The stimulus bill will succeed

Let's take a look at what a debate is. First the topic is normally chosen by an impartial party. We can now see why this is important. Implicit in phrasing the debate topic is that is a good one, since that also can be challenged. The Instigator states his position on the topic. The Contender then states a position which disagrees with that of the other guy. Note that step two cannot be completed until step one is completed. It is the responsibility of both parties to support their positions and attack that of the other guy. The practice of placing value on winning debates by simply picking a really stupid topic and then demanding one's opponent support it with volumes of data and sitting back and waiting for one's opponent to make a mistake, as my opponent has done, is inferior to the values of good debates and an informed public which I propose. The criteria which would support those values are many but certainly would include responsibility in selection of a good debate topic. Consequently it is important to allow participants the freedom to attack the appropriateness of the topic along with everything else about it if they so choose. Pick a functional object X that does Y. Explain how it works. No, that's wrong, I tell you. It doesn't do Z properly at all. The sales person told me it would do Z and it does not. What is there that requires me to accept your explanation? Nothing except that your explanation accounts for observed behavior. It provides a hypothetical model for testing it, predicting future behavior. If this model does in fact account for observed behavior we say that it works. It doesn't really matter much what went on before that that did not work. If a paradigm accounts for thirteen trillion dollars that is a lot of ways that it could have failed but didn't. They would tend to support the hypothesis by inductive logic. Consequently an explanation which works is preferable to one that does not work. Based on the criteria of soundness, workability, consistency, predictability, constancy and suitablity as a scientific hypothesis. Looking through the stimulus package http://www.washingtonpost.com... it becomes pretty clear what is going on. This program was designed to be economically unproductive. Costing over two thousand dollars per man, woman and child in the country, it is remarkable how the money trail disappears immediately. That family of four who will be paying eight thousand dollars for $79 a month in food stamps must be celebrating already. And that is one program that would be economically productive if it amounted to anythng. Filling potholes for people who didn't ask for their potholes to be filled will not generate income due to gas savings. It will give someone a temporary economically unsustainable job who will be paid with, and then pay taxes on, their own money. These jobs do not create any wealth and simply drain labor from the labor market in competition with the private sector, and create more debt, making economic recovery that much more remote. And there are an enormous number of "jobs" that will be "created." I am taking a position which disagrees with my opponent, namely Resolved: That the stimulus package was designed to be economically unproductive. My opponent apparently believes that it was designed to stimulate the economy so this is certainly a disagreement. Now I am the one who can sit back and count the votes.