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

=== Prestandards === In order to promote fair debate, the following prestandards are defended: 1) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I run utilitarianism in round 1, egalitariansim in round 2, and justice in round 3, I can just pick up whichever my opponent fails to address in round 4. Because we have limited space,dropped arguments ought to count as concessions. 2) Supporting citations must be clearly articulated in the debate. Writing: "Abortion is wrong [1]" is problematic on two counts. First, it does not justify a ballot because this is not an substantiated argument - it's an appeal to authority. Second, it is abusive because the debater is trying to glean offense outside of their round. To the voters: Honor my prestandards. My opponent is completely free to argue against them. However, if they still stand, they apply. I bring them forward not to gain special personal advantage but to ensure a principled debate. == Pro Case == http://operatorchan.org... Contention 1: The Present Situation is Unacceptable and Unsustainable a) k b) k c) k d) k e) k f) k g) k Contention 2: The Path to Prosperity Will Solve All These Problems a/b) i) Appeal to authority. Pro has not presented any analysis. This is a violation of prestandard 2. He is trying to run his case off an external website. ii) Turn his appeal to authority. The CBO is always wrong. Their numbers are systematically biased towards underprediction of deficits and overestimation of revenues [1]. Their track record estimating the costs of government programs, such as Medicare, has also been horribad. CBO estimates are off by up to 113% when compared to actual spending [2]. c-f) Really going to rely on my "appeal to authority" line here. He gives no logic. Just "The WSJ says I'm right". That's cool. But can he prove he's right? No. So don't vote for him. He's not debating. He's evidence spamming. This is supposed to be between me and him, not me and the WSJ. The WSJ is not on your ballot. Contention 3: Clearing Up Some Myths and Misconceptions i) K. In debate we call this a "spike", where you address your opponent's arguments before they make them. They are non-offensive, so they don't help you extend validity to the resolution. My case does not rely on maintaining current levels of medicaid spending, so I don't really give a hoot. ii) I'd just like to point out that these are copypasta from The Path To Prosperity. Again, it's an appeal to authority. I'll attack the credibility of TPTP in my case (incoming toilet paper pun btw). == Con Case == Framework: The resolution states "should", which implies a moral theory. I will not bother to actually construct one unless the issues become clutch. I fully intend to secure an uncontroversial moral advantage. Morality requires that we choose our best available option. No one thinks that saving 1 drowning person when you could save 2 counts as "moral". So second-best plans fail the moral criterion. I think TPTP is probably better than the status quo, but it isn't moral because there's a whole bunch of obviously superior alternatives. As long as I can demonstrate that TPTP should be "Plan B", I win. Contention 1: TPTP is a dumb idea a) Military Budget i) TPTP will "Provide $692.5 billion for national defense spending in Fiscal Year 2012" and "Reduce inefficient spending by $178 billion, following guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.Reinvest $100 billion of these savings into key combat capabilities, and put the rest toward deficit reduction." So this is a total of $692.5+$100 = $792.5 ~ $800 billion ii) First, it is unclear how much spending this is compared to the status quo. On the one hand, 2012 DOD spending is projected at $707.5 billion. This would imply that TPTP wants higher military spending, which increases the deficit and kills more brown people. But broader definitions, including satellites and veterans pensions, range from $1.03-1.415 trillion [3]. iii) So which is it? The document doesn't clarify. TPTP masquerades as superior policy, claiming "exhaustive review of the pentagon's budget" and to "root out waste". There is no proof of these claims. $800 bn for national defense isn't a plan just like a $100 bill isn't a grocery list. TPTP's clearest proposal is to stop "terrorists from repeating the atrocities perpetrated on American soil on September 11, 2001" This is an amateurish and highly rhetorical document. iv) There are really obvious ways in which the military budget could be cut. Cato has put together a big ol' list [4]. A very promising cut that could be made is to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: "The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is 14 years behind schedule and 160 percent over budget. It serves an archaic mission—amphibious assault on a hostile shore. The last time such an amphibious assault occurred was the Inchon Landing in September 1950. In the highly unlikely event that the United States again employs Marines in this way, existing platforms, including the Assault Amphibious Vehicle 7A, will suffice. This proposal would save the approximately $11 billion needed to complete the program and purchase 573 vehicles. " v) We can also probably get rid of the 30 or so military bases in germany and be just fine [5]. The long story short is that we can sit around and identify *specific* ways for the military to save money. These are not included in TPTP. b) Agriculture i) TPTP will: "reduce the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels" and "reform the open-ended nature of the government’s support for crop insurance". This policy recommendation is defended by generic free market rhetoric, but they never explain why the programs can't be removed completely. If the free market is cool then you should probably just get rid of farm subsidies. ii) Wikipedia writes [6]: "A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. and Canadian prices of sugar are twice the global price and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers. " There are also countless papers linked on the wiki page showing the negative health effects of HFCS. So can we stop subsidizing it? Again, another really obvious and uncontroversial proposal ignored by TPTP. Contention 2: TPTP does not treat fundamental problems a) Accountability i) At best, TPTP is a plan. But no one will follow the plan if they have no incentive to do so. ii) Voters have no incentive to pay attention to politics because the chances of a vote mattering are virtually zero. I don't except to be challenged on this, but I'm prepared to show probabilistic analysis. So because our system relies on voters as a system of checks and balances, and because they will routinely fail,a policy recommendation is castrated no matter how good it is. b) Focus on GDP i) GDP = C + I + Xnet + G [=] dollars. It only measures how expensive and numerous goods and services in the economy are. ii) It does not measure the satisfaction of individual wants and needs, which is the WHOLE point of an economy. So TPTP misses the boat by focusing on boosting numbers rather than individual choice. Sauces: [1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://takingnote.tcf.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...