be it resolved that the national debt be repudiated

This incredulous vessel has not been able to compute the nonsensical rant posted by pro.Analysis of pro's rant shall be attempted later in this round. First of all, con's case shall be stated.First of all terms must be defined.National Debt: the total amount of money which a country’s government has borrowed. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Repudiate: http://oxforddictionaries.com... refuse to accept; reject:she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders chiefly Law refuse to fulfil or discharge (an agreement, obligation, or debt):breach of a condition gives the other party the right to repudiate a contract 2deny the truth or validity of:the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses This is the full resolution that pro is in favour of: A government should refuse to fulfil or discharge the total amount of money which a country’s government has borrowed.The absurdity of this resolution is that it is asking a government to simply ignore what it owes. So in essence the government just doesn't pay many other nations back what is owes them, probably in the billions, and hopes that this will die down over time? If people like pro led nations, we'd be seeing world war three very soon.There is simply no reason to refuse to fulfil a debt to another nation. This will not only lead to aggravation of that nation and possibly war but also ruin the country's reputation that hasn't paid the debt and thus result in a huge amount of governments elsewhere banning businesses to engage with them (essentially leaving the country isolated like a neo-North Korea.This is insane, risky and far too prone to lead to huge conflicts with other nations to be advisable in the slightest to any nation hoping to achieve global success in any sense of the word.Now onto rebuttals (brace your self for a series of stating the obvious for it seems this is what must be done to rebut the nonsensical rant of pro's)."One common argument against repudiation is that it would result in a certain and devastating economic collapse."Nothing to rebut here, pro opens their speech speaking for con."Nothing could be further from the truth."A claim is either true or untrue. Since what pro stated before this was true, it is very possible many lies could be 'further' from the truth despite there being no scale of distance from it whatsoever."The sky will not fall if the government does not pay back all the money it has borrowed."But a nuclear bomb sure could fall from the sky onto its land if it doesn't pay back its debt to a country such as Russia or Pakistan (no racism intended, these nations are host to some of the biggest reserves of nuclear power in the world they are thus more dangerous to betray than a nation with less easy access to nuclear material for bombs). "The hysteria to the contrary is simply the squawking of an economically illiterate media; the same fools who tell you that consumption is the key to prosperity"Baseless, unjustified, false and ridiculous opinion stated as if it were fact. This is a fallacy of logic.In fact. Let me just list every single baseless, unjustified and false opinion stated as if it were fact in their speech.All of the following qualify: "try consuming your way to prosperity with your own finances and tell me how well you do" It is extremely likely one who consumes education, knowledge, skills, food, water and rest would end up very successful in life."the key to economic growth is savings." A nation that has yet to pay off debt, needn't save anything since it should be paying off its debt."savings are ravaged by inflation." No they are not."Who benefits from inflation? Leaving aside the Hayekian insight that inflation benefits those who get the new money first (the political class)" No one in the nation benefits."Supply and demand. This is why you hear old timers talking about a weeks pay for $50 or whatever shockingly low figure is used to describe a price in a distant past because the government has been printing so much money." Nonsensical rant which is completely irrelevant to the debate."Printing money benefits debtors at the expense of creditors." IT DOES NOT BENEFIT ANYONE!"since the money that pays back the loan is worth less than the money with which the loan was borrowed)" This would just mean more amounts of the same currency now have to be paid anyway."This creates a disincentive towards savings." What has this got to do with ANYTHING in this debate?"But savings are where real economic growth comes from" Spending wisely is where it comes form, merely hoarding back money to save it is stupid and futile, causing no growth at all."those savings are then loaned to entrepreneurs" Irrelevant."capital makes workers more productive and these more productive workers now earn a higher salary." BUT... The government still has a national debt to pay off that is increasing with a huge interest rate!"Another big problem with paying back the debt is that in order to pay it back you need to tax people." How is this a problem?" taxes are terrible for the economy" Such nonsense."they kill jobs" Taxes do not kill jobs."it's wrong to take someone else's property" This is exactly what the government of that nation has done to another nation. This is why it is in NATiONAL DEBT!" it's especially wrong to threaten to hurt them if they do not give you their property." What? This is seriously a nonsensical rant totally irrelevant to the debate."This is called extortion and it's against the law - except when the government does it, because the government can do anything they want, because they're the government and you're not." What the actual heck is pro going on about?"why should some random plumber pay back all the money that was sent to foreign dictators via foreign aid" Asking a why question usually is only valid if it is relevant to the debate. This is not relevant."given to rich agribusiness interests like subsidizing ethanol, or put into countless imperialist wars of aggression against poor people in little huts that could never have hurt anyone if they wanted to which they assuredly did not?" Complete and utter nonsense."If you take out a loan you are morally obligated to pay back that loan." The word pro is looking for is 'legally'."How can I possibly be obligated to pay back a loan for money that I never agreed to spend in the first place?" By taxing."Really it's the fault of whoever loaned the money in the first place." This is exactly why the government shouldn't ignore it for it is their fault."Why on earth would you loan money to an organization as cruel, as ruthless, with as brutal disregard for human life as the state?" Is this a joke? The state are the heads of a nation, their sole job is caring for the welfare of its people and the economy."Why would you seek to finance this vicious and repressive empire for the sake of a few points in interest?" Nonsensical rant begins again."Say proponents of stealing your money to pay back all the spending politicians have done in order to secure their own power, wealth and the wealth and power of the people who elected them, who would lend the government any more money if the debt was repudiated? And that's exactly the point. No one. Instead of these debt ceiling circuses there would be a very real debt ceiling. Bad credit. And how incredible would that be! If you knew that NO ONE could leverage your children's future. If the government learned a little fiscal restraint. I know I would spend like crazy with a trillion dollar credit card. Wouldn't you?"Nonsensical rant... In conclusion, it seems extremely obvious that if a government owes debts to other nations it better get up off its lazy arse and worry about paying them than 'repudiating it' which means to completely refuse to pay it.