The Instigator
TheUnapologeticTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Kumquatodor
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheUnapologeticTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,453 times Debate No: 35547
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro

First round for accept.


Argument: Any U.S. citizen recieving government benefits like medicaid, medicare, S.S., government housing, welfare, W.I.C etc. who are not disabled or retired should not have the ability to vote.

Notes:
wikipedia may not be used as a source.

I ask that those who are voting please do not award points based on spelling and grammar. I realize that english isn't always someone's first language and they should not be penalized for making minor mistakes.
Kumquatodor

Con

I accept. If I may ask, what is your native language? Where are you from?
Debate Round No. 1
TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. This should be an interesting debate.

I am 100% American and English is my native tongue but I do understand that it isn’t that way for many people. I prefer the voting to be focused on ideas, substance, and one’s logic/reasoning skills.

Arguments:

We must first realize that voting isn’t and never was a blanket right granted to everyone inside the U.S. border. The ability to vote has always had restrictions. For example, there are age restrictions to vote. You have to be 18 in order to vote. Why is 18 the magic number? Who knows but it’s a restriction. Convicted felons are also not allowed to vote in some places. (1) Early on in the history of the U.S. only white male landowners could vote. Our founders were afraid that those without land would vote to redistribute other’s land to themselves. This is a logical concept and this tells us that even our founders didn’t see the “right to vote” as a blanket right with no caveats.

Unlike the other amendments in the Bill of Rights that apply to all persons in the United States, in order to vote you must be a citizen. Because you have to be a citizen in order to vote this means that voting itself is a privilege granted to those who choose to become a citizen.

Now, if there are restrictions on other “rights” like free speech and the 2nd Amendment pertaining to guns why can’t there also be a restriction on the “right” to vote? This is only logical. Our founding fathers obviously saw that the “right” to vote could be restricted for fear of people redistributing things that aren’t theirs.

An able bodied person who receives benefits and is able to vote is like a child being able to vote their own rules and allowances. No parent would agree to that and it’s illogical. Ever heard a parent say, “my house my rules”? Why? Because any kid will vote for candy for breakfast, no curfews or bedtimes, and allowances paying more than the work they do is worth or not working at all (welfare).
What is happening today is that the Democrat party is bribing people for votes with someone else’s money. It boils down to, “vote for me if you want more welfare, more Medicaid, more unemployment benefits, more food stamps, more W.I.C. money, free birth control, free healthcare, free college education, etc.” Essentially the non-producers are voting to redistribute the money from the producers to themselves. This entitlement mentality, this political ideology, is crippling America. This is exactly what our founders feared. Why should someone have the ability to tell me that I have to give them my money? This would be like me walking into a bank and holding a vote to redistribute the money in the vault to everyone who voted for it.

America now has more people receiving government handouts than are working. We now have more “takers” than “makers”. (2) There are more people on food stamps than at any time in history. (3) When does the madness end? The Democrats are cool with it because it means more votes for them. (4) If we continue down this path there will be even less producers and even more takers.

“A government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul”

(1) http://abcnews.go.com...

(3) http://money.msn.com...

(4) http://super-economy.blogspot.com...


Kumquatodor

Con

We must first realize that voting isn’t and never was a blanket right granted to everyone inside the U.S. border.
Very true... Mostly...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Now, if there are restrictions on other “rights” like free speech and the 2nd Amendment pertaining to guns why can’t there also be a restriction on the “right” to vote?
It is very simple. Rights are restricted for protection.

The reason why the Freedom of Speech is limited is because yelling "fire" inside a crowded theater can cause death, injuries etc.

The reason why the Freedom to Own Guns is limited is because owning weaponized anthrax can cause death, injuries, etc.

Someone voting for future security is not causing death, injuries, etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
An able bodied person who receives benefits and is able to vote is like a child being able to vote their own rules and allowances. No parent would agree to that and it’s illogical.
If it is true that these citizens shouldn't be able to vote because they would vote for "candy for breakfast", then should anyone be able to vote?

The rich would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who would give them tax-cuts.

The unemployed would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who would create more opportunities for jobs, possibly in exspense of other aspects of the economy.

The disabled would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who would give them the most unemployed benifits.

