The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

All right, now it's time for my round 4 reply to my opponent's arguments. As just stated, I will be refuting my opponents arguments while fortifying my meaning. Here we go: My opponent started off saying that I did not understand the meaning and intent of the Aff case. In my defense, I completely understood it. My attacks were not made out of misunderstanding, but rather to point out the flaws in the opponent's case. The fact that the opponent is saying something and that it is an idea, does not make it right. These were the basis' of my attacks and I just want it to be clear---I understand the opponent's case. 1. Immigration DA Unique - I completely agree with the Aff in the fact that immigrants will always come. But it is nescesary that they come in moderation. For example, many would agree water is quite good for the body, in moderation. But if you drink to much of this at one time, you will die. The same thing applies to immigration. It is O.K. and arguably good at times, but too much at once will surely hurt the U.S. There has already been an increase in immigration (http://www.sfgate.com...) and the opponent's plan only will increase the immigration rate even more. This can lead to consequences I have mentioned. The opponent even agreed that this will increase immigration in the [link] section. Link- Opponent agrees it increases immigration, and makes the mistake of saying this is a good thing. Impacts a) I have provided evidence saying immigration takes away from legal americans, and the opponent says that that is a GOOD thing. In this point, the opponent is arguing that we should give our Medicaid to people who are here ILLEGALLY because they deserve it for some reason. His justification is, is that rich people have 'buttloads' of money to spare. Opponent obviously forgets that Medicaid is for impoverished people, not the wealthy ones. So the benefits are being taken away from poor people who pay taxes, and are legal citizens, and giving it to illegal immigrants so they can become our 'equals'? This makes no sense whatsoever. b) Everything the opponent mentioned, I covered if it was attack-related. This is just a clarification. My opponent also seems to agree that crime rates do increase with immigration, but blames this on the cost of E.R. visits. First of all, this (http://www.ppic.org...) says that foreign illegal immigrants are the LEAST likely to use emergency rooms. Secondly, it's illogical to think you can blame crime upon emergency rooms? This is illogical, and a poor refutation of the Crime Impact. c) (http://www.usillegalaliens.com...) According to this, job displacement due to immigration is increasing. Notice that I have actual evidence while my opponent does not. To say that I have made an argument because I am lazy is rude, but in this matter of thinking, lazy people can't find evidence to adequately back up attacks. In this, it also talks about the low education and skills of immigrants. This is fact, and also it makes sense. So my opponent just stated the opposite of the truth. d) Poverty is a problem, and I believe one day it will be solved, but this was not my point. What I was saying, was that this plan will INCREASE poverty. To say this is O.K. because poverty will always be here, is immoral, irresponsible, and wrong. Significance - Opponent agrees this is a very small minority. Cross-apply to political capital argument. Political Capital - Notice how the card the opponent provides shows how much support is given to this system that cuts down on illegal immigrants in the workplace. This goes directly against the Affs case and should obviously flow Ned. Earlier, I did show you that BAD things happens, there will obviously be a great loss in the much needed political capital. ( I also just noticed that the card provided many other negative things illegal immigrants cause. So I ask the Aff to refute those as well, since they were brought up.) Funding - My opponent says my attack was "since it doesn't cost money we can't solve". This was certainly not my attack. I said my opponent can't solve because it DOES cost money, and he provides no funding. This flows aff because my opponent did not correctly read/understand my attack. Also, on the first part, opponent says that using money already there is used. He is 'spreading the butter too thin' as I said, and peoples benefits will be taken away. Summary - My opponent says that he has turned every argument. The only thing he did was misunderstand basic arguments or SAY this is that without any evidence as back up. I did not attack Harms because I showed them insignificant. My opponent refers to some mysterious framework that was never mentioned. Whatever that is, I feel I have shown adequately that the plan will not work and only make things worse. The point of aff in policy debate is to improve the status quo. I've shown that the opponent makes it significantly worse, which makes this round flow to the Negative side. Thank you and I look forward to round 5. 'Til then.