The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Families with food stamps should get more money.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 799 times Debate No: 37762
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Hello, I think that families on food stamps barely get enough to get by and they need more than a few 100 dollars a month I propose to turn the amount to 550 dollars since that is much easier to feed a family.


I accept!!
Debate Round No. 1


Has someone with many friends on welfare who can't survive off it and the rising of the prices of everything, I think we should raise the amount they earn from food stamps because there is heavy inflation and the amount they earn hasn't increased much at all. Welfare should keep people above the poverty line unconditionally.


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).

Debate Round No. 2


But Food Stamps normally only feed a family for 2 weeks in that month, so I thought we should double it.


I have already addressed my opponent's points about increasing food stamps in round 2. My opponent has made no more arguments since round 2. There are a few more things I would like to remind the voters of:

1. I was the only one who had evidence.
2. I refuted all of his arguments while he didn't refute any of mine.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by StarTrek 3 years ago
I disagree. Just pay workers a living wage instead of minimum wage. Keep food stamps the same, and do not increase handouts, this will further encourage people to be lazy on the taxpayer's money.
Posted by DemocraticChampion 3 years ago
Posted by truthiskey 3 years ago
are we talking about the us?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
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: 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.