provides food services for persons in poverty, but does not provide sufficient funds for them. Additional funds to SNAP will provide starving people in poverty with enough food to sustain themselves and be able to concentrate on finding jobs and eventually getting out of poverty. There are also not enough people receiving SNAP benefits and additional funds will solve this and therefore my partner and I affirm today's resolution:
RESOLVED: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

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 (Food Research and Action Center, Hunger and Food Insecurity Statistics)

B. Families need more money for food as prices increase
Milam 09 (writer for hungerreport.com)

C. The number of people experiencing food insecurity has doubled since 2000. FRAC 09 (Food Research and Action Center, Hunger and Food Insecurity Statistics)

Observation II: Inherency
A. Needs increasing- Prior expansion not enough
Britney, The New Hampshire: "Nationwide Food Stamp Increase Not Enough say Experts", 4-10-09

B. Food Stamps Need More Funding
Frank 09, (Deborah A. Frank Founder and Principal Investigator Children's Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP), Committee on House Budget, CQ Congressional Testimony, February 12, 2009)

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 ("Policy Basics: Introduction to the Food Stamp Program," April 3, http://www.cbpp.org...)

B. The food stamp program must be expanded- It is the most efficient program and only needs more funding
RESULTS 2009 (RESULTS is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization focusing on hunger and poverty, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)," Date is Last Modified, June 4, http://www.results.org...)

C. Food stamps efficiently solve hunger
CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 2009 ("Policy Basics: Introduction to Food Stamp Program," April 3, http://www.cbpp.org...)

Observation IV: Advantages
A. Food stamps help stimulate the economy
FRAC 05 (Food Research and Action Center, "Why Food Stamps Matter: Talking Points," May 20, http://www.frac.org...)
USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates that each $1 billion of retail demand by food stamps generates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value-added, and 3,300 farm jobs; and each $5 of food stamps generates almost $10 in total economic activity. Changes in food stamp policy have significant impacts on economic activity and household income across the economy, according to an ERS study. Paired with unemployment insurance, food stamps are a vital part of America's front-line defense against recession. They help to prevent hunger in families with laid-off workers that fall into poverty, provide temporary support until these families can get back on their feet, and quickly get federal support into local communities when times are tough.

---------
In summary, my plan increases funding to SNAP which is shown to be the best program we could use. The increase is nescesary because not enough funding goes toward it. This will come from a relatively small tax. My enforcer/AoA will be the department of agriculture. I look forward to my opponent's attacks, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
cactusbin

Con

1NC

Here goes nothing...

Fiat isn't real
--------------------------

A) FIAT IS ILLUSORY
Nothing happens when you vote aff. The advantages aren't real.

B) VOTE NEG
on presumption.

C) VOTE NEG
to end role confusion and see who you are.

A-Spec
--------------------------

A) Interpretation: The affirmative must specify the agent of their plan. USFG doesn't suffice.
B) Violation: The affirmative doesn't specify past USFG.
C) Reasons to prefer:

a) Strategy Skew: I loose links for agent specific CP's, DA's, and K's. Proves abuse.
b) Real World: Policy debate is meant to prepare us for the real world of policy making. Not specifying the agent kills this education.

D)Voter for in round abuse and education.

Topicality - Poverty
--------------------------

SNAPS funds families up to 160% of the poverty line (Lubrano '09)

Coercion K
--------------------------

Links:

1) Taxation is coercive (DiLorenzo '90)

2) USING THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS PLAN WILL SPREAD COERCION AND VIOLENCE. THE MAJORITY OF ENSLAVEMENT AND MURDER IN HISTORY COMES FROM GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL (Rothbard '85)

Impacts:

Values:

1) Coercion causes loss of morals and values (Raz '86)

2) Government coercion takes away values and morals (Mack '95)

Liberty:

1) Coercion steals liberty (Porter '79)

2) Liberty above coercion is the most important argument (Foley '71)

3) All people have the right to liberty (Younkins '00)

4) Government coercion takes away civil rights (Yates '95)

Freedom:

1) Coercion threatens out freedom (DiLorenzo '90)

2) Coercion takes away individual freedom (Vaxzonyi '97)

3) Non-coercion gives freedom (Daskal)

4) Any form of coercion takes away freedom (Youkins '00)

5) COERCION IS SLAVERY AND DESTROYS THE INDIVIDUAL. (Witte '98)

Constitutionality:

1) COERCION IS DISMANTALING THE CONSTITUTION (Porter '79)

