The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
The_Gatherer
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

ANY government handout is freeloading.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
The_Gatherer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 850 times Debate No: 61079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

cheyennebodie

Pro

I believe that anyone taking another mans earned income by government force is corrupt in their thinking.Government is not for meeting peoples needs.Government is to enforce contract law and to protect a persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is different for all of us. That is what freedom to choose is for.And for those who make choices that produce poverty, there are charities for that. They are in a better position to weed out the cons.Government loves the cons. They will vote for them to get more freebies.
The_Gatherer

Con

I would be interested in debating this topic with you, as this is an area in which I have a particular interest.
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Pro

Post your particular interest.I was on a bus once and there was a discussion about replacing the republican governor with a democrat because the bus fare subsidies were going to be raised from 2 dollars to 3 dollars. How shallow does a person have to be to vote over a dollar .I said there should be no subsidies. Only a freeloader would vote to get a handout from government. I pay full fare. Someone said,"wait till your 60, and you will sing a different toon."He didn't have anything to say when I said I was 65.Since when does age have anything to do with honor.
The_Gatherer

Con

The reason I have a particular interest in this subject is that I do a lot of work to help people who have been left homeless and starving as a result of being wrongly denied the support to which they have been entitled. This includes people with serious diseases such as terminal cancer, children and the elderly.

In this debate, the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that anyone receiving any kind of Government assistance is a "freeloader". As Pro has failed to define what he means by "freeloader" and our views may be different, I will provide some definitions here which hopefully all Voters can agree sum up "freeloader":

Definition 1: " A person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return." - From the Oxford English Dictionary [1]

Definition 2: "slang, a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc" - From WordReference.com [2]

We can see then that overall, credible sources seem to agree that to be a Freeloader, is to be someone who takes advantage of others, living of their resources without paying anything back, or having the intention of doing so.

To move onto my case, I would like to point out the flaws with Pro's case for stating that ANY government handout is freeloading...

I would like to start by addressing the points made by Pro, and putting my case for why these points are incorrect.

1) "Taking another man's earned income by Government force..."

Any type of social security / welfare / benefits are NOT another person's earned income. The great majority of people who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of having to claim Government assistance have themselves paid taxes for a number of years. As such, they are entitled to help when they need it. The tax paid by that individual while they were working is supposed to act as a kind of 'insurance', so that if that person is ever out of work, they can get assistance until they find another job.The amount claimed by the person whilst unemployed is also usually only a tiny fraction of what the person has previously paid in tax. As such, this in no way can be described as "freeloading", as defined above.

It is also worth noting that if all forms of Goverment assistance were ended, taxpayers would not as a result pay any less tax. The tax collected would simply be spent elsewhere by the Goverment.

2) "Government is not for meeting peoples needs.Government is to enforce contract law and to protect a persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

In order for the Government to protect the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is necessary to ensure that people have a civilised society in which to live.
The provision of a safety net upon which people can rely during unfortunate times of unemployment is essential to ensuring that Western societies do not become like third world countries. This allows the maximum potential for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all citizens.

3)"... those who make choices that produce poverty, there are charities for that."

I find it disturbing that Pro seems to believe that everyone who is impoverished has ended up in those circumstances due to their own 'bad choices'.
This shows great ignorance on Pro's part, and I can only assume that Pro has lived a very privileged life.
Most people however are working class, and rely solely on the ability to work in order to provide for even the most basic needs. Most people do not have any access to financial help from friends or family. Most people also do not have any control personally over macro factors such as the national or international economy, which at any time can lead to the closure of many workplaces and a very small number of available jobs.

In addition to this, currently there are many graduates and others who have certainly made all of the "right choices" in their lives up until now, who are having to survive on unemployment benefits, through no fault of their own. Again, this is more an issue of politics over which normal people have no control, rather than anyone making "bad choices". If being impoverished or rich was merely a matter of making the correct choices in life, then everyone would be a millionaire by now.

It is also worth mentioning in regards to disability (as Pro asserts that ANY Government handout is freeloading so this would include the welfare payments to people who are unable to work), that disability and serious illness is certainly NOT a choice or 'bad decision'.
Many people are either born disabled or later develop an illness or disability after already having worked for many years or even decades. In a lot of cases, the illness or disability have been acquired as a result of the type of work previously undertaken by the claimant.
To assert that people who are very ill, in some cases terminally, are "freeloading" is I hope everyone will agree, quite disgusting.

