Keynsian economics is a legitamite economic plan.

I did not put forth a defense of the actual theory of Keynesian economics because we aren't debating the merits or harms of such a plan. We are merely debating whether or not it is legitimate or reasonable under the definition you accepted. If you had wished to debate the relative merits of Keynesian economics or compare Keynesian economics versus "classical" economics or some other theory/plan then you should have made that the topic of the debate instead. "In a nutshell, Keynesian economics is a theory that deficit spending on a national scale can improve an economy." More accurately it is the theory that the private sector, if allowed to solely run the economy, will lead to inefficiency and boom bust cycles (with one of Keynes main goals being full employment of the population). To solve this, Keynesian economics suggests that the government can control monetary supplies through a central bank (such as the Federal Reserve settings the interest rates) and through fiscal policy actions by the government (spending). Now you state deficit spending, but this is not necessarily the case... it could also be the case that the government has a surplus of funds at its disposal. Obviously this isn't the case in the United States, but we are discussing Keynesian economics in the abstract and not it applied to a particular economy. So to your points: 1.) You apply this to the United States which isn't what we are debating. You could have framed the debate "Keynesian economics will not work for the United States". But that isn't what we are debating. We are merely debating whether it is a legitimate economic theory. So your point 1.) is mute as it is irrelevant to what we are discussing. 2.) "The war economy of WWII brought the US" So you are saying that government spending by FDR didn't bring the US out of the Great Depression, but instead government spending during WWII brought the US out of the Great Depression. Hmmm... seems like you are still saying government spending and government employment of the population solved the Great Depression. You are aware that the largest ever spike in government deficit spending relative to GDP happened during WWII, aren't you? But again, you still don't address the legitimacy of Keynesian economics. So what are we left with? It appears the debate you wanted was not the debate you suggested in the resolution. You ask to debate whether Keynesian economics is legitimate but you really want to debate the merits of Keynesian economics plus deficit spending relative to the United States, which is a completely different topic. Are there arguments against Keynesian economics? Sure. But that doesn't mean it is illegitimate. There are arguments against every single economic plan, so would you claim they are all illegitimate? We can clearly see that Keynesian economics is a legitimate economic plan for the reasons I outlined previously and that you fail to answer: 1.) It is reasonable. Can it be applied to every single country and every single situation? Of course not. No economic plan can. But that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate or reasonable. 2.) Acceptance. Every university course on macroeconomics will include a discussion of Keynesian economics. If it were illegitimate would these be the case? Of course not. 3.) Influence. It has influenced economic policy since its inception. 4.) Usability. It can be used to predict and explain economic trends. A clear sign it is legitimate. So we can clearly see Keynesian economics is a legitimate economic theory. If you wish to debate its relative merits as applied to the United States economy, I suggest starting another debate with a topic that reflects what you want to discuss.