Welfare is an applicable stance for a Libertarian

Point-by-point1. Assumption of lower taxes in libertarian societyPro claims that I made the assumption that the aggregate tax burden would go down in a libertarian society and therefore charitable donations would go up. This isn't just an assumption, this is the basics of libertarianism [1]. Cutting taxes and freeing up private capital is an enormous factor of libertarian ideology. If it's merely an assumption, then it's an assumption we both share. Perhaps Pro means to insinuate that charitable donation won't go up as a result of less taxation. If that's the case, he is once again wrong. The people who give the most to charity are also those who have the most disposable income [2]. Therefore, it stands to reason that an increase in income brought about by cutting taxes would also result in more charitable donations. Thirdly, I've already shown how charitable donation with the current tax burden is already more than high enough to cover welfare recipients right now. Pro says this is not the resolution. I'm not sure why he thinks so, but I'll explain either way. If welfare can be shown to be an unnecessary burden on the market and an unnecessary violation of the NAP, then welfare and libertarianism are contradictory positions and therefore the resolution is negated.2. Assuming welfare won't be changedPro responds to my point about how prisoners are cheaper than welfare recipients by saying that I assume welfare won't be changed. This isn't true. In accordance with his note at the end of his R2 argument, I didn't include food stamps (something pro mentioned in his note specifically) or unemployment insurance and only looked at bare-bones welfare. This is the cheapest we can assume welfare to be with the numbers we have right now.Pro says that this isn't the resolution again, and that this debate is about "ANY welfare", current levels or otherwise. Essentially, he wants to keep this debate restricted to the realms of conjecture. He wants to keep this argument conjectural because the numbers don't add up for his position. That's all. 3. Welfare recipients =/= desperate peoplePro says I assumed he meant poor people steal and then end up in prison, when he actually meant desperate people. It doesn't make one difference to my argument whether we're talking about "poor" people or "desperate" people, so pro is just trying to obfuscate the issue here, but more importantly, if the assumption is that without welfare these people will have to resort to stealing in order to pay for food and medicine and clothing, is it not clear that these people are poor? I'm not sure what the problem is that pro is getting at here.4. SyllogismPro provides the following syllogism P1: Desperate people will resort to force to procure basic necessities P2: People using force to obtain goods will go to jail P3: Jails will give basic necessities to individuals P4: Citizens pay taxes to fund jails C: Taxes go to provide basic necessities to desperate peopleIt's interesting to note that the word "welfare" doesn't show up once in this argument supposedly meant to justify welfare, but let's unpack it nonetheless. Pro basically says that desperate (poor) people will use force to steal and then end up in jail, where they will receive basic needs paid for by taxpayers. He then concludes that "Taxes go to provide basic necessities to desperate people". Ignoring that this conclusion isn't a normative statement and therefore not a real conclusion for a policy debate syllogism, his argument doesn't prove anything. First off, isn't welfare the same thing? With welfare the necessities of desperate people are paid for by taxpayers. The question then becomes which is cheaper, which was a major focus in my R2 argument. This syllogism doesn't actually prove anything.5. Avoid aggressorPro states that it is superior to have a welfare system because then you don't have to pay for damages done thanks to criminals who steal, noting that it's better to pay once than twice. Is pro under the assumption that property damage to private homes will be paid for by taxpayers? -- because we don't even do that now, let alone in a libertarian society. This argument would be natural from a communist, but not from a libertarian -- which is basically the opposite. Unless pro is saying that he personally would be robbed every time and then have to pay twice... but I doubt that's what he means because that makes less sense, not more. 6. Not the resolutionPro states that this debate is on whether or not government aid is an acceptable stance for a libertarian, not whether government aid will be needed. This is an absolutely bizarre argument to make. If government aid isn't needed, then enacting such aid would result in market inefficiency and be a violation of the NAP without resulting in any net liberty gain. Let's look at this as a checklist;WELFAREa)Causes Market inefficiency: Ob)Violates NAP: Oc)Results in net liberty gain: XThe only way getting an "O" on both market inefficiency and NAP violation can be acceptable is if it at least ends with a net liberty gain. If it doesn't even accomplish that, then such a position contradicts the fundamentals of libertarianism entirely and therefore is not an applicable stance (unless pro is now arguing that its okay to be knowingly contradictory?). Given that we already know welfare must score on "a" and "b", all I have to do to defeat pros position is show that welfare fails to meet criteria "c" and I win. That's why criteria "c" has been my main focus and up to this point. Pro hasn't actually countered my arguments. Instead he's spending all his time trying to justify ignoring them. 7. Irrelevant and impossiblePro states that it is impossible for him to provide evidence supporting a position for future charitable donation rates. This is plainly wrong as I did just that exactly 1 round ago. I showed that charity rates right now are already enough to cover welfare costs (something pro has chosen to ignore this round) and that, assuming a linear increase, we could expect over 100 billion dollars more in charity given assuming a lower tax burden. In this round, I've shown that such an assumption is valid as we can see right now that charitable donation goes up in accordance with an increase in disposable income. Even if this wasn't the case, once again, charitable donation rates are already more than high enough right now.8. Crime statisticsPro posts the costs of crime. first of all, these costs won't be subsidized in a libertarian society since they aren't now, so all these numbers are already irrelevant. Second of all, pro is assuming that there aren't peripheral costs to welfare. the money doesn't magically float out of your bank account and into the mailbox of welfare recipients. There are middle-men here, and their costs actually affect the taxpayer. 9. Note Pro says my welfare numbers are misleading because they don't include food stamps. Firstly, pro specifically made it a point that his view on welfare excluded food stamps. He's merely flip-flopping now because his argument isn't adding up. I will gladly include food stamp-costs next round if pro wants, just keep in mind, the more expensive welfare is, the more favourable prison looks in comparison. Your choice, pro. My argument is secure either way.ConclusionPro's counter arguments this round were less than stellar. Pro's insistence on restricting this debate to conjecture is suspicious and indicative of someone trying to cover up inconsistencies in his argument, rather than someone with an honest and well-researched position. Pro insists that my arguments are irrelevant when, ironically, his arguments are the irrelevant ones, meaning pro is projecting in order to cover up the weaknesses of his own argument. In this round, I've strengthened my original argument and firmly established its relevance to the resolution.The resolution has been negated 1. http://www.libertarianism.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...