The normal person would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who has similar sets of values.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
or not working at all (welfare).
What if these people legitamently couldn't get a job?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What is happening today is that the Democrat party is bribing people for votes with someone else’s money.
It could be said that what we have today is actually the Repulican party and the Tea-Party bribing
people for their votes with someone else's money.
____________________________________________________________________________
It boils down to, “vote for me if you want more welfare, more Medicaid, more unemployment benefits, more food stamps, more W.I.C. money, free birth control, free healthcare, free college education, etc.”
What if you need welfare, Medicaid, foodstamps, or W.I.C money? What if you cannot afford food, medical care, birth control, healthcare, or college tuition?
Essentially the non-producers are voting to redistribute the money from the producers to themselves. This entitlement mentality, this political ideology, is crippling America.
While this mentality DID help creaate a problem, you are mistaken if you think it is the soul cause. The big financial problems started in 2008, under a REPUBLICAN leader. It is safe to say, we did not have those benifits that we have today. How, then, did we fall into that rutt? The answer is simple: it isn't nearly as damaging as you believe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This is exactly what our founders feared.
They feared a lot of things that have happened. They would despise the 3 wars, the ending of slavery, and disability benifits. The Founding Fathers are irrelevant.
____________________________________________________________________________
Why should someone have the ability to tell me that I have to give them my money?
The voters don't control what happens to your taxes. We are not a democracy. The Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and the President decides what they do with your taxes.

Once again, should anyone be able to vote? Remember, everyone votes in their best interest.
____________________________________________________________________________
This would be like me walking into a bank and holding a vote to redistribute the money in the vault to everyone who voted for it.
That is not accurate. This is like people giving the bank money, then some of those people voting if they want the money. Depending on how the votes go, the people who owns the bank votes. They decide who gets money, who loses it, what we do with it, who pays more, etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

So far, my opponent has not shown why anyone should be able to vote.
So far, my opponent has not shown why only those with benifits should be unable to vote.

I have shown that everyone votes in their own best interests.
I have shown that those on benifits do not directly choose to get moree benifits.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro


Remarks:



I ask that the voting community completely ignores my opponent’s second round argument. All arguments were completely baseless and devoid of any supporting evidence. I ask that all points be awarded to me.



So far, my opponent has not shown why anyone should be able to vote. This is not my burden. Please ignore my opponent’s remark



I have shown that everyone votes in their own best interests This is irrelevant.



I have shown that those on benifits do not directly choose to get more benefit Where are your sources? Ill prove that wrong again later.



I take it my opponent concedes my points that we do have: more “takers” than “makers”, more people on food stamps than ever before, and the fact that Democrats receives support from upwards of 80% of those who are on the government dole. This fact proves that people who are on welfare will continue to support those who promise to give them money.



It is very simple. Rights are restricted for protection yes but restrictions aren’t solely for physical protection. We also have restrictions on rights to protect property which includes a person’s money.



Answer this: An individual’s money is their property is it not? Because it is their property no one else has a right to it then correct? So if no one has a right to someone else’s property, why then should we allow people to vote for someone else’s property (money) to be redistributed to them?



You have the right to pursue happiness (property) so long as it doesn’t violate someone else’s rights . You may derive happiness from stealing but your right of happiness doesn’t allow you to violate someone else’s right to property. Those who choose to accept support from someone else’s tax dollars should temporarily give up their voting privileges until they are able to fully support their selves again.



Someone voting for future... no, but it is violating someone else’s rights.



Do you see the difference in that as opposed to “the rich” voting for tax cuts? A tax cut isn’t taking money from anyone else.



The disabled would not be able to vote.. ask that the voting body ignores this. I already excluded the disabled in the description. Please subtract points for not paying attention.



What if these people legitamently couldn't get a job?Irrelevant, however, you’re assuming they have a right to these things when I’ve proven they don’t.



It could be said... the Tea-Party bribing people for their votes with someone else's money Completely baseless with no supporting sources. Please ignore when voting.



However, today’s Tea Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already” (1) How could they be bribed with other’s money?



it isn't nearly as damaging as you believe. Any sources? Welfare programs cost us $1T per year. That is the largest contributor to our debt problem (2) Obamacare will cost $2.6T in the first decade (3) By the way, republicans tried to reform Fannie & Freddie.



