The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

FIAT K My opponent still does not understand this argument, so I will explain it once again. Say you, voter A decide that you would like to vote for Aff, as you like his plan. So you vote for aff. That's it. The plan doesn't actually get passed. Nothing actually happens. My opponent gains a vote. None of the advantages in his plan actually happen in REAL LIFE. "But," my opponent will argue "nothing you say is real either!" Well, that's where presumption comes in. Since nothing actually happens if you vote for aff or neg, it is a tie. BUT, presumption states that you should vote neg in the event of a tie. So, once again, vote NEG on presumption T-POVERTY First, I could not examine my opponent's evidence as his link was broken. But, let me reiterate my points. While my opponent's definitions may leave "more ground for debate", that does not make it the correct definition. Let's examine the resolutions: "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty". UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This resolution limits debate to the United States. The theoretical law would be theoretically passed in the UNITED STATES. Why would we use a vague definition of poverty, when it should clearly be the one that applies to the UNITED STATES? The US Poverty line is what defines poverty in the United States. SNAPS funds people that are above the poverty line, thus it is not a program for poverty in the United States. Thus making it non-topical. COERCION K "these cards were from for a different country" None of my cards are "[from a] different country" "they talked about enslavement" I believe the card in question is: USING THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS PLAN WILL SPREAD COERCION AND VIOLENCE. THE MAJORITY OF ENSLAVEMENT AND MURDER IN HISTORY COMES FROM GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL (Rothbard '85). Here is the card: First, every other person or group receives its income by voluntary payment: either by voluntary contribution or gift (such as the local community chest or bridge club), or by voluntary purchase of its goods or services on the market (i.e., grocery store owner, baseball player, steel manufacturer, etc.). Only the government obtains its income by coercion and violence—i.e., by the direct threat of confiscation or imprisonment if payment is not forthcoming. This coerced levy is "taxation." A second distinction is that, apart from criminal outlaws, only the government can use its funds to commit violence against its own or any other subjects; Both distinctions, of course, can be summed up as: only the government, in society, is empowered to aggress against the property rights of its subjects, whether to extract revenue, to impose its moral code, or to kill those with whom it disagrees. Furthermore, any and all governments, even the least despotic, have always obtained the bulk of their income from the coercive taxing power. And historically, by far the overwhelming portion of all enslavement and murder in the history of the world have come from the hands of government. We can obviously see this card does not "[come from a] different country" it is a philosophical argument. Does my opponent have any proof at all that any of my cards are "[from a] different country"? He hasn't presented any, and thus I am led to believe he simply made this up. "Old dates are bad because the government is always changing and just because something might have happened 40 years ago does not mean it will happen now." If you can actually point out a specific card that has information that is outdated, I can grant you this takeout on THAT CARD, otherwise I'm calling bogus. De-Dev DA Your argument was specific to that ONE card. The other cards are completely different, and you have no provided any analysis on any of those. Even if I granted you the takeout on that card, the rest still stand.