The Instigator
battle.tetris
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Firestarter
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Citizens should help needy people in the society or otherwise should be held guilty

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 3 votes the winner is...
Firestarter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 45496
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

battle.tetris

Con

I stand against the case: Citizens should help needy people in society or otherwise should be held guilty.
How do you expect us to leave ourselves and then look out for people in need?
It is not our responsibility to help the people in need. It is their responsibility to help themselves. If we help those people, they will become depend on us, and as a result they won't be able to support themselves.
Firestarter

Pro

While some take advantage of a system in place to aid those in need, many use it not only as stepping stones to get out of hard times they have fallen on, but some important individuals to our country (like Veterans with PTSD) require it's assistance, as it can be difficult for those with that particular type of mental trauma to find solid work.

I'd be happy to debate it with you.
Debate Round No. 1
battle.tetris

Con

battle.tetris forfeited this round.
Firestarter

Pro

Well, as the first half was forfeited, I'll still lay out my reasons for seeing this issue as I do.

In the American economy today, the top 1% of the nation don't have a wide gap between themselves and the poor. The gap is so overwhelmingly large, that if it doesn't upset the rest of us, you don't know enough about it.

Because of this overwhelming gap in financial redistribution, those at the top tier of the fiscal ladder dwell on this attitude- that they got themselves to where they are, and those down below are simply "trying to burn down their house to collect the insurance." (Mark Thoma, The Fiscal Times.)

The following article gives a better argument than I ever could:

http://www.theguardian.com...

However, let me lay out some knowledge for you outside this argument.

1: Welfare is used by a substantial amount of homeless Veterans. Some 12% of the homeless in America are Veterans, and about 10% of those are on welfare. This does not account for those veterans NOT homeless that count on welfare for food. Now, we pay basketball players and talk show hosts millions of dollars to sit around and entertain us, but we complain about putting food on the table of those that serve our country? Who cares if you have to pay for it. Or if I do. They have given us everything and they deserve everything in return.

2: A majority of the homeless who are NOT veterans that have addictions or mental problems are unable to take advantage of the system. Why? Almost every county has a fund which distributes welfare checks. These funds are thin, especially after the program was reformed in the years during and since Bill Clinton's presidency. When congress reformed welfare in the 90's, and since then, the number of people receiving it has been cut by two thirds, due to various reasons and regulations. For instance, many counties imposed mandatory drug screening, and "how to get a job" classes that people were just unwilling to do or take.
Link: http://money.cnn.com...

3: It's not up to us, as a people, to decide who is needy and who is not. There are GOING to be people who take advantage of every system. When a corporation takes advantage of a tax break that saves them millions of dollars, we refer to that as a "savvy business". But when someone sinks their teeth into a loophole in something like welfare, suddenly their a terrible moocher, and everyone who uses the program is as well. This will lead to infringements on other rights, simply for the sake of "make sure my money goes where I want."

Finally, trying to force a term of logic which states "I must agree with everything I spend taxes on" is just ludicrous. If that were the case, give me my 800 billion a year back for the Iraq war, and Welfare is on the house.

I believe that concludes my argument (This round, assuming there isn't another?) and I leave it to the voters.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
battle.tetrisFirestarterTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
battle.tetrisFirestarterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a better argument, likely related to Con not having one. Con loses conduct fr his FF. Pro used sources to back his argument. Spelling was even.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
battle.tetrisFirestarterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con started with an argument in his first round, and then forfeited his other rounds. Pro failed to support the resolution that people who don't help the needy should be guilty, but provided many arguments that we should help some people. I wasn't really impressed with any of the arguments presented, so I will just award Pro the conduct point since Con forfeited, Pro was the only one who used sources, and he used reliable sources, so he also gets the 2 points for sources. This was disappointing.