Using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.

Con's burden will be to negate my arguments and thus show that using these taxes on football stadiums are justifiable. These are the burdens that we both accepted by taking this debate. I've upheld my burden throughout this debate. I've shown, through empirical data, that stadiums built using tax dollars have negatively impacted the majority of the surrounding communities of these stadiums economically, including a drop in the average income rate and average poverty rate, as evidenced in my Round 2. This goes *directly against* the justification given by government leaders and team officials, who justified this spending of our taxes by saying that it "will generate economic growth by generating wealth and creating jobs". [1] Con has failed to uphold his burden throughout this debate and instead attempted to run a Kritik of the resolution itself. Ultimately, Con had a burden set for him before the debate even began, and by accepting the debate implicitly agreed to the burden set for him. Violation of this merits a loss for Con. ArgumentsI. The Justification of Tax Spending on NFL Stadiums is Unsound. The only response I've seen to this line of argumentation from Con is him claiming that he has no burden in this debate, which is a false claim since I clearly defined our burdens in Round 1. He then states in Round 3 that there is no need to change a system if I can't show that there's something wrong with it, a statement which completely ignores my entire affirmative case from Round 2 where I show what is wrong with this system. Once more, Con drops my only argument. Since there are no new arguments in the final round, Con has left this line of argumentation standing unchallenged, thus dropping his burden completely in this debate which, again, merits a loss for Con. II. Moral Nihilism Kritik This is what Con has been spending his rounds on, a kritik of the resolution based on moral nihilism. I've already shown why it's a non-topical argument and, as such, is unable to be applied to this resolution, but I will explain it again for the sake of clarity:First off, why is it non-topical and why is that a problem? The reason it is non-topical is because of Con's own words:"Justified is defined as being done for a good or for a legitimate reason. How can we define what a good reason really is? The term good has no exact meaning and without a clear definition of what good really is then voters have no choice but to negate. "This K is non-topical because it focuses solely on the tern "good" in the definition of the key term 'Justified'. However, the definition does not say, "that which is justified is both good and legitimate. " Rather, it says "good or legitimate. " All I have to do is show one or the other, not both. Con then claims that his K covers the term legitimate too, based on the definition of legitimate: "able to be defended with logic or justification; valid. " [3] Okay, let's explore this. Valid is defined as: "having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. " [4] I've shown in Round 2 that the reasoning for the tax spending does not have a sound basis in fact, based on the empirical data showing that it has had the opposite economic impact as the given justification for such spending, thus making it unreasonable. Therefore, I've shown that the spending is not valid = not legitimate. Con even concedes that his K only covers the word "good":My opponent states that good and legitimate are two different things and notices that my case only attacks the word good. This is correct. So clearly his K does not cover the term legitimate, and as such is not topically relevant to the resolution he is trying to attack. The Kritik merely attacks a part of the resolution, not the resolution in its entirety, and thus fails as an applicable Kritik. Secondly, if it's non-topical, nor applicable, then what is it? Since we've established that this Kritik is non-topical, nor applicable, it becomes nothing more than a logical fallacy known as a 'Red Herring'. [2] A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. Topic A is under discussion 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A) 3. Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. Third, if it's just a red herring, then what does Con have? Con has nothing. He even concedes key contentions to his attempted K:My opponent is also correct in stating that the K focus’ on what is morally good the term justified’s usage in the resolution makes this an ethical debate as opposed to a pragmatic one. This concession from Con confirms the logical fallacy committed by him which I note in Round 3 - his "shifting of the goalposts". The issue here refers back to our respective burdens. I clearly defined the direction of this debate and assigned specific burdens to myself and whomever accepted. By Con ignoring his burden throughout the debate, and attempting to shift this from a pragmatic debate to an ethical one, he has committed his second logical fallacy within this debate. Lastly, Con's last ditch effortCon attempts to end his round by arguing that the audience should dismiss my point regarding how the existence of objective morality carries no weight against the obvious fact that the results contradict the given justification for this spending by government leaders and team officials. He does so by saying that because I don't specifically reference who stated that justification, that it shouldn't be considered because Con must then assume I'm talking about everybody. .. This is just silly. If you look at the data I provided in Round 2, I link the source of this data. [1] In that source, it lists each stadium, the economic situation before and after, and highlights specific government leaders who allowed this spending to occur in their respective territory. Even an article published by The Atlantic lists specific names who've done this such as Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, The Saints’ owner, Tom Benson, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, ect. [5] We can clearly see who propagates this unsound and invalid justification of our tax spending, and we can now toss out his claim that I was speaking about everybody. In conclusion, I've extended my affirmative case from Round 2, as it currently remains standing unchallenged by Con. I've defeated his attempt of a Kritik by showing that it is non-topical due to only focusing on a portion of the resolution rather than the entire resolution, and how that thus makes it non-applicable. I've further shown how Con has broken the rules of this debate by ignoring his assigned burden from the start and instead committing numerous logical fallacies in applying a non-topical, non-applicable K. For these reasons, please vote Pro. Thank you. Sources[1] . http://protectingtaxpayers.org...[2] . http://www.nizkor.org... [3] . https://www.google.co.uk...[4] . https://www.google.com...[5] . http://www.theatlantic.com...