The Instigator
american5
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

America should not have 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 8 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,151 times Debate No: 16906
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

american5

Pro

I believe america should not have a welfare system simply because we don't have the money to afford it and that people abuse if people can't hold on to their money it is not our fault and should not have to make it our problem every human has somthing they don't need and could continue without like a washing machine a drier beer a tv their are plenty of things.

I wish my opponent a good debate
RoyLatham

Con

I welcome my opponent to DDO. He was eager to debate this topic with me, and I'm pleased to accommodate.

Pro contends that the entire American welfare system should cease because (1) there is no money for it and (2) no one really needs it. Pro gives no evidence to support either contention, and since Pro has the burden of proof, technically all I need to do is deny the contentions. I will nonetheless dispute the contentions in some detail.

The reason that we have a welfare system is that the majority of Americans want to have one. I think it is human nature to want help people who genuinely need help. Humans are inherently tribal, so they instinctively want to support people in their tribe. The problem is that e no longer have tribal communities that know who really needs help, and who just needs a kick in the butt to get them to take care of themselves. The social problem has become more of a predicament in the last system as life expectancies increased enormously, so that there are many more old people with disabilities than tribal societies ever had to accommodate.

The public still wants to have welfare programs, but they want significant welfare reform. significant welfare reform legislation was signed by President Clinton in 1996. http://www.usatoday.com... Since then, the reforms have been partially undone. People now want a limit to the time that able-bodied people can stay on welfare, and drug testing to qualify http://www.publicagenda.org....

Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare have both welfare aspects and insurance aspects. Many people paid into the programs with the expectation of receiving benefits. Aspects like Social Security Disability payments are pure welfare.

We can afford some welfare

The overall point is that we can afford some welfare and we should have it because the public wants to provide care for citizens who have genuine needs. What people want are very tightly regulated programs with limited eligibility, and that we can afford. Entitlement programs should be divided into a part that contributions that have been paid for by the individual's contributions and a welfare part. The paid-in part should be returned as benefits without qualification. The welfare part should be means tested, so that people who do not need government subsidy do not receive it.

Some people are genuinely needed

Pro offered no evidence that those receiving welfare do not need it. It is easy to identify people who have genuine needs. For example, people with disabilities that significantly limit their ability to work have genuine needs. Others are financially devastated by crime, acute illness or injury, or natural disaster. Those people deserve a minimum social safety net to help return to being productive members of society.

America should have welfare, in accord with a much-reformed system.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
american5

Pro

I will not argue with my opponent about the fact that some people are actually needy but the fact is that people abuse it they are just morons who can't hold down a job just a few years ago my dad lost his job and went on welfare do you know what he did with it took every cent and bought band equipment so he could begin a band and lots of alcohol ending my parents marriage they are going through the divorce right now.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro has a valid point, but his point supports a need for welfare reform rather than abolishing all welfare. Able-bodied people should be required to work, if necessary at a government-assigned job like cleaning up litter. There should be requirements forbidding drugs, including alcohol. Anyone who depends upon their fellow citizens for support should be required to conform to rules of good behavior.

We should have welfare, but only with rules.
Debate Round No. 2
american5

Pro

A valid argument but just because someone is handicapped or unable to work dose not mean they are no longer useless they can still do something to earn the money like teaching.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro seems to concede that some people are genuinely needy. We also seem to agree that a reformed welfare system is desirable. Pro has offered no evidence that such a system would be unaffordable. Pro, as instigator and proponent, has the burden to prove a reformed system is unaffordable. Having failed to meet the burden of proof, the resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Kenyon, I advocate abolishing the Departments of Energy, Education, HUD, and Agriculture. Those are policy positions, and I would expect in a debate to have to show that the country would be better off for having gotten rid of them. I think the Fed should replaced by fixed formulas, per Friedman. Other things, like the criminal justice system, are better being fixed rather than abolished. Each must be argued on its merits.

In the real world,abolishing something doesn't necessarily actually get rid of it. Things have a habit of reappearing in different ways. It's fair to argue that having a new policies will have unexpected consequences contrary to what is intended. However, that must be argued. You must make the institutional argument, not just invoke some overarching principle that avoids making the argument explicitly.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
That's not what I'm criticizing you for. You won that point because Pro is brain damaged and never responded to it. Good government *is* good. If the state only did good things (protect individual rights, not throw pot smokers in jail, not blow up brown people, etc.), there would be literally no arguments for anarchism. I would be fine with the state as it is.

The problem is, it's a totally abusive argument. You can use it to wave away literally ANY criticism of the government. What? Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt? Welfare policies create unemployment and foster dependency? The Federal Reserve played a huge part in inflating the housing bubble? Well don't *abolish* these these institutions, just *fix* the bad stuff, that way we only have *good* government!

This debate takes place in Airy Fairy Land (lolirony). In real life, government is not some deus ex machina where you can wave a magic wand and make it do whatever you want; civilization does not just organize itself by fiat. Institutions behave according to their incentive structures. The "lol, good government is good" argument totally sidesteps institutional analysis. In the real world, the government has no incentive to fix welfare. Dependency is a GOOD thing for politicians; the more state dependents you can create, the more secure your position.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Breaking News: Roy Latham's Defense of Social Welfare Programs Shocks Online Debaters!
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Okay, I'll explain it. "Reform" was defined in e debate as a policy comprising qualifying people by genuine need, drug testing, and requiring able-bodied people to work. Abolishing welfare is an alternative policy. The debate is about which policy is better. What is "good" is also subject to debate. I argued that helping the genuinely needy was good, based upon the tribal nature of mankind; the definition was not stipulated. So "welfare reform is good" is not tautologous because it is arguable whether the defined reforms would have the claimed result and whether those results were in fact good.

I'm sure my opponent understood the nature of the debate. It's obviously not tautologous.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Hurr hurr, socialism > capitalism. Just look at Norway, trollolololol.

I'd like to think there's a bit more to political philosophy than self-evident tautologies and affirming the consequent.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
No government = goodness. Somalia is the best place on earth. lol
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Pro has a valid point, but his point supports a need for welfare reform rather than abolishing all welfare."

Lol, good government is good.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
american5RoyLathamTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument was nothing more then an uneducated rant against welfare.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
american5RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had sources, his arguments were more thorough, and he doesn't leave "America" with no caps.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
american5RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not argue his case after the opening "arguments." While Con's rounds (other than his first) were not impressive, I understand the lack of desire to put effort into a round if the opponent is not going to address it.
Vote Placed by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
american5RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not really argue his case...
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
american5RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Do I even need a RFD for this? PRO did not meet the burden of proof and provided no evidence that the nation cannot afford it or that people don't need it. CON proves that welfare reforms, not welfare abolishment is a better alternative.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
american5RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro, but con was the better debater.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
american5RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Attempt by Pro but little more than single case assertions, Con however was only slightly stronger but likely intentionally so as to not overpower Pro. 4:2 Con.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
american5RoyLathamTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically forfeited.