Taxpayers should be allowed to dictate how governments spend their money.

Absolutely no problem Brian! Now to start off, "opponent observed that the government would still distribute tax receipts so that >>>>> this will limit the taxpayers control, This is true, and also a good thing. <<<<<" My opponent has conceded his resolution. By default all voters will vote CON. Reasons: 1. Although my opponent never stated a clear resolution anywhere in his R1, you can see that the point he is trying to make is that "taxpayers should be allowed to dictate how governments spend their money (topic of debate)" 2. However under my opponents proposal he has clearly shown that governments will actually be controlling more of taxpayers dollars than they had previously when consumers (also taxpayers) controlled their money. 3. As I have clearly shown in my first argument (R2), which has gone unrefuted and conceded by my opponent, the government under my opponents system will control more of the taxpayers dollars and the taxpayers will receive less control than they had previously. Now moving onto the next point my opponent has made regarding my example of the arts: "the voters (who are not all taxpayers) will elect a government that spends it the way they want" Previously the consumer directly dictated where the money was spent. This argument proposed by my opponent contradicts his resolution. In the previous system the consumer (people) dictated where the money was spent. However now the government directly dictates where the money is spent. Yes the voters (people) do have some say. However as is proved throughout democratic history, not every voter agrees with all the spending decisions a government makes regardless if they vote for them. Additionally what about the people who vote against the government and lose? In this case their decision on how the government spend taxpayer dollars is not taken into consideration at all. Point: >>>>>before all people (consumers) directly chose (specifically) where and how much of their money is spent. Under my opponents system taxpayers (not all people) choose how much money is spent and majority voters (not all people) elect a government (small contingent of people) to determine specifically where the money is spent. <<<<< Negation: >>>Under this system the people have less control of where money is spent<<< My next opponents point: "will be only be two contributions amongst millions of others. " However when one person find how to cheat the system millions will follow. It is proven, through economics, that people care more towards themselves than others. (hearsay) "However, it doesn't then follow that they won't allocate money to Defence. Most taxpayers realise that America's security is of vital importance. " My opponent is making a deadly assumption that taxpayers are educated. I would like to remind him that 25% of the population has a "below average" intelligence quota Seventy percent of students nationwide earned diplomas in four years as of 2003, the latest data available nationally, a much lower rate than that reported by the vast majority of school systems. That means on average 3/10ths of the population doesn't even have a high school education. Additionally 1/3 of the population "has never" watched the news. . http://www.journalism.org... . http://www.washingtonpost.com... Additionally only 40% of the population voted in 2004. To sum up, 1. My opponent conceded his implied resolution (never stated)- therefore you default vote CON 2. I have shown how under my opponents system government actually controls the money more - my opponent conceded 3. Have shown examples of negative examples illustrating my point that less government control (as in the case of defense) would be disastrous and unfair when thought out.