Families with food stamps should get more money.
Debate Rounds (3)
Before I start, I would like to say that I have no opinion on this topic and everything I say is in the spirit of debate.
Assertion 1:- People live off food stamps even if they could get a job.
According to a the FOXNEWS poll above we the people think that the people are taking advantage of food stamps. If we increase the money given, more people will take advantage of it
Assertion 2 :- Increases Debt
Food stamps are KILLING our country price wise. Food stamps cost us more than a 1/2 trillion dollars YEARLY. Pro is now saying that we should multiply this cost by 5.5 (see round 1). This means that if we implemented pro's suggestion we would have to pay a bare minimum of 2.75 TRILLION dollars a year. This means an economical BREAKDOWN.
My opponent said that it's "easier" to feed a family if we increase food stamps, but is we do we will plummet into an economical breakdown (See assertion 2).
1. I was the only one who had evidence.
2. I refuted all of his arguments while he didn't refute any of mine.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: This topic requires a bit more argumentation than what was presented here. Pro's singular argument is that it would be easier for those people collecting food stamps if they were to be given more, and while this may be true, the resolution (of which pro has the BOP) must be proven in a greater context. In other words, SHOULD the US provide a greater amount from food stamps. Con argued that it would increase debt, and be giving money to people in a way that potentially incentivizes unemployment, he also attempted to refute Pros only argument. Pro did not respond at all to these arguments, and so they stand as reasons against increasing food stamp allotment. Pro therefore fails on his BOP, so Con gets argument points. Con also used 2 sources to back up his arguments to Pros none, so source points to Con.
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.