The US should use negative taxation over welfare checks

I. Opposition TacticsMy opponent is not defending himself this debate. He is taking all the points I make about NIT's, and saying they also exist in welfare (whch they don't), before delving into a emotionally charged statement, which is called appealling to emotion. He is not arguing from a practical or logical sense. I just wanted to state this to the audience, in case they did not notice this last round.II. EITC means welfare fails, because of NIT liabillity pocketsThis made no sense whatsoever. First of all, the earned income taxation credit has nothing to do with welfare. It is something designed for negative taxation. Second, how can welfare have negative taxation liabillitys, if it isn't negatively taxing. My opponent is not making sense, and it's confusing me greatly. Honestly, his statements make it sound like he doesn't know what liabillity pockets are. III. Government does not pay into the debt lineUnbelievable. Con doesn't seem to know what he's arguing. Yes, negative taxation pays into a persons debt. The government will pay your taxes directly, and push that back farther than your expense was worth. IE, your tax return will consist of money you didn't make. This is fine, but one must consider both the collateral expenses and the liabillity pockets that develop.IV. Social Security Liablillity This has nothing to do with the debate. You should not of brought this up. Yes, I support social security, but that is another time and place, and another example of trying to make this a liberal or conservative debate. (Although negative taxation is a left wing movement).V. Welfare also discourages work My opponent completly misunderstood my argument. The US ran two federal studies, with both concluding that people work less under the NIT system compared to welfare. My opponent is trying to cover these studies by scapegoating welfare again. This is the tactic I reffered to in the beggining. He can either address the fact I have gave him, or he can keep trying to change the subject.VI. Upset over 10,000 incomeI quote this, because me and my opponent need to get on the same page. This is not a government aid vs no government aid debate. This is a government aid vs government aid debate, which means, he is only hurting himself by making these arguments. Not to mention, contradicting himself. He keeps stating that government aid is bad, but then goes on to defend the NIT, which also gives citizens 10,000 dollars. It just uses a different system.VII. Welfare causes collateral expensesAt this point, I highly doubt the opposition is reading my arguments. Welfare does not cause collateral damage in the same way the NIT does. With negative taxation, you have to push back every tax in a persons bill. This means that the government is actually paying more than the persons needed income. If someone were to be raised to the 10,000 line, on welfare they would directly hit the mark. On NIT, they might go over 1000 -2000. This is a true collateral expense.VIII. The EITC proves welfare is ineptThis contention is extremely silly, and once again, the EITC has nothing to do with welfare. He states that since we put the EITC into effect after welfare, it somehow proves that welfare doesn't work. Lets get something clear. The EITC has a completely different function. It is a minor credit (Meaning it doesn't fullfill all your expenses), for people who earn income. Most of the people on it also get welfare.What I was actually saying, which my opponent didn't understand, is that if you make NIT's the predominant system, then people with earned income would just recieve a welfare check. My opponent must either support removing earned income credits, which will come with a BOP for that premise, or be in favor of having both welfare and NIT's, which does practically nothing.IX. NIT's are not welfareReally? You are paying poor people money they don't have. That is known as welfare. Both systems accomplish the same goal, just with different methods. If my opponent truly understood what he's advocating for, then he would stop making arguments about giving poor people money, because that's exactly what negative taxes do. X. Welfare costs moneyWow, so does negative taxation. I am going to define it for him, as he doesn't seem to know how you negate taxes.Definition of 'Negative Income Tax - NIT' A guaranteed minimum income plan advocated by economist Milton Friedman in 1962 where federal income subsidies are provided to persons or families whose income falls below a certain level. Negative income tax (NIT) would allow claimants to receive income through the simple filing of tax returns rather than through the claiming of welfare benefits, ideally eliminating the need for a complex welfare bureaucracy. They do the exact same thing. Welfare pays all money below 10,000, and negative taxation pays all money below 10,000. The difference, is that one actually spends above 10,000 because it is also paying for people's taxes.XI. NIT's are more efficientMy opponent argues that welfare creates a complex beauracracy, that complicates the system. You don't think that NIT's do that as well? You need to increase the IRS budget, because they have to negate all of your taxes, which is just as complex as welfare checks. Even if this were true, which it is not, it hardly weighs against the cons.XII. Welfare and budgetsThis makes little sense. Welfare makes you budget just as much as NIT's. The difference is that with welfare you are are budgeting for a month, and with NIT's, you are litteraly giving someone 10,000 for a year. That is not a good thing. It means that circumstances will drain nearly half of the people of their money by the end of the year, and they wont be given more money until the next year.While this seems fiscally responcible in a way, their will be a lot of dead and starved children and adults.XIII. War on poverty is pointlessHow are NIT's different. You are still giving people money they don't have. That is also a war on poverty. He is giving emotionally charged rhetoric, although his system does the exact same thing. If this turns into a conservative vs liberal debate, I will be very dissapointed.This contention should be regarded as holding little to no weight whatsoever.