The Rich Should Take a Hike

My opponent forgot about the constraints in round one about the number of rebuttals in the final round. As such, I'll just be listing voters and making rebuttals since I'm not obligated to follow those rules. This will hopefully be brief. Voters1. Contra never proves that income taxes are justifiable. You vote neg by default given that you can't increase evil (income taxaion) without justification. 2. Contra drops the logic that governments cannot allocate resources effectively because economic calculation of government assets is impossible. He responds by citing prosperous times where the government happened to intervene economically, but given that he dropped the logic of how this is impossible, his entire argument boils down to a correlation causation fallacy. 3. Contra gives no reason to end the taxes for the wealthy alone. More revenue from taxing the middle class more as well, but he gives no reason to not to when his own logic supports it.4. HE COMPLETELY DROPS MY COUNTERPLAN. I argued that the federal government should cut military spending without raising taxes, meaning I capture his offense of deficit reduction. That means I get his positive impacts without the disadvantages. Those goes undisputed throughout the round. Revenue--> He still gives you no reason to believe the government will use the revenue for deficit reduction. --> Turn: His case contradicts itself, advocating a big spending welfare state then "fiscal responsibility". --> He doesn't prove that the tax increases are the sole way to increase revnue, meaning we have to weigh his disadvantages against a meaningful counterplan to see if his path is truly the best. I gave one, he dropped it without analyzing and disadvantages, so vote Con. --> Turn: The schools that "suck" he brings up are government funded. The impoverished people recieve government incentives to remain poor, all of this proves that big government fails. Laffer--> "until he proves that the revenue will likely be used beneficially he gains no advantage. " dropped and therefore conceded, vote neg. 90% tax rate--> Drops that he needs to advocate a tax rate of 75+%. He is advocating a much smaller one, so all of his arguments dont meet the criteria needed to affirm the resolution. Either that or you drop his graph which he's based several key points on causing him to lose. Tax cuts good--> He links a card blaming the recession on the Bush tax cuts. That's stupid. Not only did we have 50 months of growth under the tax cuts, but we also know that the recession was caused by a multide of things such as the housing crash, not the tax cuts. Its a fallacy to say "wages declined during the tax cuts" then blame it on them. The Iphone was also developed during this time, I argue we need to ban it since it led to wage decreases! --> He drops my empirical evidence on what happened during the tax cuts because it's from heritage. "but thett u just sed dat itz a falucy 2 luk at events durin da tax cutz" yeah, except contra also dropped the logic that the private sector is inherently better with money management (hence economic growth) meaning it gets viewed as a matter of fact during this round. --> Look at his card 5 from round 3, it's different than the one he links in card 4 round 4 despite saying they're the same thing. Furthermore, he doesn't explain why it would have an impact of "-1.1%" tp "-1.6%", just because his CBO card says it does not make it true. Recall the Nazi moon base card I showed in round one, a card saying something is true does not make it so. Further, read his CBO card and it shows greater economic results from ending the tax cuts for all, so it isn't actually giving him his advocacy. If we buy it and believe taxes are good, you still vote neg because the resolution isn't affirmed (we need to raise taxes for everyone instead). Government badEvery word dropped and therefore concededMorals His ONLY moral argument is that the wealthy used public utilities so they owe society. However they already paid more than their share of taxes relative to their numbers, and they got their incomes by producing and generating wealth for all of society. His argument followed to its full conclusion makes us implement communism. Misc. --> No warrant on the tax cuts failing, he links recession to tax cuts without explanation--> Dropped counterplan, so assuming government programs are helpful we get them other means (cut military spending) --> Not fiscally responsible to take more money whenever more is needed--cutting wasteful spending is a better alternative. --> " We must give everybody equal access to opportunity, improve our growth, morals, debt situation, and give everybody a fair shot at the American Dream " No warrant on how we need to make everything fair, TURN: unfair to take more money from the rich just because they've been successful. Take money from everyone who "can afford it" (all above poverty line) if you really buy my opponents argument. --> TURN: His graph shows growth for everyone, not jsut the wealthy. They can share some. They just shouldn't have Uncle Sam forcing them to. ConclusionThanks Contra, it was fun.