Last I checked I am against affirmative action but I will argue for it just for the sake of covering the topic.
Anyway, one of the biggest arguments for affirmative action is that we need programs to help the poor because everyone is entitled to life, which means food, water, and shelter, and saying "you have the right to live but not food or water" is contradictory. Thus we should give them money to take care of themselves.
Yes, everyone is entitled to life, but they are required to maintain it, not us, it's like saying everyone is entitled to property, but because they can't take care of their stuff we should have to pay for them to get new stuff. The right to life, liberty, and property establishes that these rights shall not be infringed, not that we have to give it to them, if someone locks them self in their house, thus they do not have liberty at that moment, up to them to get out, not us, we are only required not to lock them in our house.
Someone arguing for affirmative action would say that its no skin of their back that they don' have any stuff, but dying is a little different. Also, if my neighbor was locked in his house I would call the locksmith and try to get him out. I personally believe that most poverty in America is because of government idiocy and overreaching, so, if their poverty is a result of government, it is only fair that the government should clean up their own mess and provide for these people until they can get jobs.
Yes, but f someone digs a huge ditch in their backyard and falls in and dies, the police don't investigate why no one was there to stop it, they just file a report that some buffoon died of falling in ditch because he was so dumb. And though you may help your neighbor get out of his house, you wouldn't bother if he could get out himself would you not?
And this is true, most poverty in America is caused by government, but in a free market system most of these issues will just fix themselves.
True, people are obligated to preserve their rights otherwise they don't have a right to complain that they don't have them, and no one is going to go fill up said morons ditch because its not safe, they would leave that to him. Though if it is something beyond their capability, they should receive help as this would be the case in any other situation, such as someone falling into a ditch not because of himself, but because some other buffoon dug a ditch.
And though issue would get fixed by themselves in a free market system, who's going to ensure that the free market remains free? The government ob course, because the government is there to protect the rights of the people, which includes property and liberty, as ell as the pursuit of property, i.e. a free market is a human right, which the government must preserve.
Reasons for voting decision: OK. Pro was a bit half hearted on this one, but the main reason for my vote was that con gave an exelent explanation of rights!
Two arguments that would be good for this are that, like in your examples, individual charity is a batter solution. You can combine this with evidence of how little the poor are helped by government handouts.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.