Pro goes on to assert that certain people will vote for a particular political candidate based solely on how many "freebies" and "handouts" they can get. This does not need to be debunked as it is clearly just a ridiculous generalisation.

Pro also asserts that there are charities to help people who are impoverished. To the best of my knowledge there are not charities enough to pay all of someone's living costs such as rent, bills, food as well as pay this for EVERY unemployed person in any given country. To assert that this is a realistic option is simply nonsense.

Having addressed Pro's points, I would now like to move on to a few of my own, which I believe should be considered by Voters on this debate.

1) More welfare recipients than ever are actually WORKING PEOPLE.

Due to economic factors which have caused the cost of living to be higher than ever, more working families than ever have been forced to claim some kind of Government assistance. These people can certainly not be described as Freeloaders.

2) Disabled and terminally ill people deserve the right to live, and the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else. If Pro asserts otherwise then that has worrying connotations of the Nazi variety.
In order for disabled people to have these rights, there must be a way of providing an income and ensuring that their basic living costs are met. If a person is disabled to the extent that they cannot work, then why shouldn't they receive Govt assistance? To deny them this would be to infringe on their basic rights.
As most disabled people (especially those who became ill or disabled at a later stage) would like to work, and wish they could work and indeed often do some work when they are able to, this is one group of people who certainly can not be described as Freeloaders.

3) Getting rid of 'handouts' would lead to more freeloading as well as more crime.

The safety net exists in order that the basic living costs of people may be met whilst they search for a new job. Without this safety net people would be forced to turn to friends relatives or crime in order to have basic necessities for survival such as food or shelter.
Clearly this would lead to people being unemployed for a longer time, as they would have to concentrate on survival rather than looking for jobs.
The safety net therefore, is of benefit to everyone i society, not simply the unemployed.

I could add more, however I do not have a lot of spare time right now.

As I previously said, the burden of proof is on my opponant to prove his case that ALL Goverment 'handouts' can be described as 'freeloading' by the people who claim them.

So far I do not believe that my opponent has managed to do this, and I have addressed above some of the reason why the points he has made are not only inaccurate but frankly ignorant of reality.
I look forward to my opponents reply.

Sources:

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.wordreference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cheyennebodie

Pro

Actually I was raised in a privileged home. My dad left when I was a child. Never knew him. My mother put her feelings away , got a job, and raised us 4 kids. We lived with my grandmother. She was totally blind. My mother NEVER received welfare. She did it the right way.Work. She Instiiled in me a sense of honor that has served me well.Sure we were helped by my grandmother. That is what family is for. But government has replaced family. The freeloader people now look to government as family to provide for them.And it is commendable for you to help people. But it is dishonorable for you to do it by stealing off your neighbor to do it.You seem to think that the American people would let people starve in this country. We are the most giving nation history has ever known. And the great majority of people who spend the most NEVER earned anything. That is because we have generational poverty. Young mothers who were raised in that environment don't use good judgment when selecting a sex partner. If anything goes wrong daddy government would take over. Of course the only wealth generated by government has to be forced from the earners. Every one is in poverty because of someones bad choice. Whether it is parents or adults themselves.It used to be that even if a child grew up in a bad choice family, he or she could pull hiself up. Opportunities abounded. But when a child grows up under government, they tend to gravitate to that evil way of doing things. You made the statement that most people on welfare today is because of the economy effected by government. Why would you say that government is the problem, then turn right around and say government is the solution. Freedom without government intrusion has and always will be the solution.
The_Gatherer

Con

The_Gatherer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Gatherer. Where in your challenged thinking do you think I am delusional. Just because your position is the easy one, does not make it at all right.I am not here to care at all about who gets insulted. Reality is reality. Whether you are 20 or 70. Having government steal a mans earned wealth by force( law)is wrong and should not be covered up by some false sense of compassion. Get your blinders off. Government seldom does thing with the force of compassion.They are there for one reason, and one reason only, power.When they steal ( by law) from one man they effectively limits that man freedom.He is no longer free to do with that money as he chooses.And the government also has power over the one receiving the stolen property. " Vote for me and I will toss you some more crumbs." And they , like sheep, just say," OK". That is because the liberal democrat and the liberal republican live and move on the votes of the low information voter.And the one who received the illgotten gain has a stain on his soul.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Well yeah of course I'm not saying its right. I'm saying that the old saying of history repeats itself pretty much explains the situation we are in except history never really repeated itself it just stayed the same. And really every political party has been part of the continued destruction of the average citizen. When you allow a small group of people to wield power over a larger group, they are going to find ways to make themselves more powerful so that the larger group will listen, i.e. strict laws, big brother type of monitoring, etc. At least that has been what has happened in the case of present day issues and apparently past issues as well. That's not to say that there are people out there who would not stand up for the masses and the right thing to do, it's just they never really seem to get the chance to make a difference.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
Apologies for ff in last round. Had a real life situation I had to pay attention to.