The Congress..decides what they do with your taxes Yes, at the direction of their voters.



That is not accurate. This is like people giving the bank money.. This is completely inaccurate. The people on welfare don’t “give the bank money” ie pay income taxes. So again, it is people holding a vote on what to do with other people’s money. The people who don’t have money in the bank outnumber those who do, they hold a vote and decide that an X amount of money be taken from those people and given to them in the form of various welfare programs.



Even Obama has admitted that welfare programs create dependence. (4) The videos prove it. Why would you work when you can have others pay for everything for you. If someone is able to violate another’s right with their vote, it is only fair that they in turn give up a “right” as well. And that is the right to decide where the money comes from and how much. That right should reside with those that pay taxes



My opponent has yet to prove any of my points as false.



My opponent has yet to prove that people who do not pay taxes have the right to demand money from those who do.



My opponent conceded that the entitlement mentality did in fact contribute to our huge debt problem.



I have shown that those receiving benefits do vote to keep receiving benefits and also to expand the benefit programs.



Vote Pro



http://www.teapartypatriots.org...



http://dailycaller.com...



http://www.weeklystandard.com...



http://blog.heritage.org...








Kumquatodor

Con

I ask that the voting community completely ignores my opponent’s second round argument. All arguments were completely baseless and devoid of any supporting evidence. I ask that all points be awarded to me.
I'm beg that the voters do not.

I will have to paraphrase my opponents rounds, seeing as he quotes me in those sentences in such ways he has.


It is not my burden to show why anyone should be able to vote.

It is your burden, and I'll show you why it is.

Your resolution is: Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote.

This statement certainly implies, nay, it more than implies that other groups retain their abilities to vote. The question becomes, then:
"Why should only this group have the ability revoked, while others retain it?"

This is the question I'm asking.

It is irrelevant that everyone votes in their own best interest.
It most certainly is not irrelevant, and I'll show you why.

Your argument, to me, seems to come down on the idea that those on benefits will vote for more benefits at the exclusion of others.

You said this multiple times. 10 times in your first round. I counted.

So I was/will show you that everyone votes in their own best interest, and, thus one group of the everyone should not have the right revoked with every other group retaining the right.

What sources say that those on benifits do not directly choose to get more benefits?
It is basic government. The voters do not vote policies; they vote for people who then try to do what is best for the country.

I take it my opponent concedes my points that we do have: more “takers” than “makers”, more people on food stamps than ever before, and the fact that Democrats receives support from upwards of 80% of those who are on the government dole.
I do agree, except with the term "taker".

This fact proves that people who are on welfare will continue to support those who promise to give them money.
Essentially. Again, though, everyone votes in their own best interest.

We also have restrictions on rights to protect property which includes a person’s money.
This is true. However, it is the lawmakers who decide your taxes, and you have representatives who work in your best interest.

So if no one has a right to someone else’s property, why then should we allow people to vote for someone else’s property to be redistributed to them?
They don't vote to take our money; our leaders vote to take our money.

Also, to elect a leader, we need 51% of the nation.

66% of the leaders must agree to create a law.

Those who choose to accept support from someone else’s tax dollars should temporarily give up their voting privileges until they are able to fully support their selves again.
This creates a huge problem. If those who vote for benefits can no longer vote, then all that would be left are people who want to stop benefits.

These people would end benefits, and those who were on benefits would die. They could not gt their benefits, and could not vote to stay alive.

Your plan kills off millions!

A tax cut isn’t taking money from anyone else.
Yes, it does. Think of it this way:

50% of revenue is from the lower and middle class taxes. 50% revenue is from the upperclass.

We give the upperclass a taxcut.

50% L/M, 45% U.

We need that 5% paid, so:

55% L/M, 45% U.

The upperclass (U), redistributed the money from the middle/lowerclass (M/L)

You’re assuming they have a right to these things (jobs) when I’ve proven they don’t.
No... You assert that it isn't their right. What about the persuit of happiness? You cannot persue happiness when your laid-off.

Your saying "the Tea-Party bribing people for their votes with someone else's money" is completely baseless with no supporting sources.
Taxcuts. But you're right. It was irrelevant.

