The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

Hello. This is the final round and it seems to have been a good debate so far. I would like to point out my opponent missed a round and without further ado I will go straight down the flow. FIAT K My opponent seems to misunderstand the point of debate. The point is education, to educate ourselves through argumentative reasoning. My opponent states that because these plans don't go into effect, you should vote Neg because his arguments of not doing anything will go into effect. If debate was really like this than every round everyone would want to be Neg because Neg would always win. But, in reality, I'm sure the voters realize this is NOT how debate works and the voter must vote on the debate by the contents of it's arguments. So, on this argument in terms fairness, vote Aff. TOPICALITY - POVERTY My opponent makes the mistake of being to assuming regarding to the resolution. The resolution states I must use the USFG as the one doing the action, which it is in my plan. It does not define poverty or determine which kind of poverty. So, as Aff, I may use whatever definition I wish, and you may try to prove yours better. I have shown why I don't use the USFG definition of poverty, and why mine is more acceptable, and my opponent has not even mentioned that fact. I am still topical. Also, if we must get technical, the rez says 'persons in poverty'. This means persons (at least two) must be in poverty and be affected. Because there are at least 2 people in poverty being affected, this means I am technically topical in even another way. So if you like extreme technicality, vote for Aff. If you like arguments that make sense, vote Aff. COERCION K 'other countries' So it seems this did talk about government in general, and I will attack the card instead. It states that it is 'violence and coercion' when the government takes taxes and such because it is not what we want to do, and the gov. threatens punishment if not paid. This is just part of social contract theory, which states when you take benefits from a government, you give up some of your rights. The government, which owns this country, doesn't have to sell you land, provide electricity and water, or provide protection for you. It only does so because we give it certain things, like taxes. One party gives up something to be helped by the other. This is social contract theory and is used everyday when we purchase goods, give up money for the benefit of the good. 'old dates' It's hard to look into the opponent's cards and refute them when he only provides taglines. BECAUSE he only provides taglines the actual body of the card is not attackable, and it must be assumed the card refers to what it's date is. Seeing as NO cards where recent, his attacks should be all discounted. Also, I have disproved coercion, which means I broke the link to all these cards, anyway. IN CONCLUSION All attacks my opponent made, I have refuted. I have shown my plan reaps maximum benefits with as little cost as possible. This is the best possible plan for solving, and to not do it would be a critical mistake. I ask for the Aff ballot. Thank you.