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

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. [http://www.fns.usda.gov...] 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. [http://www.cnsnews.com...] 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.