What sources say it isn't as damaging as I believe?
Our crisis started with Bush, way before these benefits were as huge as they are now. The benefits may have added to the problem, but they aren't a crippling force, considering there weren't so many with Bush.
The people on welfare don’t “give the bank money”
Most people pay taxes, which pay for benefits.
So again, it is people holding a vote on what to do with other people’s money.
It is our LEADERS holding a vote on what to do with OUR money.
If someone is able to violate another’s right with their vote, it is only fair that they in turn give up a “right” as well.
You are mistaken... It is our LEADERS who decide what to do with our taxes.

Also, what if people need the money?
The Congress..decides what they do with your taxes at the direction of their voters.
Only 6% if voters approve congress 6%. It looks like congress does not listen directly to their voters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...



Debate Round No. 3
TheUnapologeticTruth

Pro

Why should only this
group have the ability revoked..?

As I’ve proven and as our founder’s feared the have-nots vote
to take from those that have. This is a violation of a person’s right to
property. Those that do not pay income
taxes should not be able to vote for the promise of Federal benefits.

Yes people vote in their best interests but they shouldn’t be able to do it at the expense of other’s
rights.

What about the persuit of happiness?

The things I and you were
referring to were government welfare programs. You may not be happy without a
job, welfare etc. but oh well. You’re right to happiness does not trump my
rights to my property.

YOUR RIGHTS END WEHRE MY RIGHTS BEGIN.

Your argument seems to come down on the idea that those on benefits will vote
for more benefits at the exclusion of others
.
Not at the “exclusion”but
at the “expense”. Get the difference?

They vote for people
who then try to do what is best for the country.
No. They vote for
representatives who promise to do what is in the best interest of their VOTERS.
That’s how they get elected. We elect representatives to represent our wishes
and enact policies based on what we want

This creates a huge problem… people who want
to stop benefits.
Now, we have the exact opposite. Those who want to
rightfully keep their money are forced by the majority to give it up.

Your plan kills off millions! Prove it. This is why we have charities and families. I fully
support charities. You are not my responsibility and you are violating my
rights by forcing me to pay for your crap. You have the right to pursue
happiness. You have no right to actually acquire it.

Most people pay taxes which pay for benefits. Source? In reality most people don’t contribute to these
programs. And those that do are obviously not receiving welfare. So your point
is irrelevant.

You obviously have no clue as to who pays how much as evident by your little scenario claiming taxcuts for
the rich are bribing people with others money. The top 50% of tax payers pay
over 90% of the tax bill! The top 10% pay 70% of the tax bill. (1)

You falsely suggested the premise that if we reduce the top 50% to 45% then they would automatically
raise taxes on the L/M class to compensate.

The upperclass redistributed the money.. I’ve proven this is completely false. It is in
reality the other way around.

The benefits may have added to the problem, but they aren't a crippling force..You’re
right in the sense that there weren’t as many under Bush. Obama made the
problem worse by expanding all these programs at the direction of those who
voted him in. Obama added $6T to be exact (2) Now, this battle over these
entitlement programs goes back to FDR (Democrat) and his “New Deal”. I would
recommend heavily reading up on FDR’s New Deal.

And by the summer of 1932, some
25,000 World War I vets had descended on Washington, camping out near the steps
of Congress and asking for money.” (3) "It was the first time that
Americans thought of their government as a solution to the problems that
individuals and society at large were experiencing," says Jean Edward
Smith (3)

The New
Deal gave credence to the idea that the government must provide for the people
what they should provide for themselves (the entitlement mentality) and we’ve
been battling it ever since. Take from those that have and give to those who
have not.

Also, what if people need the money? So? Do you have the right to money or the right to
pursue money?

“Only 6% if voters approve congress 6%. It looks like congress does not listen directly to their voters.”Irrelevant. They can approve or disapprove for a lot
of reasons and not solely the issue we are debating here about entitlements.

My argument is simply to counteract this disastrous policy by putting a spin on
our Founder’s original principle. Now that we have an income tax we have those
who don’t pay income taxes voting for people who will redistribute someone else’s
money to them. This is wrong and violates right to property.

