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

Hopefully, we will have no need of returning to this subject. ==Prestandards== 1) Drops are Concessions My opponents claim that He did not drop arguments g and h of my second contention is simply false as a matter of empirical fact. He says that since he has claimed to refute my completely reliable source, he has refuted my specific arguments. However, if this were the case I would automatically win, since I have soundly refuted the few sources my opponent did cite, which were mostly blogs or even Wikipedia pages. Therefore, since I have refuted my opponent’s sources, I have refuted his arguments and I win. VOTE PRO! !! The End. Obviously, this claim is absurd. In addition, to quote from our first prestandard, written by my opponent, “Because we have limited space, dropped arguments ought to count as concessions. ” Notice he does not say “dropped sources ought to count as concessions,” he clearly states that unless you answer the specific argument, you have dropped, and thus conceded, it. Furthermore, these concessions are indeed enough for me to win the round. To claim that I should not win the round because of this is to claim that a bill that increases tax revenues, lightens the onerous tax burden currently inflicted on the American people, remains completely revenue-neutral, eliminates completely unjust and unnecessary tax loopholes, and significantly slows the detrimental upward path of our spending and debt should not be passed, because my opponent has conceded all of these things. 2) Supporting Citations Here my opponent claims that I am “evidence spamming” because I don’t explain my evidence, I only cite it. This is simply not the case. Every single one of the reputable sources I have cited has been adequately explained just as much as many of my opponents’. For example: Me: “According to the Wall Street Journal, the Path to Prosperity lowers the top tax rate to 25% for everybody, which has been shown to actually increase tax revenues. (14) However, these tax cuts remain absolutely revenue-neutral by also eliminating the tax deductions and loopholes that allow some corporations to pay less or even no income taxes. (12)” Sieben: “CBO estimates are off by up to 113% when compared to actual spending [2]. ” Me: “According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, if we continue on our current economic path, our debt will equal 900% of our Gross Domestic Product. (2) Think about that. That means that even if we confiscated every single penny earned in the entire nation and spent it all on the debt, we would only have paid off one ninth of the debt. ” Sieben: “Their(The CBO) numbers are systematically biased towards underprediction of deficits and overestimation of revenues [1]. ” And so I have clearly not engaged in what my opponent vaguely call “evidence spamming. ” Also, my opponent says that we can obviously validly argue without facts because we are arguing without facts right now. No. He is arguing without facts. Which is exactly the reason why he is not actually arguing at all, he is simply venting his unsubstantiated opinion. Furthermore, my opponent also claims that I have no empirical sources, which is an interesting argument coming from someone who routinely cites Wikipedia and obscure blogs. Anyway, economics is a precise science. Given a set of facts, you can concretely predict what will happen. I would also like to point out that Sources don’t get much more empirical than the Congressional Budget Office; and that, according to the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the CBO’s projections have historically been accurate to within 2% of actual outcomes [1]. Contention 2: a-b) i) No, it is not my responsibility to construct every single one of my sources arguments in this debate. The claims I am making are not entailed logical proofs, they are simple, unassailable statements of pure fact, which I use to support my logical proof that the resolution is true, to which my opponent offers no answer of any kind whatsoever. Also, my opponent’s absurd example here clearly has no connection at all with how I cite my sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] is indeed evidence spamming; it offers no explanation. But my method: (explanation of cited source’s factual claim) [1] (explanation of cited source’s factual claim) [2], etc. is clearly not. His “evidence spamming claim is simply ludicrous and should be given no credibility at all. Also, to prevent another irritating attack from my opponent, I will answer rather easily his evidence spamming. First of all, his first three sources are not even arguments of any kind at all; they are simply info pages (from the ever-reputable Wikipedia, by the way), on Keynesian economics, Nihilism, and Minarchism. And his last source is again an opinion blog post which makes no arguments and consists of groundless, flaming rhetoric. It was posted by a blogger named Birdman372537(really? ). ii) I am indeed bothering to contest the factual accuracy of my opponents outrageous claims about an entirely respectable government agency. His claims come from an opinion page that could have been written by anybody and are therefore not reputable, unlike the two government research agencies that say the CBO is accurate to within 2%. [1] c-f and g and h Again, my opponent pulls out his much-used “reasoning” card, which I have already refuted under subpoint i of section a-b above. I will not bother to refute it again here. He also makes the claim that the Wall Street Journal article I have cited is written United States Representative Paul Ryan. This is true. However, it has no bearing whatsoever on the factual validity of its claims. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable institution with a reputation to uphold. If it thought the claims made in an article were lies, as my opponent seems to, they would certainly not have published it. For example, they certainly would not have published an article written by the distinguished Birdman372537. And even if the Wall Street Journal had decided to publish an article it knew was riddled with dirty lies and false claims, it would be utterly irrelevant. An official Representative of the United States of America is completely reliable in itself. My opponent has not offered any logical reason why my source is unreliable, he has simply committed the Genetic Fallacy and stated the obvious fact of where my argument came from, as if that settled the issue. It does not. ==Con Case== I will now reveal how obviously absurd my opponent’s moral reasoning is by using his exact words. “Plan A is immoral. ” Plan A saves 500 people from death. Therefore: It is immoral to save 500 people from death. Again, my opponent’s moral claims are shown to be illogical and abhorrent. Contention 1: CONCEDED. It makes no difference! So what if more could be done? It doesn’t matter unless my opponents reprehensible moral logic is valid, which it is clearly not. (note that I concede that TPTP is not perfect, not my opponent’s rhetorically charged title, “TPTP is a Dumb Idea. ”) Contention 2: a/b) House Concurrent Resolution 34 (TPTP) is not a moral law that can be broken, such as those banning murder or theft. It appropriates funds. Only the Congress can do this, and it really doesn’t matter if the people feel like obeying it or not. If congress doesn’t appropriate the money, the money simply isn’t there to spend. Also, my opponent has completely ignored my empirical source that clearly means that GDP growth is in fact very good. In conclusion, I have again refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments, and therefore my case still stands. I thank my opponent and await his reply. Sources: [1] . http://www.cbo.gov... {figure 1}