The Instigator
TheTraditionalist
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A Modest Proposal for Lowering the Costs of Welfare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheTraditionalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,881 times Debate No: 28573
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

TheTraditionalist

Pro

Rules:
This debate is meant to be more humorous than anything else. The debate is set to two rounds, there is a 5,000 character limit, and each debater has 73 hours (3 days) to respond. Please avoid semantics. Your challenge as Con, should you chose to accept it, is negate the resolution.

Resolution:
Requiring that parents on welfare eat their children would serve as an effective way to lower the costs of the program in the United States, and would help those welfare recipients become more economically self-sufficient.

Opening Arguments:

Currently in the United States of America 4.1% of the population is on welfare, and this costs the United States $131.9 billion annually [1][2]. Like all freedom-lovin' Americans, this deeply troubles me. However, I have a modest proposal that I believe would help to bring both of these numbers down; a plan that would make some of the welfare recipients more economically self-sufficient, and that would lower the costs of the program. The United States should require welfare recipients to eat their children; requiring that parents on welfare eat their children would serve as an effective way to lower the costs of the program, and would help those welfare recipients become more economically self-sufficient.

Consider the following:

-90% of welfare parents are single mothers. [3]

-59% of welfare recipients have more than 1 child. [3]

-The majority of welfare recipients have recent work experience. [3]


These statistics underline exactly why my proposal would be so effective at lowering costs and increasing self sufficiency; there are huge economic draw backs that come with having children which force parents to stay on welfare for an artificially longer period of time.

Let's be brutally honest here; being a parent is a thankless 24 hour job. You have to be there to send them off to school, you have to pay for their food and recreation, and you have to go to those dreadfully boring and time consuming parent teacher conferences. Yes, it would appear that the only major benefit to having children is that you can indoctrinate them and turn them into a miniaturized version of yourself. The real cost of all this parenting is that you cannot devout this time to working, and thus lucrative and remunerative careers, such as an Alaskan crab fisher, are off limits because of the long hours and high risk of death or injury. Requiring that welfare recipients eat their children would be an excellent way to help out welfare recipients, as more of them would be able to take that minimum wage factory job where they would be working 15 hour shifts in sweltering conditions.

In addition to this, I have heard from my acquaintance that not only is a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, but that cannibalism can be both a spiritually and sexually gratifying experience.
[4]

Thanks for reading, Pro out.

Sources:
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[2] $131.9 billion does not take into account food stamps or unemployment. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[3] http://www.utexas.edu...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
RationalMadman

Con

I would like to commend my opponent for raising such an incredibly modest and unobtrusive proposal for lowering the costs of welfare as forcing those on welfare to eat their own children. In fact it is because this idea is so ridiculously ingenious that I must... Unfortunately propose something rather more sinister...

All parents of children on welfare are to hunt and eat the children of parents NOT on welfare, then immediately offer their condolences and replace those children with their own and an agreed adoption plan... Which only requires consent of the great president.. Mr. Ballack Seminigga Obama Bin Fartin http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

Now ONTO MY REVOLUTION OF A RESOLUTION!!

First of all, it would be undoubtedly foolish to not accept the fact that by encourage parents on welfare to eat their own children we most likely would leave them unnecessarily fat and obese since each parent has several children (ooh those horny b@stards!) and humans are just SO FATTENINGLY TASTY (just ask your mom how I tasted last night) and it is thus the inevitable conclusion that...

WE ARE OFFICIALLY BOUND TO CONSIDER IT OUR DUTY TO ENCOURAGE WIDESPREAD CANNIBALISM BUT NOT IN AN INCESTUAL FORM... Think of it this way, would you rather be raped by your mother (I sure would after last night) or my mother?... OF COURSE YOU WOULD RATHER MY MOTHER BECAUSE YO' MOMMA SO UGLY... Well she's so ugly I can't even make a f*cking joke out of it... It's just I was kinda high and drunk last night you know?... OH RIGHT! I AM MEANT OT BE DEBATING!

So because raping another person's child is SO MUCH MORE MORAL I EVERY RESPECT than raping your own EATING shall be applied the same logic :) in fact why not let the poor kids be raped while they chew on them... Whole new meaning to eating pu$$y eh ;)

By allowing parents on welfare to eat privileged children and by enforcing an adoption program for many of these poor, uneducated lazy fart's children to be adopted we officially enable a super mode because just like when your mother sees my cock after many nights with your dad's, when these children see the privileged world, they will appreciate it SO MUCH MORE. So thus, they will inevitably be motivated to work their not-so-lazy-anymore-a$$es off and thus shall ultimately solve any and all welfare issues.