Constitutionality Spill-over:

1) All it will take is one more display of non-Constitutional power to create a government with no limits. (Browne '00)

2) We must follow the Constitution to check back government power. (Browne '00)

Development:

1) COERCION LIMITS PROGRESS (Heller)

2) Liberty solves poverty (McDonald)

Oppresses Minorities:

1) GOVERNMENT COERCION HURTS MINORITIES (Yates '95)

Coercive government is the root of all problems:

1) THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ROOT OF ALL PROBLEMS IN OUR SOCIETY. (Rothbard '85)

De-Dev Disad
--------------------------

1) Uniqueness

U.S. economy is heading towards another decline.
Opdyke and Simon, 03 (The Wall Street Journal)
"Some of the latest economic reports seem to hint that the U.S. economy is slipping into recession. Factory orders have declined, employment has shrunk recently and the consensus view of economists is that the nation's gross domestic product grew in last year's fourth quarter at a scant 0.5% annual rate, substantially slower than expectations. Meanwhile, the stock market, recoiling from the weak economic news and the growing anxiety over war with Iraq, has relinquished all it's early gains. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 140 points Monday, closing below the 8,000 mark for the first time this year."

2) Link

In the 1AC my opponent read a card that says his plan improves the economy.

3) Impacts

Economic growth leads to war.
Trainer, 02 (professor at South Wales, "If you want affluence, prepare for war," Democracy and Nature)
"War is an inevitable result of the struggle between economies for expansion. Domestic growth is a strong determinant of national expansion and this results in competition between nations and war. World Wars 1 and 2 can be seen as being about empirical grabbing. Germany, Italy, and Japan sought to expand their territory and resource access, but Britain already held much of the world within its empire, which it had previously fought wars to take. Finite resources in a world of expanding populations and increasing per capita demands create a situation ripe for international violence. Expansion is a prime source of conflict. So long as the dynamics of differential growth remain unmanaged, processes will carry major powers into war. The point being made can be put in terms of security. One way to seek security is to develop greater capacity to repel attack. In the case of nations this means large expenditure of money, resources, and effort on military preparedness. However there is a much better strategy, and this is to live in ways that do not oblige you to take more than your fair share and therefore that you do not give anyone any motive to attack you, but this is not possible unless there is global economic justice. If a few insist on levels of affluence, industrialization, and economic growth that are totally impossible for all to achieve, then they must remain heavily armed and their security will require readiness to use their arms to defend their unjust privileges. In other words, if we want affluence we must prepare for war. Global peace is not possible without global justice, and that is not possible unless rich countries move to ‘The Simpler Way.'"
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Pro

I will go down the flow and refute my opponent's attacks. Here we go:

1. Fiat isn't real

This whole attack is based on a definition that the Neg does not give. He say's fiat is not real and that it's illusory but has no logic or reasons as to why it is. All that he says is that fiat is fake, and that you should assume Neg is right and vote for him. This is obvious flawed logic and should flow Aff. To clear things up, fiat is a CX debate term that gives Aff the right to go through any law or policy standing in it's way so that the effects of the plan might be debated. This is a very real term my plan does not even use it because Neg has not presented a law standing in my way.

2. No agent of action

It seems my opponent did not even read my case. It says very clearly in plank IV that the enforcer will be the Department of Agriculture. Because my opponent is mistaken in thinking my AoA is the USFG, all of his impacts are non-existent.

3. Topicality (poverty)

It is obvious my opponent assumes I use the USFG political definition of poverty using the poverty line. But I use the more world wide accepted definition of poverty. I am topical under my own definition.
Definition: The lack of basic needs.
Counter-Standards - Common definition, context
Counter-Voters - A-priori and education

4. Coercion Kritik

I would like to point out, first of all, that the opponent uses cards from 20 and 25 years ago. The government is constantly changing and in policy debate it is of the most importance that evidence be recent and accurate. Because it is not recent, it also is not accurate. Also, there are new taxes and policies all of the time, and there has been no violence of enslavement as a result. (Notice that the enslavement part meant the author was referring to other countries.) Also, this tax when viewed on the individual level, is small and insignificant. A purchase of $100 would cost the consumer a mere 1/2 dollar.

4a. Liberty

Once again see previous arguments and also note that the cards are from 10 to 39 years old.

4b. Freedom

See previous and also note cards are STILL 10+ years old.

