Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US Debt Problem

The following is my final round argument. Rebuttal #1: “The resolution does not say ‘Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Reduce the US Debt.’ The resolution does say ‘Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US debt Problem.’” “I have never in this entire debate suggested that we should or should not reduce the US debt. TheCommonMan needs to show what problem the US debt poses, and what effect will be had by reducing the US debt.” My opponent points out that I must do two things; I must show the problem that the US National Debt proposes and how a reduction in the US National Debt will have a positive impact. I will do both of these things now. The growing United States National Debt creates a problem due to the fact that we owe a ton of money to a bunch of countries. If we can’t pay it down, it could eventually get to the point where other countries which we owe debt to will become angry at us. This anger can hinder trade, hinder alliances, and even start wars. If we look at the countries we owe the most debt to, it’s easy to see the consequences of a large US debt. We owe over a trillion dollars to China, which supplies a lot of our goods here in America. So, not paying back debt would eventually cut off trade between the US and China, which means that a lot of our goods which we are dependent on China for will not be imported into America anymore. We owe roughly 162.9 billion dollars to Russia, which is the other super power of the world as it pertains to military. If we get in a war with Russia, we could presumably have a difficult time winning that war. In addition, that war would cost money, so out debt would go up yet again, thus worsening the problem. These are just two out of the many examples of how the US Debt is a problem. However, the point stands that a reduction must be made in order to solve this problem. The longer we wait to reduce the US Debt, the bigger the possibility of a US Downfall becomes. Hence, the only way to solve the US Debt problem is to reduce the US Debt. Rebuttal #2: My opponent clarified his idea of solving the debt problem in his fourth round argument. “A. We show compassion to other countries and inspire them to greater goals and feats for humanity B. A host of inspired and compassionate Engineers and Scientists will construct and program robots which do all the work for us. C. The ever growing US Debt will no longer be problematic in an economic market system where robots do all the work. This deductive logical view of my arguments is a completely valid and possible (if not likely) outcome of humanity's future.” My opponent still lacks a connection between this and a reduction in the US Debt. My opponent presumes that by using robots, the US Debt won’t matter. However, it will. We will still owe money to countries. Countries will still want their money to use to fund things (like the robots, for example). My opponent fails to show a connection between robots doing all the work and a reduction in the US Debt. “Once again reducing the debt is not the same as solving the problem.” I won’t go into full detail with this, as I have in my first rebuttal. I have shown why a US Debt reduction is necessary and is the only way to solve the US Debt problem. Therefore, my opponent must draw an absolute connection between this idea and a reduction of the US Debt in order for us to even consider his idea. Then, he must show why his idea is better than all other ideas out there in order for us to consider using his idea. So far, he has done none of this. Rebuttal #3: “My general rebuttal is that we should create a culture that is full of inspiration and love, and then put it on the airwaves and internet cables so other people can view it.” With this in mind, my opponent still doesn’t draw a connection between this and a reduction in the US Debt. He must show how compassion and love will cause a reduction in the US Debt. He attempted to do so, but I have shot down this idea in my second rebuttal. Rebuttal #4: “He has not provided evidence showing how the spending cuts that have been made since 2009 have not been enough. He has not provided evidence that the spending cuts and tax increases he has suggested will work to solve or reduce the debt. He has not provided evidence to counter the idea that the debt might actually increase in the long run if his ideas are implemented.” My opponent completely skipped one of my rebuttals in my last round; otherwise, he would know that I’m not proposing spending cuts. I was just using that as an example of an idea that is out there. I was also using to show my opponent that he must prove that his idea is superior to others. In my last round, I listed eight different ideas for reducing the US Debt that are different from my opponent’s idea. My opponent must show why his idea is better than all of those ideas, which is part of showing why his idea is a wise one. Rebuttal #5: “Btw, I also find it funny how he thinks that it isn't wise to create robots to do all our work. Maybe we'll let him stack bricks next to a robot in the future…” I never bash the idea of using robots to do all of our work. I did two things. I said that there is no connection between that idea and the US Debt reduction, which there hasn’t been one so far. I have also stated that my opponent makes a contradiction as it pertains to this robot idea. In one argument, he bashes the idea. In another, he promotes it. This is a contradiction that I have pointed out which my opponent hasn’t responded to. My opponent must do so in order to clarify what exactly he is proposing. Conclusion: In this round, I have shown why the US Debt is a problem and the only solution to this problem is a reduction in the US Debt. Therefore, my opponent must show how his idea draws a connection with a US Debt reduction. He must also talk about how his idea is a wise one. I have also explained why some of his rebuttals against me are illogical and not related to my argument. I have also pointed out that he hasn’t responded to two different major arguments I made in my last round. In order to strengthen his argument, he must respond to those two things, as well as everything I said in this round. To conclude, here’s what my opponent must do in his final round to make his idea worthwhile, considering he has not done any of these so far. Draw a connection between his idea and a US Debt reduction. Explain why his idea is a wise one and better than all other ideas. Respond to my claims that I made in my fourth round argument that he hasn’t responded to yet. Respond to everything I’ve said in this round in a coherent manner. I would like to thank everyone who read this. However, I would also like to thank my opponent. From the beginning of the debate, he took an interesting position and challenged me by practically changing the topic of the debate. He also provided a complete debate with no forfeits and intriguing viewpoints. Win, lose, or draw, this will go down as one of my best debates thus far on DDO. I wish my opponent luck in his final round. Resources: http://people.howstuffworks.com...