I’ve demonstrated how voting is not a natural “right” but a privilege. As a
privilege there can be restrictions. This is evident by our Founder’s original
idea to limit voting to those who have a vested interest in how taxes are
spent. If you don’t contribute to taxes then what gives you the right to vote
where and how it’s spent?

I have shown that its a violation of one’s rights to take money from them to give to
others, but now the “takers” outnumber the “makers”. It is now impossible for
the “makers” to vote for protection. This will only compound the entitlement problem.

My opponent has not made a factual argument as to why those who don’t pay income
taxes should have a say in how its spent.

My opponent has not shown why someone should be able to violate another’s right to
property.

Vote Pro

1 http://www.businessinsider.com...

2 http://www.cbsnews.com...

3 http://www.usnews.com...

Kumquatodor

Con

I ask you read the following in either JFK's or Morgan Freeman's voice.


Lladies and Llamas of the Tribunal:

We have, on this site, erected a generic political debate. On this day, political affiliations do call us so strongly. They call us to arms to support our friends of the same party, whether that means to step to Defeat the Demon Democrats' iDeas, or to Repel the wRetched Republicans' Reigns.

I ask that we repel these instincts, so that we may, unbiasedly, find the answer to the question posed above: "Should those on benifits be allowed to vote?", using the arguments provided above.



I believe that I have effectively proven that those on benefits do indeed have the right to vote, with my opponent failing to show the following:

1) Why other groups, who often vote at the expense of the others, should still be alloud to vote.
2) Why those on benefits directly take the money.
3) That Congress, at 6% approval rating, still are doing what 51% of people want.
4) Why the majority should be ignored.
5) How those relying on benefits would survive if they are immediately removed.
6) How will, if only those without benefits are voting, people keep benefits.
7) Why, if benefits are unfair, revoking voting rights make them fair.

As you can see, my opponent's idea raises too many questions, questions that he is yet to answer.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
voting isn't a right. that was proven in my debate thank you.
Posted by SitaraPorDios 3 years ago
SitaraPorDios
Got it. poor people do not have rights. End satire.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
@ Kumquatodor
Thanks for the debate. It was good but I think you'd fare better if you used more sources. When the slaves were freed many didn't want to be. Many wanted to stay because they had everything they needed. Yes some were mistreated but slaves were very expensive. It was in the farmers and family's best interest to have their slaves in good shape because they were more productive that way. And let us not forget that there were even free blacks in the South that owned slaves.
Posted by Kumquatodor 3 years ago
Kumquatodor
@TheUnapologeticTruth

Booker T. Washington said, in length, that slaves were very well taken care of, at least compared to what we imagine.

Sure, they didn't have proper protection from the rain, but they lived in a cabin!

They didn't always get enough to eat, but who did back then?
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
@Juan Yeah, you're right.. Slave owners didn't provide food, clothing and shelter to those slaves. Many slaves were considered family and were well taken care of. Today, you don't have to work and get food, clothing, and shelter... But thanks for proving your lack of understanding of history and logical deficiencies..
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
America's founders also didn't legally provide the right to vote to slaves. Slavers were doing a lot of "making" (your words), while slave owners were doing a lot of taking. On that precedent alone, takers have the right vote!
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Yup. it's doing a pretty good job
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
@ararmer1919 Thanks, but its a variation of our Founder's original idea. Props to them for the foresight. Its only logical. Do you think my argument is supported and convincing enough for you? Don't give me ideas, just yes or no. Be sure to vote at the end.
Thanks
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
@TheUnapologeticTruth you know, iv never thought if that until now and I got to say that is a great idea.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
TheUnapologeticTruthKumquatodorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting idea and debate. S&G tied since that was sinter big asked for in the opening statement. Conduct was pretty much the same. Pro definitely gets sources since the only one Con used was a huffington post article about how a survey showed people don't approve of their government which I really didn't see as having any relevance to this topic. As for more convincing argument Pro really stuck to the narrative of the topic while Con tended to drift here and there. Basically none of Cons claims were backed up by any real evidence, sources, facts, or reasons. Almost all of his claims/arguments were completely speculation and at one point he even starred trailing off and blaming Bush for all our problems. Relevance? All in all Pro had a much more sound and structured argument so points go to him.