4c. Constitution

Attached to the previous arguments so see those refutations. Cards ten to almost 30 years old.

4d. Development

Tied to previous. No dates.

4e. Opression and other tie ins.

See previous and note 15 to 25 years old.

5. Economy DA

What? If you will notice, this doesn't make sense. The opponent is saying that the economy is getting worse, and that this is a good thing, because when it gets better it leads to war? His card basically says, that when we get better than other countries, they will get defensive and attack us. The U.S. still has one of the strongest one's in the world, and in most other things we are unmatched in skill and ability. We have the strongest military to protect us from these attacks that have not happened. According to his card, we would be attacked all the time and this is simply not true. If we allow our economy to fall then we will lose power and funding to our defense and military. Without the military it is much more likely we will be attacked and be destroyed. So this argument is beyond illogical to the point of foolishness, no offense to the opponent.

In summary I will go over the round and how you should vote.

Significance/Harms: Aff, opponent didn't attack.
Inherency: Aff, Fiat not used because opponent didn't present law so it still stands.
Topicality: Aff, I have proven definition and as I have burden of proof my def stands.
Solvency: Aff, Proven tax won't cause problems and that all else solves.
Advantages: Aff, Opponent agrees there will be an increase in economy and I've proven that is GOOD.

All off case: Aff, I have adequately refuted all arguments off-case.

Final vote: Aff

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals and until then. Au revoir.
Debate Round No. 2
cactusbin

Con

2NC

First, rebuttals:

Fiat isn't real
--------------------------

My opponent obviously didn't understand this argument.

Fiat: "The plan is a series of commands that will be made into law. Within the limits of law, though, the Affirmative can do absolutely anything it likes in the plan. Anything. It doesn't matter if the proposal is germane to the resolution or not. The Affirmative has the power of fiat (FEE-ott), the ability to "wish" their plan into existence; "fiat" is a Latin word meaning "let it be done!""

Here is an overview: If you vote aff, nothing actually happens. The law doesn't actually get passed, it's not real. Vote neg on presumption.

Presumption: "Presumption is the assumed direction in which a judge should vote in the case of a complete tie. ... the judge's presumption should be for the negative team because the status quo is the only truly predictable world and without a net benefit for the affirmative plan, there is only a risk that changing the status quo will make things worse."

Thus, since voting aff does nothing in real life, and voting neg does nothing in real life, it is a complete tie. But due to the debate practice of presumption, you as the judge must vote neg.

No attack, vote NEG on presumption.

A-Spec
--------------------------

My opponent obviously doesn't understand A-Spec either. The Department of Agriculture cannot pass a law. The Department of Agriculture is not an agent for enacting the plan.

Vote NEG on in round abuse and education.

Topicality - Poverty
--------------------------

Sorry I didn't provide a "typical" debate structure for my T:

Interpretation: Poverty is what is specified by the USFG as the poverty line [1].

Violation: SNAPS provides food stamps for up to 160% of the poverty line (Lubrano '09)

Reason to prefer: Since the topic specifies the United States, it only makes sense to specify poverty as it is relevant in the United States.

Coercion K
--------------------------

First I would like to point out that my opponent has not attacked either of my two links. Thus we assume these two points conceded and that HIS PLAN LINKS INTO THE K.

"I would like to point out, first of all, that the opponent uses cards from 20 and 25 years ago. The government is constantly changing and in policy debate it is of the most importance that evidence be recent and accurate. Because it is not recent, it also is not accurate."

This isn't even a real argument, policy debaters cite Aristotle and Nietzsche all the time. It's philosophy. If you want to inspect the full text of the cards, I'd be more than happy to give them to you.

My opponent doesn't provide any reason or evidence why "cards from 20 and 25 years ago" are bad, thus it is just a warrant less statement. Throw this point out.

"there are new taxes and policies all of the time, and there has been no violence of enslavement as a result."

Kritiks don't need uniqueness, the assumptions you make (tax is good/coercion is necessary) in your case apply to the status quo as well:

"If you have read on disads, then you know that a disad starts with uniqueness; kritiks do not. Since most of the assumptions made in the affirmative case exist in the status quo as well, uniquness is really not an important issue. The link of a kritik is just a point that shows how the affirmative case makes the assumption that it does."

My two links into his case have gone unrefuted, and I will be providing additional links in my extensions.

"this tax when viewed on the individual level, is small and insignificant. A purchase of $100 would cost the consumer a mere 1/2 dollar."

