Pick your own debate 3!

My opponent states that I have not explained the failures of the bill in regards to prudent management. Indeed, I have. The problem is that my opponent defines prudent management as "immediate results" when this is simply not the case. Prudent management, as quoted, reflects the need to avoid rushing to provide immediate results at the expense of foresight and planning. My opponent thus, has absolutely no reason to assert that the plans implemented were not prudent management. Yes, they might not have had immediate effect, but this is certainly due to factors that make immediate action impractical. Furthermore, my opponent mentions the bill "paying off political allies". The bill promises to give money where it is needed. My opponent has no evidence showing that the money was not distributed in accordance with this, he just erroneously assumes that if there is an inequality, then it breaches the bill. It does not. 1. My opponent has not provided any evidence claiming that the bill proponents promised any immediate results, only that the plan must be implemented immediately. He also has no proof that the unemployment rate would have been lower if the stimulus plan were not implemented. The disease could have just been far worse than the doctor could foresee, it does not necessarily mean that the medicine is causing the increased symptoms. 2. I disagree. My opponent cannot up and change the agreed-upon definition of "bad legislation" in the last round. My opponent has stated that bad legislation is defined as: "legislation not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose. " Its official stated purpose is in the Bill. I myself have spent about an hour max looking at the bill and I can already conclude that it is not meant to be an immediate relief plan. If an amateur such as myself could figure that out in 1 hour, then Congress had plenty of time. My opponent's point doesn't make sense. 3. The bill demanded that the money be spent quickly unless imprudent. Imprudent uses would go against stated intentions. None of my opponent's points show that any of the uses were imprudent. The 2:1 spending doesn't violate any of the 5, and my opponent cannot prove that the pork was wasteful. I have shown that the amount that is possibly wasteful is nearly insignificant. Proper monitoring was also not a part of the bill. None of these points are relevant. 4. No extraordinary evidence is needed, only common sense. Local governments submitting the bidding would take bids only from organizations or large companies. Unions represent the cheapest of these since most of the plans are rather large-scale. Furthermore, the point is to stimulate the economy. Union workers paid in benefits will use those benefits. Services rendered will boost the economy. Infrastructure comes #2. 5. My opponent has offered no evidence to show that such things are enough, and teachers retiring on 15% less salary is a huge blow, especially since the recession hit and teachers are in high enough demand as is. I have trouble believing that schools really allocate that much money to administration. 6. The arguments provided were based on invalid assumptions. To reiterate, my opponent is trying to equate imprudence with non-immediacy. Simply stating that they were imprudent is meaningless since none of what my opponent complains about violated what the Bill's stated purposes were. 7. My opponent still misses the point. Pork-Barrel spending is definitively useless. None of the things he listed were against the goal of stimulating the economy, not a single one. Each use of money has its merits. Little leaguers could use a nice parking lot, and dozens of people could use the job of building said parking lot. My opponent also completely ignored my point about the tax cuts, which is even better than giving lump sums to small business or as venture capital. Tax cuts apply to EVERYONE. 8. It stands as bad management, but not bad legislation. My opponent should have stayed on topic. 9. My opponent has no proof for this claim. The Plan was passed the same way any plan is passed, through deliberation and analysis by our leaders. The plan made no statements regarding guaranteed results, nor did it make any statements about immediacy. Through the entire debate, my opponent was focused on what was estimated, what the media stated, what we thought it would do. He focused on small points, got caught up in side matters, conjecture, guesswork, and the POSSIBILITY of abuse, offering no objective proof. The stated purposes of the bill were included in the bill and my opponent failed to show that the bill violated any of them. As such, my opponent did not uphold the burden, and I have made my case. Please vote accordingly. Thank you.