National Join Capitalism Fund

Multiple occasions the Pro side has shown that he is attempting to misconstrue arguments and points to his own leisure. Now, the Pro has made the claim that the Con was supposed to dictate the debate. That is an error because the proof was on the Pro's side. The Pro side has also claimed that I have committed an ad hominem by claiming he "whining. " The word "whining" is a verb and refers to an action. It is not a character trait or a noun for that matter. To appropriate something one knows nothing about is poor debate etiquette on the Pro side. Ad Hominem:marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made "I disagree. Con has not made any argument against the counterpoints of Pro's side. Con has only insisted that Pro has no basis or that all of Pro's arguments are opinion. " A disagreement is an opinion, not a fact. I was not making an argument because the burden of proof is not on the con. I have effectively shown you have no basis. I explain in explicit details later on. "If my opponent had bothered to make an argument like this before my final round, I could have explained this to him. Instead, he waited to point out this "problem" based on misunderstanding what I mean. I will only know how many other misunderstandings there are after Con has posted his final argument, because I have no way of addressing them now. I have been robbed of a good final round by Con. " The burden of proof was on the Pro side, not the Con's. The course of the debate was supposed to be dictated by the Pro since the fund is being proposed not rejected. He was supposed to provide facts and evidence to support the fund. The Con only need to have to refute the evidence provided or show that he has no evidence. I chose to show that he has no evidence whatsoever. "But there's a pretty consistent definition of poverty. Especially since the federal government sets a poverty line. " Perhaps, the Pro side again infers something the Con side did not mention. I mentioned nothing of poverty lines. Poverty is not a relative definition. It is defined quite clearly. What one associates with poverty is inherently relative as I was stating in the previous round. Poverty:the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions A poverty line in the United States is absolute because it is determined by the government. . http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com... "Abject poverty is not relative. If you are homeless with no money, you're poor. There's no "oh, but he has a TV". He doesn't have a TV, he doesn't have money, he doesn't have many clothes, he doesn't have a place to sleep and stay warm, he doesn't bathe often, and he doesn't eat regularly. " The pro side has committed a fallacy. An appeal to the emotions of the readers and not to the logic of the readers. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "If the fund were financed by a land value collection, housing prices would go down. A land value tax encourages using as little land as possible to as high an economic benefit as possible. That means lots of multi-unit construction and an influx of rentable properties to the market. That would make housing demand fall sharply. " The Pro side negated the fact that there is a limited amount of housing. Also there is significant amount of taxes and fees that cause the rise in prices. Taxes don't lower prices, prices only rise. If your referring to building more apartments, property taxes are normally hire on them than houses already. Then the property of apartments would rise. Unless the Pro side is suggesting a rent ceiling as well. . http://www.quickenloans.com... . http://www.nmhc.org... "When the person spends that money to build his/her business, they are bolstering other businesses. Burning the money would objectively be worse. " "Burning money" is a saying for money that is being wasted. The Pro side must of never heard the phrase previously. . http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... ""Employers will not compete for inexperienced 18 year old employees. " . .. they will if that's what they're looking for. McDonald's doesn't hire PhDs and Foremen to man the grill. Also, the effects of the fund are more far-reaching than just 18-year olds. It, like every major economic change, would affect everyone. If a 28-year old still had his old payout, he, too would benefit from the competition by employers. " No, youth employment would only sky rocket if people chose selectively who they would be employed by. McDonalds, Walmart, and Exxon Mobile don't employ most Americans. Corporations don't employ most Americans. So who could afford this? Most Americans are employed small businesses with fifteen employees or less. Essentially, the Pro's scheme would also bankrupt or prevent the creation of small businesses as well because they would no longer afford the startup costs for employees. . http://www.entrepreneur.com... . http://www.sba.gov... . http://economics.about.com... "The same way everyone learns. Why would I care if they decide to blow it all? It's their decision. It's their money. It's their fault. I wouldn't have wasted it if it were given to me. " There are five distinctive reasons why the voters should vote Con. 1. The burden of proof was on the Pro's side not Con's. The Pro side has negated his own rules, not the Con. "This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund. " The Pro side has not proven the morality or the positive effects of the fund. It was the Pro's jov to do this since this was a proposal. 2. The Pro side has not shown any facts but only opinion. "Actually, I have said repeatedly and without opinion: BEFORE the introduction of landed property, any land would obviously be open to use by any individual. AFTER the introduction of landed property, the use of that land began to require permission. That's a loss of opportunity. That's not opinion, that's observable fact. " Where did the pro arrive at this so-called "fact? " I must insist upon the absolute fact he has provided not a single fact. Look at every single post he has shown and he has provided not a single source or an ounce of evidence to produce this "fact. " Therefore, the readers, voters, and the Con side have been left to conclude this is nothing short of autobiographical content and opinion. I asked the Pro side several times for a basis to be clear, yet he only added more assumptions(read for yourselves). No evidence, no sources, only assumptions, therefore no facts have been provided. Far as I am concerned the Pro side must be intentionally attempting to deceive all those who have read this debate. I challenge the voters to look and search thoroughly for any facts, sources, or evidence he has provided. He only provided one link which has no relevance upon the content of our debate(which was in the first round). Not a single source of relevance has been provided I promise you. 3. The Pro side has not proved any of his points. As said, the burden of proof was on the Pro side, not Con. The Pro side has not shown why we should accept the Nation Join Capitalism Fund morally, economically, idealistically, or even practically. The pro side has only described the functions of the fund. Yet, the readers and myself were not provided why we should be for this fund. 4. The Con side has refuted the moral basis on the National Join Capitalism Fund. The Con side questioned several times for the basis of the Pros' assumptions but was only given opinion. Opinion is not a strong moral basis. We awaited for the facts, not a single one arrived. I questioned thoroughly and shown his basis was only made up of opinion and sentiment. 5. The Pro side has destroyed any constructive support for the National Join Capitalism Fund when he made this statement: "The same way everyone learns. Why would I care if they decide to blow it all? It's their decision. It's their money. It's their fault. I wouldn't have wasted it if it were given to me. " Essentially, the money is collected from property owning Americans then effectively wasted by teenage adolescents. There are better things this money can be used for.