Thank you kind sir, It is now my duty to engage in masturbation because I mentioned your mother too many damn times in this debate.

-Gossip Girl Guru xoxo
Debate Round No. 1
TheTraditionalist

Pro

Response:

While I admire my opponent's creativity and the clear compassion for the poor that he has shown, I fear his response to my most modest proposal would do little to actually lower the cost of welfare, or assist its recipients. In the previous round my opponent perscribed:

All parents of children on welfare are to hunt and eat the children of parents NOT on welfare, then immediately offer their condolences and replace those children with their own and an agreed adoption plan... Which only requires consent of the great president.. Mr. Ballack Seminigga Obama Bin Fartin...

By allowing parents on welfare to eat privileged children and by enforcing an adoption program for many of these poor, uneducated lazy fart's children to be adopted we officially enable a super mode because just like when your mother sees my cock after many nights with your dad's, when these children see the privileged world, they will appreciate it SO MUCH MORE. So thus, they will inevitably be motivated to work their not-so-lazy-anymore-a$$es off and thus shall ultimately solve any and all welfare issues.

The first major problem with my opponent's proposal is the huge opportunity cost associated with it; the more time that welfare parents spend hunting down the priveldged children of America the less time that they have to try and find a job where they can mindlessly labour and become removed from the fact that they are not, and will never be, the person that they imagned they would be as a child, and that with each and everyday their vitality is slipping away as death lumes closer and closer, ready to take them from a life that was never as satisfying as it could and should have been. This, of course, is counter-productive as the more time welfare recipients spend on the dole, the more it costs the taxpayers.

The second problem with your proposal is that it would drastically reduce the population of the United States. This, in and of itself, is not problematic, however it becomes so when you consider the fact that population size is a key determinate of economic demand. "The larger the population, the greater is the demand for all goods and services; the smaller the population, the smaller is the demand for all goods and services."[1] My opponent's plan would certainly depress economic activity in the United States, a truly dasterdly crime; consider the immortal words of Robert F. Kennedy:

...the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or [and] the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or [and] the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or [and] the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor [and] our courage; neither our wisdom nor [and] our learning; neither our compassion nor [and] our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except [and] why we are proud that we are Americans.

The only way that this effect could be mitigated would be to heavily invest in the perfection of human cloning techniques; however, there would be such huge costs associated with such an initiative that it is doubtful that such efforts would ever pay off. There is also the fact that human cloning to too morally ambigous for any rational person to condone.

Alas, requiring that parents on welfare eat their children would serve as an effective way to lower the costs of the program in the United States, and would help those welfare recipients become more economically self-sufficient. My opponent openly admits to this, but offers his own alternative to the problematic costs of welfare in the United States. As I have shown that his alternative pales in comparison to my own, every freedom loving [insert your nationality here] should vote Pro in this debate.

Stay golden Ponyboy, Pro out.

Sources:
[1] Parkin, Michael, and Robin Bade. Microeconomics: Canada in the Global Environment. Toronto: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2006. Print.
RationalMadman

Con

What is more motivational for a campaign?

Eat your own kids.

OR

Eat others' kids so your kids are well cared for.

Basic truth of life xoxo

Family First. (as you can tell I'm not an orphan and I love my family)
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
yeah i didn't get it until I saw that link.

O_o
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
For anyone who doesn't get the joke...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
Oh. I thought joke debates would be trolling. Newbie here
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
*fulltimestudent
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
sulltimestudent this was a joke debate...
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
If u really want to make a reduction in welfare, why not gocus on corporate welfare first? Corporate welfare is much more expensive than welfare for individual citizens
Posted by TheTraditionalist 4 years ago
TheTraditionalist
Oops. Fix'd.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"Your challenge as Con, should you chose to accept it, is not negate the resolution."

So, basically, to not pose a counter-argument?
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
what the actual F*ck...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
TheTraditionalistRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, there is no vote category for lulz, because while the entire debate made me chuckle, RationalMadman's alternative made me literally LOL.