Cross apply my Youkins '00 card: Any form of coercion takes away freedom

Vote NEG on LIBERTY, FREEDOM, CONSTITUION, PROGRESS, OPRESSION, and ULTIMATE IMPACT.

De-Dev DA
--------------------------

Even if you don't go for that evidence, look to my extensions.

Overview: Currently the economy is getting worse, if it gets better we will experience the impacts I have listed. My opponent's plan causes the economy to get better. Thus, my opponent's plan causes the impacts I have listed.

Constructive:

De-Dev DA Extensions
--------------------------

1) Water Wars

A) Continued growth and consumption guarentees violent conflicts over clear water (Speth '08)

B) Water Wars go nuclear (Weiner '90)

2) Environment

A) Growth kills the environment (Sweezy '04)

B) Economic growth guarantees environmental collapse—industries require harmful materials and methods. (Sweezy '04)

3) Poverty

A) Growth necessitates exploitation and horrible living conditions of those in the third world (Trainer '02)

B) Growth causes poverty and resource disparities (Trainer '07)

Vote NEG on NUCLEAR WAR, ENVIRONMENT, and POVERTY.

Coercion K Extensions
--------------------------

Additional Link:

Taxation is a violation of basic human dignity and right (Chodorov '04)

taxation cannot exclude values. If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se.It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else. We look at the results of taxation, the symptoms, to see whether and how the principle of private property is violated. For further evidence, we examine its technique, and just as we suspect the intent of robbery in the possession of effective tools, so we find in the technique of taxation a telltale story

Next Round
--------------------------

I would just like to remind my opponent that the next round (R3) he should not give a speech. This was stated in the original rules. This is not meant to give me an advantage, this is standard policy debate structure [2].

[1] http://aspe.hhs.gov...
[2] http://www.csun.edu...
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Pro

Alright it's round 3. I will refute my opponents rebuttal now, so here we go:

FIAT ARGUMENT

Now that the opponent better explained himself, I see that the opponent is correct, but only if my plan accomplishes nothing. If my plan happened to have no effect, then the voter would Con. But seeing as I present a case that will bring about change, it is the voter's duty to determine whether or not my plan will be beneficial. So this attack means absolutely nothing unless my opponent proves that the rest of my case has no positive effects for the status quo.

A-SPEC

My opponent seems to misunderstand the fact that SNAP already exists. There needs to be no creation of the program. The governments only part is to make the tax. Because of fiat (this is not abuse as this is a CX match) I have the right to assume that the government will pass the law. The agent of action is the one who follows and directs the plan so that the plan will do what it was supposed to. The only one that has control over SNAP is the Department of Agriculture so it is obvious this will be the agent of action. The governments part in tax is obviously assumed as it says federal government in the resolution.

TOP. - POVERTY

This is a CX debate and format should be correct. Otherwise confusions like this will occur. My opponent says you should prefer his definition because it refers to the governments poverty line. This is wrong for two reasons. First, because the government's line wrong(http://www.box.net...), and two, because the definition made my Aff leaves more ground for the debate. It is abusive to be restricted the Neg's definition just because it benefits him. Aff provides definitions and I have done so. So according to my definition (which should be preferred), I am 100% topical.

COERCION DA

My opponent failed to miss the point that these cards were from for a different country as they talked about enslavement, and this is an obvious problem as we are debating about the United States. Also, my opponent states that his attack does not need uniqueness. This is like saying burning wood in our fireplaces will result in catastrophic ice melt that will cover our village in snow. This attack obviously applies to a place completely covered in ice, and not the United States. But my opponent's reasoning leaves room for this being a worthy attack, which it is obviously not. Then, my opponent says his dates don't matter when dealing with philosophy. He is wrong in this, as dates don't matter when it is NON MATERIAL philosophy. But his cards deal with physical things like violence, government, and tax and has no room for old dates. Giving me the full text of the cards won't make them any more recent and therefore they should be thrown out. Old dates are bad because the government is always changing and just because something might have happened 40 years ago does not mean it will happen now. I stated that there has CURRENTLY and RECENTLY been no examples of xenophobic violence and the opponent was unable to even provide evidence about some such recent violence. Because the opponent cannot find recent evidence OR evidence about our own country, his attacks are completely null. This DA does not exist and you should not vote for it, for doing so would be against LIBERTY, FREEDOM, CONSTITUTION, PROGRESS, and lead to an ULTIMATE IMPACT of MASS HYSTERIA. (I can bold words to sound important too.)

