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

I will go down the flow and refute my opponent's attacks. Here we go: 1. Fiat isn't real This whole attack is based on a definition that the Neg does not give. He say's fiat is not real and that it's illusory but has no logic or reasons as to why it is. All that he says is that fiat is fake, and that you should assume Neg is right and vote for him. This is obvious flawed logic and should flow Aff. To clear things up, fiat is a CX debate term that gives Aff the right to go through any law or policy standing in it's way so that the effects of the plan might be debated. This is a very real term my plan does not even use it because Neg has not presented a law standing in my way. 2. No agent of action It seems my opponent did not even read my case. It says very clearly in plank IV that the enforcer will be the Department of Agriculture. Because my opponent is mistaken in thinking my AoA is the USFG, all of his impacts are non-existent. 3. Topicality (poverty) It is obvious my opponent assumes I use the USFG political definition of poverty using the poverty line. But I use the more world wide accepted definition of poverty. I am topical under my own definition. Definition: The lack of basic needs. Counter-Standards - Common definition, context Counter-Voters - A-priori and education 4. Coercion Kritik I would like to point out, first of all, that the opponent uses cards from 20 and 25 years ago. The government is constantly changing and in policy debate it is of the most importance that evidence be recent and accurate. Because it is not recent, it also is not accurate. Also, there are new taxes and policies all of the time, and there has been no violence of enslavement as a result. (Notice that the enslavement part meant the author was referring to other countries.) Also, this tax when viewed on the individual level, is small and insignificant. A purchase of $100 would cost the consumer a mere 1/2 dollar. 4a. Liberty Once again see previous arguments and also note that the cards are from 10 to 39 years old. 4b. Freedom See previous and also note cards are STILL 10+ years old. 4c. Constitution Attached to the previous arguments so see those refutations. Cards ten to almost 30 years old. 4d. Development Tied to previous. No dates. 4e. Opression and other tie ins. See previous and note 15 to 25 years old. 5. Economy DA What? If you will notice, this doesn't make sense. The opponent is saying that the economy is getting worse, and that this is a good thing, because when it gets better it leads to war? His card basically says, that when we get better than other countries, they will get defensive and attack us. The U.S. still has one of the strongest one's in the world, and in most other things we are unmatched in skill and ability. We have the strongest military to protect us from these attacks that have not happened. According to his card, we would be attacked all the time and this is simply not true. If we allow our economy to fall then we will lose power and funding to our defense and military. Without the military it is much more likely we will be attacked and be destroyed. So this argument is beyond illogical to the point of foolishness, no offense to the opponent. In summary I will go over the round and how you should vote. Significance/Harms: Aff, opponent didn't attack. Inherency: Aff, Fiat not used because opponent didn't present law so it still stands. Topicality: Aff, I have proven definition and as I have burden of proof my def stands. Solvency: Aff, Proven tax won't cause problems and that all else solves. Advantages: Aff, Opponent agrees there will be an increase in economy and I've proven that is GOOD. All off case: Aff, I have adequately refuted all arguments off-case. Final vote: Aff I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals and until then. Au revoir.