The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

All benefit-scrounging single mothers should have their kids taken off them

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,689 times Debate No: 6361
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (10)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Say you have a neighbour, who has an eighteen year-old daughter called Trisha. Now, please don't get too excited boys, she's very overweight and distinctly unattractive. Also, she has personal hygiene issues. And she's rude and she's foul-mouthed and she's ignorant and she's very, very lazy.

That's why her parents are always pestering her. So Trisha decides she'll move out and get her own place. The trouble is, that costs money and she is way too unemployable to get a job, even if she wasn't too bone idle to work.

But wait, there's another option. All she needs to do is move in with a rich boyfriend. Simple! Except, she hasn't got a rich boyfriend, and with her looks and attitude, she is certainly very unlikely to find one that would invite her to come and live at his expense.

Never mind though, all is not lost. There is an army barracks in her town full of squaddies who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan and are, therefore, so horny that they could **** the hair on a barbershop floor. So, on Saturday night, Trisha goes into town wearing her most revealing dress, walks into a bar full of drunken soldiers and asks a group of them to take her round the back. (I mean, invite them round the back by the trashcans, as opposed to inviting them to kick her back doors in, although she probably did bend over for some of them).

Anyway, as a consequence of this somewhat less than romantic series of sexual encounters, Trisha becomes pregnant, which is great news. Not because she likes kids, she doesn't. No, because as a single mum she'll be entitled to a free house and be given a generous income, all courtesy of the ever-generous taxpayer.

The only thing she has to do to qualify for these lavish benefits is answer a few questions from the Child Support Agency so that they can be satisfied that the baby's father cannot take financial responsibility for the child.

So, when they ask her who the father is, Trisha replies:

"I do not know who the father of my child was as all squaddies look the same to me."

http://www.funny.co.uk...

So when the baby is born, Trish gets her own, fully equipped place and enough money to live in some luxury.

Now, you work out that the income tax you pay every week is just about the same as the money Trisha gets in rent and allowances and other benefits from the government. In other words, you are paying for her to stay at home, watch TV and eat junk food. Indeed, you are also paying to bring up her kid.

But what choice does the Government have? It can't allow a single mum with a small child to live on the streets. No, but they can take the kid off her, put it up for adoption and let her live on the streets. They could do that, but the don't. They should do that though!

Thank you!
fresnoinvasion

Con

"Say you have a neighbour..."
No, i dont have a neighbor named Trisha. Trisha is my mother.

Haha

In all seriousness (and due respect), this scenario should not even be read. Any scenario can be brought up in order to twist the topic into the favor of the individual making the argument on either.

Im pretty sure your scenario is not meant to be the basis of this debate. So lets look at the deeper issues at hand.

You have no idea the individual circumstances of the person, and to take away all of their kids is ridiculous. That will solve absolutely nothing, just cause more anger toward the government.

Sure, be against welfare. Be against putting money into the lower class. But to think that you can control the people to the point of taking their kids away is wrong.

No one person is any greater than another. Just because someone is a member to a lower social class you cant group everyone in the class to think they are just lazy sitting at home on the couch eating chips.

Honestly, the topic is ignorant. To think that people even believe the money being put into our lower class, in this case, the single mothers who have absolutely no help at all because of a lack of father to the child, is wasted is ridiculous.

The bottom line is that; yes, there are injustices in how some of this child support money is spent. However, you do not understand the situation of the individual, and the government will never be able to actually understand the situations.

The only alternative (the affs plan) would be to take the kids of poor mothers and kick the mothers to the street. Now, if my tax dollars can save that. Ill gladly pay up.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Thank you for accepting this challenge, fresnoinvasion (curious nom de plume, b/t/w, did you invade Fresno? Was there much resistance?)

I should like to make it clear that my scenario was not an attack on women called Trisha - it is a very nice name, very nice indeed (apparently my opponent's mother is called Trisha).

Neither was it an attack on "lower" class people. As it happens, I consider myself working class (although nobody else does) and am proud to champion our various causes.

One of those causes, incidentally, is welfare. I strongly believe that involuntarily impoverished, economically underprivileged, socially vulnerable or otherwise financially disadvantaged people deserve dignity and respect and access to decent education and health care services, free of charge at the point of use.

In addition, these people should enjoy a reasonable standard of living and should be provided with adequate housing and enough money to live a respectable life.

This is nothing less than they deserve and most taxpayers do not mind funding these benefits. That's because these people are unemployed through no fault of their own. Perhaps they were taxpayers themselves but they were made redundant and are unable to find alternative employment? Perhaps, the case may be that a young woman gave birth to a baby that was disabled and will need constant care for the rest of its life and her husband was absolutely disgusted with it and he left her in the lurch by fleeing the country? These people and other genuine claimants all deserve financial support from the state.

However, there are far too many girls that see having kids as a meal ticket. They play the system, cynically exploiting the taxpayers' generosity for maximum personal gain. They know that the more kids they have, the bigger the house and the more money they will get. They also know that, unlike childless people, there is no obligation for mothers to go out to work – not ever, not even part time.

