I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress

Hmm, it seems that you have misunderstood my stance on spending. I am not advocating government spending, I am rather advocating consumer spending . Specifically I said, "the taboo of spending is lifted and consumers now have an incentive to spend more in the economy." Thus, the premise of government spending and the evidence you provided which negates the effectiveness of such spending is irrelevant. Furthermore let us address the ideas advocated by the con. In your case you say that infrastructure projects " look shortsighted" and "destroy[ed] functioning neighborhoods." However, economist Balaji Viswanathan advocates the converse: Infrastructure projects - electricity, roads, airports, water systems and telecommunications are the foundations of modern economies. They have a huge multiplier effect (a dollar spent on infrastructure leads to an outcome of greater than two dollars [1]). When you put up a power plant, you not only generate employment directly through construction and operations at the power plant, but also create an industrial base around the plant who would want to tap the power. These industries would get more entrepreneurs and employ more labor. These workers would purchase more goods from the markets, creating a virtuous cycle. When you put a road through a backward area, you bring them close to employment options, markets and better healthcare. Infrastructure is the key to wiping poverty." (https://www.quora.com...) Rather than being short sighted, infrastructure investment is a necessary perquisite to facilitate economic growth and act as an incentive to get the labor force moving. Also, rather than disrupt and usurp the harmony of Sub-Urban communities and "enrich the powerful at the expense of the powerless." , infrastructure projects connect suburban communities to labor opportunities which has the incredible potential to help the powerless become powerful. Now, on to the Cap K. As a former debater I so vividly remember the innumerable Cap K's that various opponents brought up. The problem with each Cap K is that it denies pragmatism in favor of theory. In other words, a cap k provides no alternatives to capitalism, rather it provieds a list of inherent grievances. As such, I shall address and disavow each grievance separately; 1)"However, this expansion of infrastructure is only oriented to accumulation and growth. It ensues socioeconomic and political crises which will lead to extinction." The con provides no scenario as how growth will lead to extinction. Thus as an unwarranted claim, this assertion carries no weight. Furthermore, rather than catalyze extinction, capitalism deters extinction through medical advances. Stossel '15; "Trying to take money out of medicine will deprive us of the very innovation we want. Drug companies are the ones with the resources to create cures. It's insane to limit their access to medical research. Tom just wrote a book about this titled Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation. One way that the anti-capitalists want to purify medicine is by urging people not to trust scientists who consult for industry and to ban them from government advisory panels and scientific studies. But it's usually the smartest researchers who are hired by industry. Banning them means banning the most qualified scientists." 2)"Their encouragement of ethics - or the encouragement of the capitalist attitude is basically refortifying the slavery and genocide of founding American ideas." In his book, Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan proposes that Capitalism is a self correcting system. Interestingly enough, the United States has outlawed slavery with the 13th amendment. Furthermore, Case turn, genocide was present under the Fascist regime of Adolf Hitler; the Communist Regime of Yosef Stalin; and the Communist regime of Mao Zedong. This shows that genocidal regimes are present regardless of the presence of capitalism and further negates the legitimacy of the "Kritik". 3) (I will lump these arguments together) "The alternative is to reject the pro. The only way to destroy capitalism is "an inside attack" which necessitates total rejection of all capitalist relations. This ensures we destroy the system at its source and do not merely reform it in the short term" and "Resisting reliance on capitalism is the ultimate ethical responsibility " the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale. [This better solves for education because some people are so low in class they can't even go to a public school.]" By destroying capitalism you destroy innovation. The books you read, the articles you cite, and the very computer you type on are products of the competition of capitalism. Capitalism promotes growth, innovation, work ethic, and efficiency. Without capitalism, man kind would be decades, perhaps even generations behind. Imagine not having the medicinal advantages we have today. If you got sick with even the most rudimentary illness it could mean a one way ticket to the morgue. Lastly the con again perpetuates a claim without a warrant. A rejection of capitalism will not foster better education, similar to the reasons stated above. The cap K should be rejected on grounds that it provides no alternative for us to choose. Granted capitalism may have its flaws, the system of capitalism does have necessary advancements that have only aided the human condition. On one hand, we have a world that rejects a system of competition, has no incentive to work hard, and devalues innovation. On the other hand, we have a world that has competition, values ideas that are outside the box, values work ethic, and stimulates innovation. In closing, as I previously stated, low interest rates provide an incentive for consumers to spend into the economy, which, by definition, facilitates growth. Lastly, the education contention basically went uncontested and thus should be accepted as true within the round. All factors being considered promote growth and thus facilitate progress.