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

==Pro Case==To be clear, Pro's 1st and 3rd contentions are "conceded" because they aren't really contentions. Pro cannot and does not make any offensive extensions from these.==Prestandards==1) Drops are ConcessionsPro claims I dropped arguments g and h of his contention 2. I dropped the tags, but they all use the same WSJ source. Since I am attacking the source they are not dropped.Pro is also wrong that they are enough to auto-win him the round. Even if he can secure benefit from his WSJ card, he still has to show how it outweighs my mitigating concerns. 2) Supporting CitationsPro misses the thrust of this prestandard. It's that you can't just spam evidence - you have to explain it. There are two reasons for this.First, using evidence without explanations means that you are running your case off an external website. This is necessarily abusive because we have 8000 characters max. Pro entirely IGNORES this aspect of evidence spamming.Second, Pro says that there needs to be some appeal to authority in order to have an argument in the first place. This is obviously false because we are arguing right now without asking the WSJ for help. So we can make analytical arguments without citations or appeals to authority. Pro's pleading only applies to empirical components of arguments - such as the unemployment rate or GDP. This is problematic too, but Pro's contentions center around the validity of a HYPOTHETICAL UNTESTED PLAN, which is not empirical.Pro should be able to explain why his plan is so good instead of cherry picking media outlets till he gets the answer he wants. Contention 2:a-b)i) Extend - Pro is running his case off an external website. Even if you think the WSJ is right, he still has to reconstruct and defend their reasoning here in the debate.If you don't buy that, here are many pages explaining why Pro is wrong [1] [2] [3] [4]. So either you believe that Pro shouldn't be allowed to make arguments outside the round, or you vote Pro down for failing to address my evidence spam.ii)I don't care if my source is an opinion page. I can very easily find another tabulation of CBO errors. They are objective facts, and Pro is not bothering to contest them.Pro goes on to say that maybe it wasn't the CBO's fault because Congress did some weird stuff and there were wars. This is a straw man. I never argued that the CBO was at fault. I argued that their estimates were inaccurate. Maybe they're really smart and do the best they can, but their numbers still turn out wrong. So don't let Pro use them to justify his case.Pro critiques my second source, again complaining that it's a blog but not actually contesting the factual content. He tries to claim victory here saying that the apparent CBO bias actually goes in his favor because he'll be able to reduce spending by more than he predicts. But the actual reason given is uncertainty, so CBO can't be accurate. This is good enough for me. How can Pro plan spending for the next 10 years if all the CBO's estimates are wrong? He can't.c-f and g and h)Pro defends his source because he thinks the statements made by the WSJ about TPTP are factual. They're not. TPTP hasn't been implemented yet, so we have to use our REASONING powers to figure out what its consequences will be. Pro does not explicate his REASONING anywhere. His claim is literally "The WSJ says I'm right so you lose". But realize that this article is featured in the WSJ's opinion page and was WRITTEN BY PAUL RYAN HIMSELF. So according to Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan's plan will work. TROLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!!!!Okay.Breath Sieben...There is literally no way for this evidence to be less credible.He goes on to make a syllogism that is unconnected to anything in this point. It is addressed implicitly elsewhere.==Con Case==Framework:Straw man! Pro says I think morality requires a perfect plan. It doesn't. It only requires that you choose the BEST plan you know about. This is really obvious. If you have Plan A that can save 500 people and Plan B that can save 1000, you should go with Plan B (all other things equal). Plan A is better than nothing, but it isn't moral if you could have chosen Plan B.So Pro's claim is that TPTP is better than the status quo. He concedes that there are really obvious things the TPTP is missing. This necessarily means that TPTP is NOT the best plan we know about.Contention 1:You know, he complained that I dropped the tags on his WSJ "source", and then he turns around and drops the tags on all my contentions. Whatever.a)i) Pro says maybe my source is unreliable because the government said so. Well the government lies too [5] so now we're tied for trolling. And if you look at the citations on the wiki article, you will see that they go directly to government sources. ii) Pro completely drops the whole thrust of this sub point, which is that the TPTP's stance on military spending is unclear. So how can he claim benefit?iii) Dropped as well. TPTP has no authority because it contains no analysis. Just hollow chants about efficiency and good government.iv) Pro says that using an external source is a violation of my own prestandards. Actually I'm not evidence spamming because I quote the whole damn paragraph. It is also not a (logical) appeal to authority because it is a list of factual statements which Pro does not even contest.b) Agriculturei) Dropped. He doesn't explain why TPTP stops short of the free market if the free market is so durn great.ii) Dropped.iii) (Added) Pro concedes these are all good ideas. So why don't they count? Because they're not an official bill. But since we can draft new official bills using our brains, and since moral theory persists REGARDLESS of written legal documents, these arguments still count. iv) (Added) But even if you don't buy that, there is prima facie concern raised. Why does it leave out so many obvious good things? Why can't we get rid of our military bases in germany? Pro never explains. These omissions and a quick survey of the document should convince our readers that it is a very amateurish political stunt, not a serious attempt at national policy. Contention 2: TPTP does not address fundamental problemsa) Accountabilityi) Pro believes in Legal Mysticism where simply because something is a law means that it gets followed. This is demonstrably false because laws are broken all the time.ii) Even assuming TPTP were to be passed, it would not be followed. Pro wants to throw out all the practical considerations because he thinks this is a moral debate. But consequences matter in morality. Bad decisions were made by PEOPLE, and their incentives need to be changed before we can expect different behavior.b)i) GDP measures output in dollars. So when I produce a t-shirt, GDP goes up $10. If I find a way to make a t-shirt for $3, GDP will fall by $7. This is a contraction in GDP but it's better for everyone because I'm using fewer resources and providing cheaper products. So big GDP is not automatically good. ii) Dropped. Individual choice ought to be valued above numbers on the national balance sheet. The focus of his analysis is wrong.== Conclusion ==Pro's case can be reduced to: "Paul Ryans plan will work because Paul Ryan said so". Pro does not even try to explain why. Neither does Paul Ryan. When we look at his documents, they are so poorly detailed that we can't even tell what would change about military spending. This is a political stunt and nothing else. Vote it down.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5] http://articles.cnn.com...