These women really think that the state owes them a living and that the taxpayer has a financial responsibility to bring up their kids. This is wrong and it is not what the welfare system was designed for and specialist assessors should be employed to sort out the wheat from the chaff when pregnant young women throw themselves on the mercy of the state.

In a previous debate I argued that the financial incentive to get pregnant should be removed by suggesting that Compulsory Abortion Orders should be served on pregnant women with no visible means of support. On reflection, however, I have softened my view and now propose that they should have their kids taken off them instead.

Thank you.
fresnoinvasion

Con

Line by line.

1. Youre welcome. Brian Eggleston.

2. No, I totally agree. DOWN WITH TRISHAS!!.. Along with those who allow sarcasm to fly over their head.

Group the rest. Yes, it is an attack on the lower class.. Although you may believe some (most) cases are worthy of welfare, the mindset is still flawed. It is up to no one to determain if someone is worthy of welfare or not. What I am arguing is merely a critique on your mindset. Im sure even you understand now that different people have different situations. The picture painted is a sad one indeed, but what is even more sad is that you believe you can pick and choose who is worthy of aid.

Im sorry, but you cold concede my entire case. You concede that I agreed with you, the picture you painted was a bad one, but not only are we not in the position to judge these people, but the government can do absolutely nothing to change it. That alone is grounds to vote on.

Say a law is passed similar to this one, can you imagine the world? The government doesnt like the fact youre recieving a bit of welfare, so they give the excuse that shes "lazy" and take her kid away and put her on the street. This is completely relative and we have nothing to judge this on.

Sure, there are cases in which a child can be taken from the person who gave it birth. But "laziness" on the part of the mother that is impossible to judge is not one of these cases.

Gracias
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
How can you possibly know which ones are simply being greedy, and don't deserve their children. And which ones aren't being greedy, and deserve their children.

Now obviosly, if a mother is NEGLECTING her children, they should be taken away, not because they are greedy, but because they are being NEGLECTED. The debate wasn't on 'should mothers who neglect their children, have them taken away?' it was 'should greedy mothers, that are seeking for aid, even though we don't know when they are seeking for aid and when they are not, get their children taken away only because of that?'

Your argument sounds stupider and stupider...
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
haha

I lose to a robot on repeat.

"Why negate an argument when you can just repeat what you said over and over!!?? Theres no need to even acknowledge what my opponent has to say"
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Bricheze.

You sound like a very caring and responsible woman. Most women are, but some aren't and are happy to neglect their children - all they are interested in is themselves. These are the people that need to be targeted.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Who can know what mothers are benefit-scrounging, and what ones were told their boyfriend was using protection? How can we know when the mother is simply a lazy b*tch and when they really need the help? No one can understand their situations clear enough for us to efficiently do this. And if we put together a team to 'approve' who deserves aid, it would take so much time and effort, it would probably be less money to just give aid to everyone. Especially because foster children cost the government in and of themselves. Not to mention the amount of children whom would be taken away from their mothers, when their mothers really were hard-working and deserving of benefit.

Over-all it wouldn't be worth it, it would waste money with no aid awarded (but aid taken away), and it would most likely cause a huge punishment (getting your kids taken away can be pretty painful) to people who didn't deserve that punishment. Really, it is just a horrible and ridiculous idea.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
I'm pretty sure he made it more specific when he said "All benefit-scrounging"
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Epic fail on your side Brian.

How can we choose who is worthy of aid? Just as con said: you can't.

This flaw completely debunks your argument.

Also, do you understand how difficult motherhood is!? I have baby sat my 6 week old neice a few times this week, holy-crap, all she does is cry and cry. And you have to hold her every moment of every day she isn't dead asleep or she will cry. She always has to be clean, or she will cry. She always has to be full, or she will cry. She always has to be stimulated (but not over stimulated) or she will cry. And it is hard as hell to be perfect at it. You have to stay up until 3 am every night taking care of them, wake up every four hours to feed them, and wake up early the next day to stimulate them.

Believe me, motherhood is no 'sit on the couch and snack' cake walk. It is a full-time job, a very hard full time job.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
*Sigh*

I'd debate you on this, Brian, but it wouldn't be challenging enough.

Hint: Using a word like "all" in the resolution can be debate suicide... assuming, of course, that people actually voted on the content of the debate and not just the comic relief of an edgy Brit complaining about government hand-outs (because, you know, we all love the idea of supporting lazy and incompetent money-grubbing whorish mothers). Anyway, this should be an easy win for you, Brian, but good luck :)
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
You are a very interesting debator brian.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by falafel 8 years ago
falafel
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alexmertens559 8 years ago
Alexmertens559
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by enkaaladiyilboomi 8 years ago
enkaaladiyilboomi
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ChopStyxNryce 8 years ago
ChopStyxNryce
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:23 
Vote Placed by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
brian_egglestonfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07