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

I'm skipping over the "refer back to..." arguments. Just to clarify. 1. Inherency a. My opponent presupposes that the government is the source of rights; however, government exists for the sake of protecting man's rights, not deciding to whom rights are delegated - this is because rights are an inherent part of man's nature, as they ensure his survival against the whims of the men who would surely subjugate him if he did not have the rights necessary to exist independently. Regardless of what Social Contract Theory states, man's rights are inherent, and commissioning a government does not force one to lose any rights. A government may regulate the use of force, but individuals cannot vest in their government any more rights than the individuals themselves possess. Since individuals cannot INITIATE force, but can use it in retaliation (i.e. self-defense), the government has the same right, defending individuals from the initiation of force by criminals who would seek dominion over the person or property of another man. This means that government, by definition, requires voluntary, non-coerced participation to remain legitimate. At the point that the government taxes (steals), it is initiating force against the inherent right to property, regardless of the compensation offered in exchange. If individuals wish to pay for government services, they can do so voluntarily (as they do with cable, gas, electricity, water, and other pay-as-you-go services). If they don't pay voluntarily, they just don't receive the services of government. If they don't pay taxes, they get thrown in prison because they refused to forfeit control of their property. Which one is REALLY the ethically legitimate system? You decide. b. Again, the symbiosis argument. He makes the argument that people are "indebted" to their country by using its services; however, the resolution sets up a system in which the government is an agent of parasitism, since the property rights of some are compromised for the sake of subsidizing the lives of others. At the point that the government prioritizes rights in this fashion, the relationship is parasitic, not symbiotic. Additionally, keep in mind that Pro's system has one group of people paying taxes, and an entirely different group benefiting from it. If citizens wish to voluntarily invoke government services (like police protection), one must be allowed the opportunity to voluntarily pay for it, just as they would make monthly payments for utilities. To take the money under threat of imprisonment is theft, regardless of what ends the stolen money is put toward. If Unicef broke into my house and stole everything I owned to fund a children's hospital, it would still be theft. Finally, note again the appeal to probability - "If those other sources had the possibility of working, they already would have." c. Pro misconstrues my argument - my point was that, while SNAP may be admirable in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, economic gains don't equate an ethical justification which the plan clearly lacks. My argument, in its most basic form, is that the ends don't justify the entire range of means available to that end. The analogy (the government using a universal death penalty to reduce crime) proves that, while the desirable end may be achieved (reducing crime/hunger), the means employed toward that purpose were far from desirable (murder/theft). In layman's terms, stealing from one group of people to help another group of people assumes that the rights of some are more important than the rights of others, which obviously isn't true - all men are equal in the validity of their rights. 2. The Planks A. I'm not sure how he can claim that I don't provide evidence or logic. I provided a long and detailed explanation - with examples - of the advantages of privatization over government intervention. It's self-evident considering that private companies are more motivated to outdo their competitors to maximize profit; ergo, they'll have to lower the cost to consumers while increasing the quality; ergo, the free market will produce better results than the stagnation of the bureaucracy. Again - you decide. B. The conditionality objection isn't relevant; he could have argued that government intervention is preferable to private action - he didn't do that, choosing instead to attempt to win the argument through technicalities; however, he later remarks that, because private companies aren't motivated by altruism, they will do a terrible job. However, sophisticated technology like the computers we're using, the iPods we probably have, and the cell phones we're likely both carrying aren't a result of wanting to "help people". The fact is, wanting to make money is a strong reason for companies to provide the best product or services possible, and at the lowest price possible. The government, on the other hand, is mired in political considerations, bureaucratic red tape, and election concerns. Private companies needn't worry about any of that. In terms of charities, whether or not a lot of money is raised is irrelevant; keep in mind that the needs of one person (or group of people) don't impose any obligation on the people around them, nor does that need give them a legitimate claim to the property of other individuals. One person's need doesn't give him the right to steal to fulfill that need. C. Correction, Pro. The poor people have a need for "action"; however, that action shouldn't include leeching off of people by virtue of their success. Violating the rights of others for the sake of one's own rights isn't morally permissible. Sure, private programs may not fill each and every need, but that's just how it is. One person's misfortune doesn't grant him any special entitlements, especially those requiring the penalization of productive, successful individuals. b. Business implies voluntary exchange. This program isn't voluntary for the people forced to fund it. c. Circumventing the Constitution might have been a bit much. d. Okie dokie. 3. Solvency a. Really? Man has no right to property? The product of his life and liberty? Yeah, alright. Pursuit of happiness is the right to pursue one's own interests in a way that violates no one's rights. You can't do that if you have no right to control the product of your labor. Pursuit of happiness is contingent on the right to property, which your plan perpetuates the violation of by increasing taxation. B. "Anyway you have a debt to the government. That money is not your property, it's theirs because they are taxing it. End of story. It's that simple." <--- What is this I don't even Seriously, though, his argument is pretty circular, since he's essentially saying that the money one earns isn't one's property because the government says it isn't one's property. This just presupposes that one doesn't own the fruits of one's labor, and that the government has the right to take anything that it wants from you (i.e. that taxes aren't theft). Basically, he's saying "it's not your property because the government is forcibly taking it from you." I don't know how else to show you that it's wrong, and I can only hope that his faulty reasoning is self-evident. c. I'm not sure why he declares that I'm using emotions and feelings. I'm making the logically coherent argument that one's life, liberty, and property belong only to himself - not to any other man, group of men, or government. This is an argument not addressed by Pro - that no one has a higher claim to an individual's rights than the individual himself. 4. Advantages a. The point is, New Deal didn't work - Great Society didn't work - Stimulus didn't work - you understand where I'm going. *Points* Conduct: Tied/Con - too many technicalities on Pro's part. S/G: Tied Arguments: Con - obviously. Sources: Con - Pro's sources were integrated in the case; Con used sources better.