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

I will not make a big fuss over it, but let it be known that my opponent broke the second rule which I set forth at the beginning of the debate “2. Second round is arguments only.” Nevertheless, since round three is freestyle, I will respond to my opponent’s claims and strengthen my argument. Rebuttal #1: My opponent’s duty is to coherently show that bombing other countries is a good idea. He makes several statements which do not relate to his objective here in this debate. Let’s take a look at some of these claims. “Currently the United States debt stands at 17.5 trillion…This may seem like quite a lot, but in reality it isn't” “The USA's gross domestic product…in 2012 was 16,244,600. If we take these figures and see them together we can get a better picture about how debt is necessary in a Keynsian Economic system in order to keep markets liquid and capital flowing to regular people…” “However if the United States continues to innovate and build greater wealth and capital, we could be on the verge of a golden age.” The quotes shown above were made by my opponent to show that the US debt isn’t a problem. However, that isn’t the debate at hand. He is not arguing that the US debt isn’t a problem, he is arguing his system to overcome debt, which in his own words, is to “bomb all countries in the entire world with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration.” So, these statements are unrelated to his argument and don’t help him establish his viewpoint. My opponent also gives information about Keynesian economics. I won’t provide the entire quote, as it is too long. However, I will also point out that this has nothing to do with his argument. This economics lesson of sorts doesn’t allow him to meet his burden of proof nor does it help him build his stance. My opponent also makes quotes against the idea of robots replacing every job in the United States. “Recently there has been some talk about robots replacing literally every single job that people have right now in the US.” “If there are only robots who do the work, then people won't get paid. If people don't have money to spend, then the robots are useless because there's no one to make stuff for." First off, I never made a mention of this idea. My opponent insinuates that I suggested this idea. However, I never did. In addition, this also doesn’t allow him to meet his burden of proof or strengthen his argument. Hence, these statements are pointless. Rebuttal #2: In my opponent’s 2nd round argument, he critiques my proposed idea of solving the debt issue. “You see the public debt in reality isn't supposed to be solved in the way that my opponent thinks of it, as in a large reduction or elimination.” My opponent says that my idea isn’t a good idea. However, he never explains why my idea is bad. In addition, he never explains why his theoretical bombing idea is better. Hence, he has not made a strong enough argument to convince anyone that his idea is a wise one. Rebuttal #3: My opponent claims that there is a correlation between his idea and a reduction in debt and that my argument that there isn’t is short sighted. “My opponent's arguments concerning there being no correlation between 'culture bombs' and the US economy is quite short-sighted. Who knows where the next great engineer or scientist will come from? Maybe he's living in China or Sierra Leone right now” “A love for the universe and for humanity's future is a great thing to inspire the nations of the world through our culture.” Once again, my opponent doesn’t fulfill his burden of proof here. He mentioned that a famous scientist or engineer might come from a different part of the world and that if we do this theoretical bombing now, then the famous scientist or engineer will help reduce our debt. However, he doesn’t directly show how that would occur. It’s just a weak assumption that my opponent makes. In addition, it is more rational to believe that a famous scientist would not help eliminate the US debt than to believe that he/she will. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Alan Turing were all relatively recent famous scientists from countries other than the US. They did not help solve the US debt problem. How would another famous scientist from a foreign land help if they didn’t? Simple, they wouldn’t. This is an irrational argument made by my opponent. Rebuttal #4: At this point, I would like to talk about the resources that my opponent used. My opponent used three in his first argument. However, I have shown why the information related to those resources isn’t efficient in helping him meet his burden of proof or strengthen his position (US Debt number, GDP information, Bill Gates interview). So, it’s important to note that these resources aren’t credible as it pertains to this debate. Rebuttal #5: In this round, I have responded to all of my opponent’s major claims. However, my opponent didn’t respond to all of my claims. He never talked about the fact that other countries may become angry when this theoretical bombing occurs. Until he addresses this argument I have presented, he will not be able to show that his idea is a wise and efficient one. Conclusion: I have shown that my opponent didn’t argue correctly as it pertains to the rules of the debate, I have pointed out the pointless statements that my opponent made, I have explained that my opponent’s claim against my ideas of reducing the debt isn’t sufficient enough to discredit my idea or strengthen his idea, I have shown that there isn’t a correlation between his idea and a reduction in the US debt, I have shown that the resources used by my opponent aren’t sufficient resources, and I have shown that my opponent hasn’t responded to all of my claims. In order for my argument to work, I must show why my opponent’s idea is illogical and rationally respond to all of my opponent’s claims. I have done both of those things. For my opponent’s argument to work, he must prove that there is a correlation between his idea and a US debt reduction, explain why his idea is a good one (and better than all others), and rationally respond to all of my claims. He has done none of those things. He must do these things in the upcoming rounds. Resources: http://listverse.com...