Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

An argument can be logically sound, correct, both, or neither. An argument being logically sound is not the same as it being correct. In response to my argument about fraud, my opponent attempted to show my argument was absurd by comparing it to another argument about cigars. His argument had two propositions and one conclusion:P1. All cigars are white. P2. A black cigar is not white. C. A black cigar is not a cigar. This argument is logically sound but not correct. The problem with this argument is not that the conclusion does not follow from the propositions (it does), rather the problem is with P1. In P1, my opponent claimed "All cigars are white," which is the no true Scotsman fallacy. He has considered a feature (being white) of something (a cigar) that is not part of its definition. Therefore, while his conclusion does logically follow from his propositions, the argument is not correct because one of his propositions is false. Now, let's compare that to my argument:P1. All Ponzi schemes are fraud. P2. Social Security is not fraud. C. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. As we have seen above this argument is logically sound, therefore if the propositions are correct, the conclusion is correct. "All Ponzi schemes are fraud," is a statement regarding the definition of what a Ponzi scheme is. Several rounds ago I proposed this requirement with a source suggesting that definition. My opponent has not offered a counter definition since then and has conceded that Ponzi schemes are fraud. P2 was conceded by my opponent in round two when he said "Whether or not it is fraudulent is irrelevant. " Therefore, my opponent conceded P1 and P2, and the conclusion follows that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. Although my opponent had previously conceded the point that SS is not fraud, he does attempt to re-argue the point in this round, so I will briefly touch on why his new argument to the contrary fails. He accepts my definition of fraud "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. " He then tries to read into "or to surrender a legal right" as if the "or" eliminates the need for anything before it. This makes no linguistic sense as it turns a definition of a noun into a verb. Fraud is not "to surrender a legal right. " The correct reading of the definition is that fraud is intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to surrender a legal right -or- intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value. The debate is over here, there is no need to respond to the other points, since I have established that SS is not a Ponzi scheme because it is not fraud. However, I will do so, briefly.1. Transfer paymentsMy opponent has still not refuted my argument from the first round, he has only quoted people describing the system differently. I argued that since the government can have unlimited money (whether or not you think it's a good idea) it is not constrained by recipets to make payments. Therefore it can't truly make a transfer payment.2. New investors to old investorsMy opponent stated "My opponent and I could go all day about whether a tax classifies as an investment. " I have argued that it does not. My opponent has not established the contrary, therefore he has not proven point 2.3. ProfitI conceded that SS does not make a profit. My opponent has not rebutted the sourced definition I gave 2 rounds ago saying that a Ponzi scheme results in a fraudulent profit for the people who run it. He has conceded that point. For this reason, the issue of (lack of) profit argues against SS being a Ponzi Scheme.4. DemographicsPonzi schemes fail because people wise up and stop investing, not because of an aging population. The population would be getting older with, or without SS. Is birth control a Ponzi scheme? I'm not really sure what more to say. I thank my opponent for a very lively debate. Although my opponent went first as pro, I agreed when we set up the debate that he could make a final summary in the last round. I very much look forward to reading it.