Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget proposal should be passed.

=== Pro Case ===Prestandards1) Drops are concessionsI have not dropped the WSJ source anywhere. Pro wants you to believe that his sub points are distinct arguments. They are not. They use the same logos - "because Paul Ryan said so in the WSJ, they are true". So the judges should consider his WSJ contention 1 big argument and recognize that I have addressed it. I really did make at typo with the tags, and it makes no difference. My argument against a-e is the same as f and g.2) Supporting CitationsPro says he shouldn't have to spell out everything in TPTP. But if he doesn't explain ANYTHING. He can't even answer a really really simple question about the military. Just "hur hur the plan will work so sayeth Paul Ryan on the WSJ's opinion page".So again, his quotes are basically just victory chants. They claim TPTP will accomplish some goal, but do not explain how. Pro does not explain how.Pro says he attacks my sources. He attacks their CREDIBILITY, which is problematic, but he doesn't extend that to actually claim that their factual content is wrong. Pro brings up his own dropped argument against wikipedia - namely that the government says its bad. I pointed out that the government lies too (OMG!) and that my wikipedia article got its sources from the Dept. of Defense. So *shrug*.Contention 2:a-b) i) Dropped. Paul Ryan's plan has not been implemented yet. We do not know for sure what its effects will be. We can try to use REASONING to figure it out, but Pro has presented NONE. Dropped. He is running his case off an external website. This is abusive because we have limited character space.Evidence spamming point also dropped. Either Vote Pro down for evidence spamming, or vote him down for failing to address Keynesian economics. ii) Pro's only defense for using the CBO to evaluate the CBO is that the government is super trustworthy. He does not prove this anywhere. I'll just point you to my previous source proving that the government lies. Pro completely blunders the GDP estimation point. The CBO has guessed GDP within 2%. But GDP only grows about 2% per year. 2/2=1. Their margin of error is 100%, not 2%. c-h) I do not only rely on my "evidence spamming argument", but Pro is spamming evidence. The TPTP is about a hundred pages long and Pro is just saying "Hurp - this plan will work you can read about it here".Pro drops the physics/economics comparison. Even if economics were an exact science, he still needs to show his reasoning behind his predictions. Pro says the WSJ is super credible because it calls itself the "WALL STREET" journal, therefore it must know about "WALL STREET". He completely drops my arguments about the WSJ being profit oriented. It has no reason to seek out the truth... particularly on its opinion page where a politician can do his little dance and no one (except Pro) will take him seriously.Pro also fails the challenge that Paul Ryan's work is garbage. If you are in any doubt over this debate, please open TPTP and start reading it. It is garbage. Seriously just look at both Pro and Paul Ryan's total failure on the military issue. Neither of them have any idea what they're talking about.=== Con Case ===Framework:It is immoral to save 500 people > If < you could save 1000 (all things equal). TPTP is, at best, the 500 person option. Morality requires that we choose from many better plans.Contention 1:a)i) Dropped. My source is still cool.ii) Dropped. TPTP and Pro fail on military spending.iii) Dropped. TPTP is just a political stunt. It has no reasoning.iv) Dropped. My use of sources is fine.b) i) Dropped. Pro can't explain why TPTP will work. ii) Dropped.iii) Dropped. I'm allowed to use other plans.iv) Dropped. Be concerned that TPTP was written by a flag waving monkey. Contention 2:Aww that's so cute. We are all aware that congress appropriates funds, and may be constrained by a budget. Durrrrrrrrr not topical to this contention. a)i) Pro doesn't understand my charges of legal mysticism. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean anyone will follow that law. ii) Dropped. Pro's plan does not address the fundamental problems with our system.b) i) Dropped. I win GDP. ii) Dropped. You can totally ignore all of TPTP. Even if it is a flawless art piece of state policy, its focus is on making numbers on a balance sheet bigger. Pro dropped and therefore conceded that we should value individual choice instead.ConclusionPro only has one source: Paul Ryan. According to Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan has a good plan. The WSJ let Paul Ryan use their opinion page because it makes them money. This is not acceptable. If you are in doubt, just look at my attacks on the document. They go totally unanswered. There are numerous other problems with the round... Pro has basically run his case off an external website. He has misunderstood his own CBO source. He has dropped the vast majority of my arguments, implicitly conceding them. etc. You can vote on any of these points alone.Lastly, his Theodore Roosevelt quote implies that Paul Ryan is really just doin' the best he can god bless em'. This was spiked by my prima-facie argument that Paul Ryan's document has so many errors and omissions that it is NOT a serious piece of legislation. Paul Ryan is probably mentally handicapped.This is a political stunt. That is all.