Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget proposal should be passed.

=== Pro Case === Prestandards 1) Drops are Concessions Pro says that his g and h arguments still stand because he has defended the WSJ source. This is dealt with elsewhere in the debate. Just remember that I haven't DROPPED the WSJ argument, so he can't claim auto-victory on these points. Pro tries to weasel around the prestandard's intention by saying that even though I didn't drop the source, I dropped the argument. Notice that he's not claiming I dropped arguments a-f even though their logos is exactly the same and g-h. I just made a typo in round 1, later clarifying that I meant my arguments to apply to all his WSJ claims. I think the audience should recognize this as a desperate attempt to win on a trivial and harmless non-technicality. 2) Supporting Citations Pro says he is explaining his evidence because he's quoting it. But he only quotes the parts where Paul Ryan describes his intended outcomes. "TPTP will be good and lower deficits". He never quotes Paul Ryan explaining which laws will change, what items are on his budget list, etc. He just says "bad things are bad and we're going to get rid of them". That's not a plan. So no. He is not *explaining* the source. He is only taking quotes that make blank assertions. Those are not arguments, they are victory chants. Pro goes on to sort-of-not-really attack my use of sources, which really only consist of simple facts which Pro never bothers to contest. Pro goes on to say that he is arguing with facts, claiming that economics is a precise science. He has no source or reasoning. He is just trolling. I merely have to remind the audience that the stock market is volatile, economic downturns exist, and no one can predict the future. Even still, Pro's burden is to PROVE his arguments. Not say "hur hur Paul Ryan said so". Pro vaguely complains that my sources were from wikipedia, even though I already pointed out the wikipedia articles used reputable sources. Pro has not contested any of my facts directly, so we'll leave it at that. Contention 2: a-b) i) Pro just blankly asserts that Paul Ryan's plan is PURE FACT. No. Facts exist. Paul Ryan's plan has not been implemented yet. It does not exist. How did he calculate that his plan would reduce the deficit and end corruption? Pro never explains. He is running his case off an external website. It's totally abusive because we have limited character space. Pro complains that my [1][2][3][4] IS evidence spamming. I'm glad he agrees. Wouldn't it still be evidence spamming if I extracted quotes from those articles saying stuff like "Deficit spending is good"? You have to explain your sources. It isn't enough to say: "the source says the source is right". But again, Pro tries to rebut the sources saying that they are just info pages. Well the information applies to TPTP. It says that TPTP is wrong. Problem? ii) Pro says that the CBO has been super accurate, but this is according to the CBO itself. I'm beginning to believe that Pro doesn't know what "conflict of interest" is. He quotes Paul Ryan to defend Paul Ryan and now the CBO to defend the CBO. It's ludicrous... In the report, he points to figure 1, but it doesn't say they are 98% accurate, it says they fail estimating the GDP by up to 2%. Given that the GDP grows 2-5% every year, this is up to a 100% error rate. Pro is just mathematically ignorant. Pro continues to attack my sources because they are blogs. But if you look, they link to where they get their data. It's mostly from the CBO's RAW reports, not their self processed documents that Pro cites. So again, prefer my sources. c-h) Pro says that we don't have to use reasoning because TPTP's claims are empirical facts. Well they haven't happened yet so they aren't empirical or factual. They're hypothetical. Even well understood physics, such as projectile paths, have underlying REASONING behind their predictions. If we were having a debate about projectiles, I would expect Pro to show his physics calculations. Since we are having a debate about economics, I expect some economic analysis. Pro has none. He is not even trying to prove his case. Pro concedes that Paul Ryan is indeed his only source on TPTP. He thinks this is okay because it is from the WSJ. Pro has never given us any reason to think the WSJ journal is credible on financial issues. The WSJ's job is to make money and Paul Ryan is a flashy politician. Put two and two together? Okay. You can also look directly at Paul Ryan's work and see that it's garbage. I've been trying to explain that he doesn't really have a plan. His total incompetence over the military issue should prove that he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't know how much he's spending. He doesn't know what he's spending it on. He doesn't know what to do with existing military resources. He just thinks that "waste" is "bad". That's not a plan. He's a hack. Pro briefly acuses me of making the genetic fallacy. I'm not saying Paul Ryan is wrong because he published in the WSJ. I'm saying that having a post on WSJ's opinion page doesn't automatically make you right, particularly if your work is verifiable crap. ==Con Case== Framework: It is immoral to save 500 people if you could save 1000 (all things equal). Derp. This is pretty simple. Why should we pass TPTP if we have SO many better alternatives? Contention 1: a) Pro concedes that if my moral framework is valid, then this contention is valid. Okay. Pro dropped all the arguments he made on these points. Pro doesn't take his own arguments seriously. Why should you? i) Dropped. My source is cool. ii) Dropped. TPTP fails hard on military spending. iii) Dropped. TPTP has no analysis. It's just a political stunt. iv) Dropped. My use of sources is fine. b) i) Dropped. Pro can't explain TPTP's logic. That's his job... ii) Dropped. iii) Dropped. Morality does not constrain us to Paul Ryan's retarded document. iv) Dropped. Prima facie concern raised over the sheer incompetence of TPTP. Contention 2) a) i) Pro does not rebut my charges of Legal Mysticism. ii) Pro's plan does not address the fundamental problems of our political system. At best, it is just a bunch of plans. But "decisions were made by PEOPLE, and their incentives need to be changed before we can expect different behavior." b) Pro says something... completely incoherent about only Congress being able to appropriate funds. Its total nonsense and he doesn't draw impact anyway. i) Pro ignores my analysis. Big GDP is not automatically good as per my thought experiment. Pro's source on this does not offer any explanation. ii) Dropped again. Individual choice is superior to a big number. === Conclusion === Pro's case comes down to this: Paul Ryan is right because Paul Ryan said so The CBO is good because the CBO said so Big GDP is good because the government said so These are not arguments. Pro has dropped the majority of my case, failing to defend or answer even really basic questions about the document. I think I know more about TPTP than he does. I guess Pro only read the introduction...