DE-DEV DA

So my opponent does not actually refute my attacks at all. If you look at what he is doing he is saying to worsen the economy for the betterment of the country. Why is this argument still here? It is obvious that this DA is bogus. Also, I would like to point out all of his extensions basically say progress is bad. Finally, I would like to say that the Neg said to vote on him for NUCLEAR WAR and POVERTY. If you think these are good things then feel free to vote for him,but I feel that nuclear war and poverty are bad things and you should vote likewise.

MORALITY

I am counting this extension as a separate point. The opponent states that it is immoral to tax people because this conflicts with the rights of humans. I will take a point from social contract theory, when a person lives under a government they give up some up there rights to recieve protection from the government. Because these people accept protection from the government, then they lose the right to not be taxed. Our country's political foundation was laid upon social contract theory and that is why this tax is just.

According to the second site Aff goes last. To maintain this right of Aff I will post this round. I am only going with high school policy debate rules so do not think I am doing this for the advantage. Just the rules. Also I already typed this whole thing and I won't do it again ;) I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
cactusbin

Con

cactusbin forfeited this round.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Pro

My opponent has failed to refute anything said by me. This could be due to numerable facts but I must assume the opponent simply concedes. It is my hope that the opponent will respond. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
cactusbin

Con

FIAT K

My opponent still does not understand this argument, so I will explain it once again.

Say you, voter A decide that you would like to vote for Aff, as you like his plan. So you vote for aff. That's it. The plan doesn't actually get passed. Nothing actually happens. My opponent gains a vote. None of the advantages in his plan actually happen in REAL LIFE.

"But," my opponent will argue "nothing you say is real either!" Well, that's where presumption comes in. Since nothing actually happens if you vote for aff or neg, it is a tie. BUT, presumption states that you should vote neg in the event of a tie.

So, once again, vote NEG on presumption

T-POVERTY

First, I could not examine my opponent's evidence as his link was broken. But, let me reiterate my points. While my opponent's definitions may leave "more ground for debate", that does not make it the correct definition. Let's examine the resolutions: "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty". UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This resolution limits debate to the United States. The theoretical law would be theoretically passed in the UNITED STATES. Why would we use a vague definition of poverty, when it should clearly be the one that applies to the UNITED STATES?

The US Poverty line is what defines poverty in the United States. SNAPS funds people that are above the poverty line, thus it is not a program for poverty in the United States. Thus making it non-topical.

COERCION K

"these cards were from for a different country"
None of my cards are "[from a] different country"

"they talked about enslavement"
I believe the card in question is: USING THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS PLAN WILL SPREAD COERCION AND VIOLENCE. THE MAJORITY OF ENSLAVEMENT AND MURDER IN HISTORY COMES FROM GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL (Rothbard '85).

Here is the card:

First, every other person or group receives its income by voluntary payment: either by voluntary contribution or gift (such as the local community chest or bridge club), or by voluntary purchase of its goods or services on the market (i.e., grocery store owner, baseball player, steel manufacturer, etc.). Only the government obtains its income by coercion and violence—i.e., by the direct threat of confiscation or imprisonment if payment is not forthcoming. This coerced levy is "taxation." A second distinction is that, apart from criminal outlaws, only the government can use its funds to commit violence against its own or any other subjects; Both distinctions, of course, can be summed up as: only the government, in society, is empowered to aggress against the property rights of its subjects, whether to extract revenue, to impose its moral code, or to kill those with whom it disagrees. Furthermore, any and all governments, even the least despotic, have always obtained the bulk of their income from the coercive taxing power. And historically, by far the overwhelming portion of all enslavement and murder in the history of the world have come from the hands of government.

We can obviously see this card does not "[come from a] different country" it is a philosophical argument. Does my opponent have any proof at all that any of my cards are "[from a] different country"? He hasn't presented any, and thus I am led to believe he simply made this up.

"Old dates are bad because the government is always changing and just because something might have happened 40 years ago does not mean it will happen now."

If you can actually point out a specific card that has information that is outdated, I can grant you this takeout on THAT CARD, otherwise I'm calling bogus.

De-Dev DA

Your argument was specific to that ONE card. The other cards are completely different, and you have no provided any analysis on any of those. Even if I granted you the takeout on that card, the rest still stand.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Pro

Hello. This is the final round and it seems to have been a good debate so far. I would like to point out my opponent missed a round and without further ado I will go straight down the flow.