I would like to say here that as far as I'm concerned, my opponents argument is both delusional and insulting to a great number of people.

On that basis, as well as the fact that he has failed to actually make any case, but only spewed bigoted propaganda, I urge voters to vote for me.

Thank you.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Just because it happened in the past does not make it right. America did , for a time, adhere to the constitutional edicts. We even fought a civil war to right a wrong. I think we are heading in that direction again.It has been mainly the democrat party that pulled us from freedom to servitude. We are no longer citizens but subjects of big brother.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Well yeah I agree that the government has definitely over stepped their boundaries a great deal from what they are supposed to be here for. But to be clear the government is really just another name for a type of authority of a monarchy. Just as you stated, a lowly bureaucrat has the authority to make the average citizen jump through hoops for anything, as well as collect taxes, impose laws, etc. Everything that a monarchy's guards could do in the past. So the real roll that government plays is the same one that has been played for all of human history, if you believe the history.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
And as a side note.The wealthiest man in America can make me do nothing without government sanction. Bill gates cannot force me to do anything.On the other hand I have no claim on his money, any of it. The only claim I would have is if we entered into a contract and he was to pay me to fulfill that contract. Anything above that would have to be a gift. I have received those from time to time as appreciation for a job well done.On the other hand the lowliest bureaucrat can make me jump through hoops if dealing with them because they have government force on their side.Bureaucrats are like flies, they eat crap and bother people.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Garsot.Government has a real roll to play in our society. Because of the inherited flaws in man. At one time in America all people got to keep all their money. There was no need to influence government to do anything.Government was funded by tariffs. Now everyone has their hands in the cookie jar. The welfare freeloaders vote in people that will keep the freebies coming. Corporations lobby to try to stem the tide of power grab from government for their earned money. Governments role under the constitution is to provide for our defense and to enforce civil and contract law. That is it. All this other crap they do is unconstitutional. And the people have sanctioned it just for a few crumbs government sends them. So, what you are saying is that because a freeloader on the bottom should be excused because they do less harm.Stealing is stealing no matter what the size of the theft.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
Well said Garsot
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
The government is a farce anyways. If there was no government there would be no need for handouts because everyone would have full access to resources and huge capitalist corporations would not be able to use government laws and enforcers to protect their greedy interests. The government is a huge scam created by greedy pigs that want to have power and keep everyone else fighting each other over the stupidest things. Plus, you think just because you work for the stuff you have that you are protected from the government handout category. Where does your money come from? The federal reserve, meaning that everything you have bought with your hard worked money is a product of a government hand out. Though the federal reserve does claim to be separate from the government they work together to distribute the currency. If it wasn't for that government hand out, your hard work to get those green backs would not be worth anything because some places would not accept it as a form of currency. So before you point your finger at others to call them freeloaders or anything else, just remember that you are in pretty much the same position, except that you would be much madder if you were to lose everything you have because the government and federal reserve decide that in order to pay off the national debt they have to liquidize every item that has their national currency linked to it, which is completely possible in this wonderful world of laws.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I would be glad to discuss this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
cheyennebodieThe_GathererTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, but arguments con made where better
Vote Placed by michael90000 2 years ago
michael90000
cheyennebodieThe_GathererTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite Pro's grammar, I comprehended both sides and made my vote reflects...
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
cheyennebodieThe_GathererTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct, obviously, for the forfeit. Still, though, Con's arguments were far more coherent than Pro's. Pro clearly does not like taxation--but to call it "freeloading", he needs to justify the position. As Con's the only one to give us definitions, they're to be preferred, and Pro's case simply doesn't support it. As such, arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.