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

Alright it's round 3. I will refute my opponents rebuttal now, so here we go: FIAT ARGUMENT Now that the opponent better explained himself, I see that the opponent is correct, but only if my plan accomplishes nothing. If my plan happened to have no effect, then the voter would Con. But seeing as I present a case that will bring about change, it is the voter's duty to determine whether or not my plan will be beneficial. So this attack means absolutely nothing unless my opponent proves that the rest of my case has no positive effects for the status quo. A-SPEC My opponent seems to misunderstand the fact that SNAP already exists. There needs to be no creation of the program. The governments only part is to make the tax. Because of fiat (this is not abuse as this is a CX match) I have the right to assume that the government will pass the law. The agent of action is the one who follows and directs the plan so that the plan will do what it was supposed to. The only one that has control over SNAP is the Department of Agriculture so it is obvious this will be the agent of action. The governments part in tax is obviously assumed as it says federal government in the resolution. TOP. - POVERTY This is a CX debate and format should be correct. Otherwise confusions like this will occur. My opponent says you should prefer his definition because it refers to the governments poverty line. This is wrong for two reasons. First, because the government's line wrong(. http://www.box.net...), and two, because the definition made my Aff leaves more ground for the debate. It is abusive to be restricted the Neg's definition just because it benefits him. Aff provides definitions and I have done so. So according to my definition (which should be preferred), I am 100% topical. COERCION DA My opponent failed to miss the point that these cards were from for a different country as they talked about enslavement, and this is an obvious problem as we are debating about the United States. Also, my opponent states that his attack does not need uniqueness. This is like saying burning wood in our fireplaces will result in catastrophic ice melt that will cover our village in snow. This attack obviously applies to a place completely covered in ice, and not the United States. But my opponent's reasoning leaves room for this being a worthy attack, which it is obviously not. Then, my opponent says his dates don't matter when dealing with philosophy. He is wrong in this, as dates don't matter when it is NON MATERIAL philosophy. But his cards deal with physical things like violence, government, and tax and has no room for old dates. Giving me the full text of the cards won't make them any more recent and therefore they should be thrown out. Old dates are bad because the government is always changing and just because something might have happened 40 years ago does not mean it will happen now. I stated that there has CURRENTLY and RECENTLY been no examples of xenophobic violence and the opponent was unable to even provide evidence about some such recent violence. Because the opponent cannot find recent evidence OR evidence about our own country, his attacks are completely null. This DA does not exist and you should not vote for it, for doing so would be against LIBERTY, FREEDOM, CONSTITUTION, PROGRESS, and lead to an ULTIMATE IMPACT of MASS HYSTERIA. (I can bold words to sound important too. ) DE-DEV DA So my opponent does not actually refute my attacks at all. If you look at what he is doing he is saying to worsen the economy for the betterment of the country. Why is this argument still here? It is obvious that this DA is bogus. Also, I would like to point out all of his extensions basically say progress is bad. Finally, I would like to say that the Neg said to vote on him for NUCLEAR WAR and POVERTY. If you think these are good things then feel free to vote for him,but I feel that nuclear war and poverty are bad things and you should vote likewise. MORALITY I am counting this extension as a separate point. The opponent states that it is immoral to tax people because this conflicts with the rights of humans. I will take a point from social contract theory, when a person lives under a government they give up some up there rights to recieve protection from the government. Because these people accept protection from the government, then they lose the right to not be taxed. Our country's political foundation was laid upon social contract theory and that is why this tax is just. According to the second site Aff goes last. To maintain this right of Aff I will post this round. I am only going with high school policy debate rules so do not think I am doing this for the advantage. Just the rules.