FIAT K

My opponent seems to misunderstand the point of debate. The point is education, to educate ourselves through argumentative reasoning. My opponent states that because these plans don't go into effect, you should vote Neg because his arguments of not doing anything will go into effect. If debate was really like this than every round everyone would want to be Neg because Neg would always win. But, in reality, I'm sure the voters realize this is NOT how debate works and the voter must vote on the debate by the contents of it's arguments. So, on this argument in terms fairness, vote Aff.

TOPICALITY - POVERTY

My opponent makes the mistake of being to assuming regarding to the resolution. The resolution states I must use the USFG as the one doing the action, which it is in my plan. It does not define poverty or determine which kind of poverty. So, as Aff, I may use whatever definition I wish, and you may try to prove yours better. I have shown why I don't use the USFG definition of poverty, and why mine is more acceptable, and my opponent has not even mentioned that fact. I am still topical. Also, if we must get technical, the rez says 'persons in poverty'. This means persons (at least two) must be in poverty and be affected. Because there are at least 2 people in poverty being affected, this means I am technically topical in even another way. So if you like extreme technicality, vote for Aff. If you like arguments that make sense, vote Aff.

COERCION K

'other countries'

So it seems this did talk about government in general, and I will attack the card instead. It states that it is 'violence and coercion' when the government takes taxes and such because it is not what we want to do, and the gov. threatens punishment if not paid. This is just part of social contract theory, which states when you take benefits from a government, you give up some of your rights. The government, which owns this country, doesn't have to sell you land, provide electricity and water, or provide protection for you. It only does so because we give it certain things, like taxes. One party gives up something to be helped by the other. This is social contract theory and is used everyday when we purchase goods, give up money for the benefit of the good.

'old dates'

It's hard to look into the opponent's cards and refute them when he only provides taglines. BECAUSE he only provides taglines the actual body of the card is not attackable, and it must be assumed the card refers to what it's date is. Seeing as NO cards where recent, his attacks should be all discounted. Also, I have disproved coercion, which means I broke the link to all these cards, anyway.

IN CONCLUSION

All attacks my opponent made, I have refuted. I have shown my plan reaps maximum benefits with as little cost as possible. This is the best possible plan for solving, and to not do it would be a critical mistake. I ask for the Aff ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cactusbin 6 years ago
cactusbin
"Con only used ideological generalities as references"

If you're referring to the kritik, kritiks are ideological in nature. I'm not sure if you're familiar with policy debate but a kritik is a philosophically based argument.

"not specifics relevant to Pro's case"

Again, not sure if you're familiar with policy debate but neg is expected to provide off-case arguments in the form of DAs, Ks, and CPs.

"References should be posted regardless of whether they are requested or not"

By accepting this debate my opponent agreed to the rules I set out, which were: "Only the tag and cites from the cards are necessary to be posted (author, year, work/url). If the legitimacy of a card is contested, post the card and complaint in the comments and the full text of the card must be uploaded in a timely fashion."

I'm not sure if you feel like you have to be some kind of factual evangelist voting down everyone who uses philosophy; not taking into account that you probably don't understand the specific structure of debate (policy) my opponent and I agreed to.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con only used ideological generalities as references, not specifics relevant to Pro's case. Biased general opinions are available for virtually any position. References should be posted regardless of whether they are requested or not, but it wouldn't have made a difference in this case. Pro's arguments went largely unrefuted. Forfeiting a round loses Conduct. S&G tied.
Posted by cactusbin 6 years ago
cactusbin
I would just like to point out I repeatedly said I would provide full text of cards if requested, and my opponent never requested them. Thus saying I 'only provided tag lines' isn't really fair.
Posted by cactusbin 6 years ago
cactusbin
you go to glenoak?
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
school and debate.
Posted by cactusbin 6 years ago
cactusbin
from where?
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
haha, i do know you! interesting.
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
hey cactucsbin, i think i might know you. is your name DJ?
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Of course, although it is a waste of a round. If you would rather, you can make make attacks/refute as the actual round exactness is unneseccary.
Posted by cactusbin 6 years ago
cactusbin
I think we are both reasonable people, I will post my speech without any attacks on the fact that you ignored the rules, but I should hope that you will be willing to skip the speech directly after it to comply with the rules.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
cactusbinMr_Jack_NixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
cactusbinMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 
Vote Placed by cactusbin 6 years ago
cactusbin
cactusbinMr_Jack_NixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50