Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent must really have disliked the prospect of rebutting my arguments, because rather than doing so he invented a new set of arguments to rebut instead. Since my opponent has chosen not do address most of my arguments directly, there is not much for me to rebut directly. Instead I will illustrate how he has rebutted straw-man arguments and effectively conceded my arguments of substance.First, let me just say that it is a little rich for my opponent to attack my use of a video as a source. He has attempted to say that it over-ran the 8000 character limit and yet he himself has placed his references in a separate debate. My inclusion of the video was an incremental point, I made an argument around it and the point I was making (that there is no operational constraint on OASDI spending, only self-imposed ones) did not rely on the video. The video merely reinforced it. Instead of addressing the issue, my opponent used the inclusion of the video as an excuse to not address the point. This is a pattern found throughout his response.1. Social Security is not a "transfer payment"In the last round, I explained (with sources) how in the current "fiat" monetary system, all government spending is effectively done with new money, and all taxation removes money from the private sector, effectively "un-printing" it. My opponent did not address this point and has effectively conceded it.My opponent then discussed how I allegedly said:"My opponent claims that the government never really has the money in the first place because it can get almost unlimited money from taxes. This is a fallacy of composition. My opponent infers that since money can be produced in almost everlasting amounts via either taxes or the operation of a Fractional Reserve Banking system, money cannot be a literal object. This is a logical fallacy."This is a complete strawman argument. I never said that the government can tax unlimitedly. I said that it can spend without operational limit, that the constraint is inflation not solvency. You will also note that I never mentioned "Fractional Reserve Banking." FRB has not existed in the US since at least 1934 because: (1) banks are capital constrained not reserve constrained and (2) bank loans create new deposits, but offsetting liabilities, thus total net financial assets are unchanged. This is a side point though. Again, my opponent has invented a new argument to respond to rather than responding to mine, because he can't.SS is not a transfer payment. The SS payments create new money, the FICA taxes remove money. The government is not constrained by tax revenue to finance spending.2. Another way of claiming that SS is a transfer payment and that taxpayers are "investors"My opponent's rebuttal to this point was as follows:"I already addressed this point in C1. Supposed unlimited (this is false. Nothing is unlimited) money of the government does not equate to a lack of transfer payments."He claims "nothing is unlimited". This is false, numbers are unlimited. Printing money in unlimited quantities may be bad for the currency, but there is no limit. My opponent deliberately confuses solvency risk (that a family, business, or Ponzi scheme might have) with inflation risk that the government has. Further, the taxpayers are not "investors" nothing is built by paying FICA taxes. I offered a cited economic definition of investment my opponent tried to contradict it with a specialty "investments" site definition where my definition was relegated to position 2 (in that context). Again, there are no "investors" in SS.3. No profitHere we agree that no profit is made. However we disagree about which direction this cuts. This will get followed up below, but in a Ponzi scheme, the people running the scam make a fraudulent profit. My opponent has conceded the point that the government does not make a fraudulent profit from SS. Thus, the resolution should be defeated right here.4. Lack of new investorsMy opponent doesn't really know what he's saying here. He goes back and forth multiple times about whether the dependency ration is a social problem or not. Here are some examples in the order he presents them:"However, the Dependency Ratio has a stark resemblance to the exact reason of why a Ponzi Scheme fails." (here it's Ponzi like)"I agree that the DR poses a problem to society." (here it's demographics)"a desperate DR ratio directly corresponds with the factors that cause a Ponzi Scheme to fail" (Here it's a Ponzi scheme)I have outlined how the DR is a problem with demographics. SS neither solves or creates this problem. My opponent has not refuted this and thus concedes the point.5. FraudMy opponent agrees that a Ponzi scheme must be fraudulent and that SS is not fraud. He then attempts to argue that somehow SS is still a Ponzi scheme. This conclusion is clearly erroneous. He does attempt at one point (contradicting himself) that a Ponzi scheme does not need to be fraud. I offered a sourced definition saying that it does. He offered none to the contrary other than a bare assertion.In summary, my opponent has conceded that: SS is not a transfer payment, the government does not profit, there is no fraud. Thus SS is not a Ponzi scheme.