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

2NC First, rebuttals: Fiat isn't real -------------------------- My opponent obviously didn't understand this argument. Fiat: "The plan is a series of commands that will be made into law. Within the limits of law, though, the Affirmative can do absolutely anything it likes in the plan. Anything. It doesn't matter if the proposal is germane to the resolution or not. The Affirmative has the power of fiat (FEE-ott), the ability to "wish" their plan into existence; "fiat" is a Latin word meaning "let it be done!"" Here is an overview: If you vote aff, nothing actually happens. The law doesn't actually get passed, it's not real. Vote neg on presumption. Presumption: "Presumption is the assumed direction in which a judge should vote in the case of a complete tie. ... the judge's presumption should be for the negative team because the status quo is the only truly predictable world and without a net benefit for the affirmative plan, there is only a risk that changing the status quo will make things worse." Thus, since voting aff does nothing in real life, and voting neg does nothing in real life, it is a complete tie. But due to the debate practice of presumption, you as the judge must vote neg. No attack, vote NEG on presumption. A-Spec -------------------------- My opponent obviously doesn't understand A-Spec either. The Department of Agriculture cannot pass a law. The Department of Agriculture is not an agent for enacting the plan. Vote NEG on in round abuse and education. Topicality - Poverty -------------------------- Sorry I didn't provide a "typical" debate structure for my T: Interpretation: Poverty is what is specified by the USFG as the poverty line [1]. Violation: SNAPS provides food stamps for up to 160% of the poverty line (Lubrano '09) Reason to prefer: Since the topic specifies the United States, it only makes sense to specify poverty as it is relevant in the United States. Coercion K -------------------------- First I would like to point out that my opponent has not attacked either of my two links. Thus we assume these two points conceded and that HIS PLAN LINKS INTO THE K. "I would like to point out, first of all, that the opponent uses cards from 20 and 25 years ago. The government is constantly changing and in policy debate it is of the most importance that evidence be recent and accurate. Because it is not recent, it also is not accurate." This isn't even a real argument, policy debaters cite Aristotle and Nietzsche all the time. It's philosophy. If you want to inspect the full text of the cards, I'd be more than happy to give them to you. My opponent doesn't provide any reason or evidence why "cards from 20 and 25 years ago" are bad, thus it is just a warrant less statement. Throw this point out. "there are new taxes and policies all of the time, and there has been no violence of enslavement as a result." Kritiks don't need uniqueness, the assumptions you make (tax is good/coercion is necessary) in your case apply to the status quo as well: "If you have read on disads, then you know that a disad starts with uniqueness; kritiks do not. Since most of the assumptions made in the affirmative case exist in the status quo as well, uniquness is really not an important issue. The link of a kritik is just a point that shows how the affirmative case makes the assumption that it does." My two links into his case have gone unrefuted, and I will be providing additional links in my extensions. "this tax when viewed on the individual level, is small and insignificant. A purchase of $100 would cost the consumer a mere 1/2 dollar." Cross apply my Youkins '00 card: Any form of coercion takes away freedom Vote NEG on LIBERTY, FREEDOM, CONSTITUION, PROGRESS, OPRESSION, and ULTIMATE IMPACT. De-Dev DA -------------------------- Even if you don't go for that evidence, look to my extensions. Overview: Currently the economy is getting worse, if it gets better we will experience the impacts I have listed. My opponent's plan causes the economy to get better. Thus, my opponent's plan causes the impacts I have listed. Constructive: De-Dev DA Extensions -------------------------- 1) Water Wars A) Continued growth and consumption guarentees violent conflicts over clear water (Speth '08) B) Water Wars go nuclear (Weiner '90) 2) Environment A) Growth kills the environment (Sweezy '04) B) Economic growth guarantees environmental collapse—industries require harmful materials and methods. (Sweezy '04) 3) Poverty A) Growth necessitates exploitation and horrible living conditions of those in the third world (Trainer '02) B) Growth causes poverty and resource disparities (Trainer '07) Vote NEG on NUCLEAR WAR, ENVIRONMENT, and POVERTY. Coercion K Extensions -------------------------- Additional Link: Taxation is a violation of basic human dignity and right (Chodorov '04) taxation cannot exclude values. If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se.It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else. We look at the results of taxation, the symptoms, to see whether and how the principle of private property is violated. For further evidence, we examine its technique, and just as we suspect the intent of robbery in the possession of effective tools, so we find in the technique of taxation a telltale story Next Round -------------------------- I would just like to remind my opponent that the next round (R3) he should not give a speech. This was stated in the original rules. This is not meant to give me an advantage, this is standard policy debate structure [2]. [1] http://aspe.hhs.gov... [2] http://www.csun.edu...