The U.S. federal government should increase social services for persons in poverty.

Alright, once again, down the 'flow'. Here we go: 1. Harms Opponent agrees that the harms are existent and current. 2. Inherency a. The opponent does not understand the point of my arguments. We seem to be in agreement that the tax will be beneficial, but he feels it would be 'immoral' to impose such a tax. He feels that people have certain rights, such as property, and taking that away for the benefit of other people is immoral. But he does not seem to understand the fact that these people aren't paying the tax because it will help others; they're paying it because they want to continue having the freedoms and amenities their government has to offer. This is part of the something called the 'Social Contract Theory' in which people band together or follow a greater force, and give up some of their inherent rights so that they may benefit from the relationship. Because the U.S. construct was laid out using social contract theory, if we are to use our government for benefit, then the tax is moral by every means. So the matter comes to not whether it's moral, but to if the tax will actually work. My opponent did not disagree that the tax itself would bring about the funding needed for this project so I completely win on this sub-point. It is not immoral and it will work. b. My opponents first err in this argument, is that he says that the government is a service. Services are things that can be accessed to meet ones own benefits. The relationship between a citizen and their government is one of symbiosis. My opponent uses an example of two people; one steals from the other to help a greater cause, and the the other loses whatever the guy took. But my opponent fails to recognize that citizens are always indebted to their country so long as they use it. So this 'stealing' situation is not what is actually happening, and should not be considered. The relationship between a shark and a pilot fish perfectly shows what a symbiotic relationship is. A pilot fish follows the shark around eating small bits of food off the shark, cleaning it. In accordance, the shark offers the fish protection. The only source of cleaning for the shark is this fish, so the shark gives up its right to eat the fish. The only source of protection for this fish is the shark, so it gives up it's right to complete freedom. This relationship is moral and beneficial to both parties, and is a pristine example of what my tax does, and how it is justified. My opponent also says there are other ways for these people to get food, but if those other sources had the possibility of working, they already would have. But hunger is increasing so they obviously do not. c. My opponent states I have shown that SNAP is efficient, the fastest, has worked in the past, and should be expanded, and agrees with me, but states that I have not shown the full range of solvency. He says it is the best in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, but that more is important than just that. He does not, however, point out what else I need to actually solve. He goes on to use an analogy where the government gives everyone who commits a crime a death penalty in an attempt to decrease crime. But this is not what my plan does as it does not meet the citizen/government relationship at all! This is a crude analogy that is completely unrelated to my case. With this case, no one gets hurt, no one dies. In fact, just the opposite happens: people get healthier, the economy strengthens, and the U.S. rids itself of hunger. Whatever my opponent was trying to allude to is in no way a view of what my case actually will accomplish and how. 3. The Planks A. There is no lack of understanding on the Aff's part. The fault is the Neg's as he fails to provide evidence or logic of any kind backing up his claim. In policy debate it's very important to have reason and facts on your side, and the Neg fails to show any of these, even again in the second round. It is not the Affirmatives fault that he argues against the legitimacy of an attack with nothing supporting it. B. My opponent does not present a Counter-Plan but provides information that create a conditional argument against the Aff. In CX this is highly abusive, because the Aff finds it inherently almost impossible to refute while remaining within the resolution. As the Aff must remain topical, conditional arguments should be thrown out and unconsidered. As my opponent stated earlier 'you abuse, you lose'. Even despite this abuse I will continue refutation on this subject. A big problem with private services (excluding charities which I will get to in a moment) is that their goal is not to help the people they serve, but to help themselves. They will not consider any needs of the people or problems in their own system if it is not monetarily beneficial to them. This will all-in-all not help the people as much as something thats goal was to only help the people (U.S. Government). In the matter of charities, they're not a stable source of funding like a tax. It's completely reliant on people's desire to help others, which accounts for only a small portion when compared to everyone in America. So using charities would be an obvious stability problem, and the last thing epic problems need are unstable programs supposedly supporting them. So concluding this point, for the big businesses it is a win, but for us, the people, is a big LOSE. C. My opponent is indeed correct. Just because of the fact that thousands of private programs over the last 50 years have gone into effect and none have solved, this does not mean that it won't solve in the future. Surely if we just wait fifty years more, or maybe even 30, one might actually work! Unfortunately, hunger is increasing at a rate that cannot take 30 years of waiting. We need action and we need it now. No waiting around for these programs that haven't worked even with 50 years practice. The government is the only thing that can provide this, not private businesses. b. Once again I refer to my symbiosis argument made countless times. This is not theft, this is business. c. Alrighty then, I haven't abused the right. d. Of course, I find it of most importance to clear up all objections, because everyone counts to me. 4. And Solvency a. My opponent makes an err that refutes this argument completely. Natural rights of man - life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Not property. My plan does not take away man's inherent rights. A. Again the gov. is not stealing. See symbiosis argument. (This is just my point that the opponent repeatedly makes the same argument, just twisting it a little each time.) B. Fiat my friend, fiat. Anyway you have a debt to the government. That money is not your property, it's theirs because they are taxing it. End of story. It's that simple. b. I'm sure the reader is tired of going back on previous points but you should do the same here. c. This time the Neg completely disregards how government works and goes along with his personal feelings. While emotion and feeling are fine and all, they have no place in a policy debate round. I have proven that we owe the government because of social contract and that is why this tax is worthy. While luck is fine and all I don't need it to show what our country was founded with. A. Inherency point. 5. Advantages a. While I failed to realize it dealt with foodstamps it doesn't matter because this plan is from the 1940's. And once again, what you consider proof is your feeling based off your debate. And not important in this context, no offense. CONCLUSION I will not cover refutation of conclusion because it's not needed as arguments can be cross-applied to it and I only have 400 characters left. In essence my opponent made two attacks. 1. Tax is immoral. and 2. Private is better. All attacks where based off this. I have refuted ALL of his attacks and shown WHY the Affirmative should take today's debate r