Nazi Economics

I will spend most of this debate explaining why my arguments are relevant to the topic. My opponent claims that the resolution does not permit any other economic policies. The resolution states "Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy". I am free to say according to this resolution that there are better economic policies that the German government could have implemented. Nowhere in the resolution does it state that you cannot say that other economic policies would have been better for Germany. Pro did not do a good job explaining that there will be no other economic policies mentioned in round 1. Voters must read round 1 carefully. "Any point about the demise of Nazi Germany that is not related to its economics will have no impact in this debate." My case about the New Deal was purely about economics. It talked about how the new deal was more efficient at dealing with American problems, and it could have been implemented to meet the needs of German problems. My opponent has attacked all these arguments by saying that it is irrelevant to the debate. Pro should have been more specific in stating the rules. He has not been clear, and there is no rule in round 1 stating that no other economic policies were allowed. Round 1 was also stated to be acceptance only. I accepted these rules: We will be looking at economics and not the fate of Nazi Germany in WW2 due to the allies. Any point about the demise of Nazi Germany that is not related to its economics will have no impact in this debate. If my opponent claims that these are new arguments, than that is because you also introduced new arguments. It is unfair to Con, because Pro also introduced new arguments attacking my case by calling it irrelevant. It must be addressed. My opponent has created a poorly organized debate if he is putting rules after round 1. Dropped Arguments: My opponent has only attacked my case by stating that it is irrelevant to the resolution. I have proved above that it is relevant. Pro has basically dropped all of my arguments, and also states that he will not make any arguments. Judges should note that this is an open drop of all my arguments already making Pro disadvantaged. Counter Rebuttals: 1.GNI increased under Nazi Germany My opponent says that this debate was not purely economics. He states that it is about the consumption of wealth which is economics. The New Deal was more efficient at creating an economy with better quality. Better-of a more excellent or effective type or quality, My opponent did not respond to this definition, therefor he conceded to this definition. Quality- the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind Quality can also count how moral the economics are, and how effective they are at helping the population. GNI increased in Nazi Germany, because of occupation of other lands, and taxing of other races. The New Deal did not need this, and still was able to give everybody jobs. 2. Unemployment My opponent rebuts my points by stating "My opponenet doesnt really explain why job increase in the military is a bad thing he just states its not good." I did my comparing the quality of the two economies. Nazi Germany lost due to their military, and a lot of young men died in a wasted effort to conquer the world. I compared the quality by stating " The New Deal was more efficient, because it created a variety of jobs for people with different talents, and also decreased the unemployment rate to less than 2%. The New Deal allowed for the construction of schools, hospitals, and electrical power. There was a rebuilding of intellectual pursuits that The New Deal provided. The productions of the WPA Theater Project, for example, entertained a phenomenal audience totaling 60 million people, a great many who had never before seen a play. The Nazis did very little in this field, and were completely outweighed by American economics at this point." That is how the new deal helped bring a more effective economy. They focused on all areas which propelled America to greater wealth than Germany. 3. Large Public Work Projects I thought it was pretty self explanatory that the New Deal had large public work programs too. 4. Moochers off welfare didnt exist My opponent never rebuts the idea that no moochers existed during the New Deal era in America. 5. Non reliance of global macro economics China is just one of the countries that is hurting from global macro economics. Pro does not explain how America, Russia, Europe, Mexico, and Canada are hurting from relying on global economics. Reasons for winning: -Pro has completely dropped the majority of New Deal arguments. I have already explained why the argument is relevant, and how Pro did not address introducing new economies in round 1. -Pro advocates that a better quality economy is where it is built on the military. I believe that the better quality economy is one that focuses on all fields. -Pro's spelling and grammar also did not work for this debate. "Moochers off welfare didnt exist. opponenet doesnt really explain why job" -I have proved why The New Deal had a better quality economy, and how the Germans could have used the New Deal economics to create a better economy. My opponent just refused to debate this making it easy for Con to win.