Government should subsidize my poetic life

I. Your poems are not benefiting the nation.My opponent has asked me to concede the point that his poems are vital to national security. I never concede, nor will I now. Until Pro shows just how his poems are literally beneficial to nation security, this line of argumentation stands negated. The reason it is negated is simple: Pro lacks proof. As Pro, he has the full Burden of Proof and has, so far, failed to offer any. Pro goes on to claim that both national security and the future of the U.S. is inversely proportional to his cat poems. Yet, he lacks any and all proof to justify such a claim. I can say that my poems are even more beneficial since they are of a greater quality - but without proof the argument fails completely and leaves the claim as nothing more than a misguided opinion. Furthermore, I still have issue with Pro's claim that "without art... the nation has no hope." Hope, which is defined as: A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen, [1] is not dependent on art for existence. This is evident in the definition alone where it says 'desire for a certain thing to happen', I do not see the connection between this and art being the sole reason Hope exists in a country.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Unless Pro can show that 'Hope' is fully dependent on Art, this line of argumentation also stands negated. I will remind Pro, it is not my duty to show a country that has hope without art, since I don't have the BOP as Con - it is actually Pro's job to show how 'hope' is wholly dependent on art and nothing else. Until he does that, his arguments fail to hold any validity and are nothing more than unjustified opinions. This last portion of his argument regarding mustaches is nothing more than Pro committing his second fallacy - 'shifting the Burden of Proof'. [2] It's a very cheap tactic in debating and I would ask the audience to please consider taking away his conduct points for the continuous use of fallacies and shifting the burden when there is no grounds for doing so. Either Pro misunderstands what it means to "Affirm" his position - or he's purposely shifting the burden due to a last ditch effort. Either way, every single argument he's made in this section stands unproven and unjustified as I've clearly shown. [2] http://www.nizkor.org... II. Elvis did not defeat the Russians/Poetry & Culture did not defeat the Russians.First my opponent claims art is what won the cold war for America. Then he shares an article about how Elvis ended the cold war. There are several issues with this:1) East Germany IS NOT Russia. My opponent has failed to provide any evidence that Art defeated Russians, and in the meantime attempted to prove so by showing how Elvis annoyed the officials of East Germany. This is not only a False Analogy fallacy [3] - but also the fallacy known as Hasty Generalization [4]. Both fallacies fall under the category of fallacies known as False Generalization. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...After sharing an article which surmounted to nothing but more fallacies committed by Pro, he goes on to say: "Clearly, culture had much to do with winning the war against Russia. If the Russians saw Elvis as a threat, he was a threat."My response is that the article didn't even focus on Russia, it was in relation to East Germany. So, my opponent has done nothing with that article except commit more fallacies and show that East Germany disliked Elvis.Furthermore, Elvis was a rock n roll star/actor, not a poet. So even if the article was valid in relation to this debate, it's still not applicable since poetry is not the same as rock n roll or acting. Both are two completely different forms of art. This point is thus moot since it fails to connect to the type of art my opponent is attempting to argue for - poetry. "Similarly, my cat poems are a threat to tyranny everywhere, and they will help America loom large on the international stage."Prove it! Pro is continuously presenting claims that lack any and all proof. I would ask Pro to please stop wasting both mine and the audiences time with such nonsense. I've yet to be shown how Pro's cat poems are a "threat to tyranny everywhere" which in itself is an absolute claim and ultimately unproven. My opponent is merely wasting our time with such nonsense as he himself can't even prove such a thing. III. Pro's poems are not worth $2,000 a month + Benefits. In response to this challenge I raised last round, Pro has listed his budget and costs of living. I was going to go through each but seeing costs like: $90 a month for cat toys$230 a month for cat fashion$120 a month for animeamong others are just nonsense costs. I don't even believe Pro is being honest, and thus challenge his honesty by asking for proof of such costs. If he can't provide such proof, neither I or the audience have any reason to accept your claims as truthful. Keep in mind, I have two cats that have plenty of toys and food, yet I'm not having a monthly recurring cost for toys or food like that. You can go to Costco or any wholesale outlet and get 50 pounds of cat food for $29.99, which I would be happy to prove with receipts that I have on my kitchen counter as we speak. Also, showing your budget has nothing to do with the reasonableness of your desired monthly allowance provided by the government. You still haven't shown how your poems justify the allowance you are demanding from the govt. Everyone has costs of living and monthly budgets, but to expect the government to give you money for those things by simply listing them off is ludicrous at best. Nor is it the system currently in practice, thus my opponent is going against the status quo and fully needs to prove why that system should change. IV. Defense BudgetThe amount of the Defense Budget means nothing in relation to this debate. It is a moot point and holds no ground in relation to the resolution at hand. That spending is, for the most part, justified and traceable to the reasons for such a cost. Pro has still not done two of those things - justify the cost of funding his lifestyle and tracing the benefits of that cost when put into application. I will also not concede that even though mine are worthy of $10,000, Pro's should be worthy of $2,000. He hasn't shown how me conceding would benefit all of humanity - nor has he shown how his poems would benefit all of humanity. V. The Ottomans First off, 1299-1923 is not "lasting over a thousand years". 1932 - 1299 = 633. The empire lasted 633 years, not over a thousand. This argument is completely misguided right from the start. Secondly, The Ottoman Empire clearly couldn't make it into the Modern Era, so my opponent is attempting to use an outdated and conquered nation as a means of proving the value of his own lifestyle. This is incredibly weak and misguided in terms of justification. Lastly, my opponent thinks that the Ottomans decline is contributed to the cease of "giving stipends to Turkish cat-poets". My opponent hasn't proven that ALL Turkish poets at the time were cat-poets, but also is committing yet another fallacy known as the 'Fallacy of the Single Cause'. [5] This is due to him attempting to connect the ceasing of monthly stipends to the decline of the Ottoman empire, when in reality there were several contributing factors. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...In Conclusion,My opponent has committed FIVE different fallacies throughout his previous round. I am beginning to think that due to the consistent lack of proof and justification for his numerous misguided arguments that he is doing nothing more than trolling. This should be an automatic loss of Conduct as he is purposely providing unproven claims and unrelated evidence as seen in the Elvis article.I know return the floor to Pro. Thank you.