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

As this is my last argument, I will only be able to briefly refute my opponent’s arguments, and then go on to summarize the course of this debate. Also, I would request that my opponent post no new arguments in the final round, as I will have no opportunity to refute them; as well as the audience to disregard any arguments my opponent makes in the final round if there are any. === Pro Case ===Prestandards 1) Drops are Concessions My opponent claims here that he has not dropped my arguments g and h because he has attempted to refute my extremely reputable source. However, he has not even attempted to refute the specific arguments. To quote his own prestandard, “Dropped arguments ought to count as concessions. ” Again, no mention at all of sources, only arguments. The idea that my opponent made a typo when writing his prestandards is so ludicrous that I will barely bother to address it. He had time to think about and edit his argument, and to all of a sudden bring up that it was only a mistake is suspicious at best. 2) Supporting Citations This is not a debate about the interpretation of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 34, nor is it about the specific aspects of standing law that it alters. It is about the effects it would have on this country and whether or not it should be passed. And so the claim that I have to say exactly how and where every single miniscule thing in the bill is done is simply ludicrous. I have accurately cited reliable empirical sources stating clear and simple facts that lead to an inevitable conclusion: The Path to Prosperity should be passed. My opponent has not bothered to legitimately contest these facts; he has merely constantly complained that I haven’t cited the entire chapter they came from. Also, it is worth pointing out that my opponent has completely neglected to say a single thing about my previous quotes that show my citations actually tend to be just as long as or longer than my opponent’s. He also says that I have not really attacked his sources. This is not the case. I do directly contest his sources, on the grounds that they are not really sources at all. They come from Wikipedia, which, according to the court system of the United States, is “inherently unreliable. ” My opponent goes on to claim that his Wikipedia articles used reputable sources (the CBO, perhaps? ). This begs the question, why does he not simply cite these sources? Contention 2:a-b) Here my opponent again attempts to contest my factual reasoning with flaming rhetoric and… well, that’s really it. Just groundless rhetoric. He makes absolutely no actual arguments in this paragraph. I would also like to point out that no one is saying the Path to Prosperity would end corruption, and it is not me that is saying the Path to Prosperity would lower the deficit; it is the Wall Street Journal. My opponent again repeats his increasingly tiresome “evidence spamming” pseudo-argument. I have repeatedly refuted this argument, and do not have time or space to do it yet again. Furthermore, he also assaults the well-established science of economics, repeating his previous argument and claiming both that my source defending the CBO’s economic projections comes from the CBO and that is does not actually say what it says(? ). Neither of these claims is true. First of all, my opponent has completely ignored that my sources are actually Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, both credible government agencies which I dearly hope my opponent will not also attack as not credible (all while continuing to cite Wikipedia). Secondly, my opponent appears to claim that my source (which I thought was too unreliable to even bother refuting anyway), doesn’t even say what the Congressional Budget Office says it does. He claims that I am mathematically ignorant, but I am sorry to say that the statement my opponent says I am ignorant of, that “since the GDP grows 2-5% every year, this is up to a 100% error rate,” is incoherent in itself. I am sure I could refute it if I had any idea what it was talking about, but unfortunately I do not. The fact still stands that the Congressional Budget Office’s projections are reliable. (just a side note: my opponent goes on to defend his blog-sources by claiming that they cite the CBO, which is horrible and evil and wrong and bad and tells filthy lies. ) c-h) This section consists entirely of my opponent’s again-regurgitated “evidence spamming” pseudo-argument, mixed with vicious rhetoric that accuses respected Representatives of the United States of America of being “hacks” that produce “verifiable crap,” as well as saying that the Wall Street Journal is not qualified to comment on matters of economics. I admit it, I did scandalously assume along with millions of other people the WALL STREETJournal is credible on matters of WALL STREET. I simply have no time to waste on this entirely ridiculous section. ==Con Case==Framework: My opponent has devoted a blurb of a whopping total of less than 30 words to this issue (if you count “derp” as a word), which is arguably one of the most important in this debate. In these less than 30 words, he has simply regurgitated his previous argument, not even offering any variation on it at all. Spoiler: the first words of his argument are “It is immoral to save 500 people. ” This morally reprehensible logic is clearly unacceptable and, solely on that basis, I should win this debate. Unless, of course, you would be just fine with watching passively as hundreds of people burn to death. In that case, Sieben definitely wins. Contention 1: It is true that the Path to Prosperity is not perfect, but once again IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE PATH TO PROSPERITY SHOULD BE PASSED. Contention 2: My opponent seems to not realize that if Congress does not appropriate funds, they are not there. The Congress does not say, “It would be nice if you would spend about this much money, if you want. ” It says, “This is how much money you will spend. If you want more, too bad. ” This is not an incoherent statement, nor is it Legal Mysticism. It is the way our government works. CONCLUSION In this argument, I have presented source after source, time and time again to prove that the Path to Prosperity should be passed. My opponent has not even attempted to answer any of these factual arguments. Instead, he has merely constantly whined that I didn’t cite enough of my sources, or that my sources weren’t reliable, or that I hadn’t reasoned through my citations. The list of refuted complaints goes on and on. However, the list of actual arguments does not go on and on. In fact, there were no actual arguments on my opponent’s side, only disgruntled moans of annoyance. And so, in conclusion, I ask you to consider these questions. What does my opponent have? Nothing but a laundry list of unsubstantiated complaints. What do I have? An equally long list of sound arguments, supported by valid logic as well as undisputable, empirical facts, all leading to the inevitable conclusion:Representative Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget proposal should be passed. Closing, I would like to remind my opponent of my previous request to not post any new arguments in the final round, as I won’t be able to refute them. Also, as I originally stated, I was looking forward to a serious, well-informed debate about what is possibly the most important problem our nation currently faces, not mindless semantic nitpicking. I am sorry to say I am truly disappointed. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who spends himself in a worthy cause, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. ” - Theodore Roosevelt