taxes in the united states should be signifigantly lowered currently

Defenses of Rebuttals:"I do not need to defend this because This does not account for the tax funded military In total. This statement, nor does pros contention regarding the military prove how significantly lowering taxes by the billions will help America in any way."Indeed, my opponent DOES need to defend this. His ONLY argument was, as previously stated:P1. All significant government expenditure is absolutely necessary.P2. Cutting taxes significantly would prevent the government from spending on these absolutely necessary government expenditures.Therefore, taxes should not be cut significantly.If he cannot defend Premise 1, his argument fails. I prove the latter part further down in my last argument. These are not my arguments. They are rebuttals of Con's arguments--something Con failed to understand.Con drops this point."Pros first contention...Military budget cuts......so e is stating because of military budget cuts we should significantly lower taxes?"*facepalm*Again, these are contentions of Premise 1 of Pro's argument. These are not my arguments. That's why I labeled them "Contentions."I even added my "Argument" section in large, bold font. Con drops this contention."If we cut back on the first point, then retirees will be more succeptable to be lost when they get back to the states, They will have no money to live, or to obtain skills marketable in our economy. A sub machine gunner doesn't really have transferable skills."This is a straw man.1) This applies to NEW hires ONLY.2) They are not at a higher risk for becoming lost. Whatever that means...?3) They will have plenty of money to live from their military pay and the retirement benefits from the military in addition to outside pay, etc. And even assuming they don't, is that the fault of their employer from 45 years prior?! Again, these are only small cuts, not complete removals.4) We are not discussing employment ability. Regardless, the argument is ridiculous.(Also a spelling error in the argument)"If we change military compensation, Then this would delete college funding via the military,delete their GI bill,eradicate housing,and allowance assistance that the soldiers defending us deserve,"This is false. Military pay compensation is independent of everything Con listed. This is a straw man.(Also note the punctuation error)"If we reduce the number of army member and marines by 35 percent, then the military is going to cut millions, How is laying people off for no reason going to better defend our country, or stimulate our economy?"STRAW MAN!1) That is an ABSURD claim by Con. The plan is to cut 70,000 marines over TEN YEARS, not "millions!"[1],[2]2) And the good reason, as I stated (and Con ignored), is that our massive military is a detriment to our national security, to human life, and our fiscal situation.3) It stimulates the economy for the reasons I explained in my argument (and Con ignored)."If we reduce military personal, then if something drastic happens in that area then we will be strategically less successful in counter operations in that area. Witch isn't justifiable."This is quickly becoming a waste of time. Con ignored my argument.1) These are not drastic changes.2) See above"With the last point like I said we need to be taking care of our troops and not tossing them to the streets when were done with them"Holy sh1t! That is a STRAW MAN FROM HELL! "My opponent claims there has been more terrorist attacks since 9-11....I don't see how this furthers that taxes should be lowered but I will defeat it and move on."For the third time, these are contentions of Premise 1 of Pro's argument. These are not my arguments. That's why I labeled them "Contentions."I even added my "Argument" section in large, bold font. "His source is just an opinion from a politician and isn't concrete evidence."If Con had read the article, he would have known this statement to be false. It was a FACT CHECK of a politician's statement."My opponents next contention.....social security....it is sustainable and our economy is not about to crash because of it ."Unsubstantiated and contradicted by the facts I linked to."Life without social security funding would be disastrous. If you get disabled you would just be left to die. When you get old and cant work anymore you will be starving,dieing, and possibly without a home, and probroly no access to adequate healthcare. So funding should continue."Do I really need to refute this?! You've got to be kidding me. Con, you do realize that per capita, there is LESS money in the SS fund than was put in? That means people have LOST their money by funding SS."If we didn't have taxes then how would Medicaid, Medicare. roads, infrastructure,public education, agricultural research,law enforcement,libraries,food stamps, poor families,and the war on terror be effective programs????????"Jesus! I'm not advocating eliminating government revenue! I am advocating cutting taxation and spending somewhat.Straw man #...I don't know; I lost count at like 100."AS I've stated earlier bush tried to lower taxes significantly. Guess what happened? a reccesion. WE don't need to affirm this resolution."Correlation does not yield causation. By that logic, I will assert that the recession was caused by the increase in Sudanese civil violence. Dang dead Africans causing our recessions.Dropped/Straw-manned Arguments:1. Contention 12. Contention 23. Argument for Spending Cuts4. Economic Benefits(ie, ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS)I will repost my Economic Benefits Argument for Voters:Economic BenefitsTaxation in the form if income taxes is forced theft by the government of our property. And the constitutionality of the income tax aside, it limits economic growth.Were taxes lowered, consumers would have more money to spend. Consumer spending has an exponential effect on economic growth. [5] ￼  Government spending has a much lower efficiency. Growth is linear and plagued with waste and fraud as there is no competition. Statistically, pure consumer consumption drives the economy.REASONS TO VOTE PRO:1. Con dropped or straw-manned, not one, not two, but ALL of my contentions.2. Con dropped or straw-manned ALL of my arguments, invluding dropping my main economic benefits argument while ignoring it in his contentions.3. Con had many spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors throughout his argument.4. Con makes wildly innacurate, unfounded, emotional pleas about dead soldiers and grandmas on the street. I trust that voters will see these appeals to emotion for what they are: complete BS.5. I succesfully showed not only are cuts beneficial, but they are feasible, as well.VOTE PRO.___________1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.nytimes.com...