The Instigator
leet4A1
Pro (for)
Winning
127 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Losing
121 Points

If one is both homeless and unemployable, one should rob a bank.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,804 times Debate No: 10246
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (48)

 

leet4A1

Pro

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate.

I will make this round no longer than it needs to be by providing some simple points, then drawing a conclusion from them.

1. Being homeless would suck compared to being rich.

This is pretty obvious. Eating garbage vs. eating whatever you want. Freezing in winter vs. being comfortably warm. Using a cardboard box as a blanket vs. using a Hannah Montana bedspread... erm, I mean, a real manly bedspread with pictures of beer and stuff on it. And steaks.

2. If the robber is successful, he would be rich.

Obvious, no need to expand.

3. If the robber is unsuccessful (i.e. gets caught), he will be imprisoned.

People in prison live in luxury compared to the homeless. Three squares a day, a roof over their head, some gainful employment. They also use smokes as currency so the formerly-homeless would not feel too out of his/her element.

CONCLUSION: If a person is homeless and unemployable, he/she should rob a bank. Whether they get caught or not, their standard of living can only improve.

I'll leave it there for this round, I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Danielle

Con

You're very welcome for accepting this debate, my friend :)

[ Rebuttal ]

1. I agree that being homeless sucks compared to being rich. No argument here.

2. While it's true that a successful robber would become a richer person by robbing a bank, he would subsequently become a morally bankrupt individual thereby negating his gains. The guilt one might feel for stealing from hard working individuals who have done nothing deliberate to warrant you taking their money might be too much for some to bear. Just because one person (the robber) might prosper from this endeavor doesn't mean that it's good for all of the people being stolen from. Further, while I'm not necessarily attempting to utilize a utilitarian argument here, I'm still acknowledging the fact that everyone has a right to their own property (money) and as such it would be wrong for one to steal.

3. I agree with Pro that life in prison can seem like a good thing in comparison to living on the streets. However, I'm sure that a homeless shelter or even a cardboard box would be preferable than sharing a cell with Bubba, your new daddy. In prison, people are raped, mugged, stolen from, abused, confined and helpless/hopeless. On the street, one can always sucker that fella or 2 into buying you a slice of pizza (much better than that prison food) or a beer.

[ Counter Argument ]

Although I've countered Pro's points with some good and notable arguments, I'd like to say that Pro's suggestion might be onto something. However, I still maintain that stealing is inherently wrong. In that case, I propose that a desperately homeless and unemployable individual seek alternative options, preferably in this order:

(1) Find a sugar daddy/mama to care for you. This may require a lot of work and lying, but it'd be well worth it.

(2) Fake being crazy. Being sent to a mental institution can be just as rewarding as being sent to prison. Plus, if it's minimal security, you'll get a lot of cool benefits, better food, sympathy points (instead of harsh judgment), you don't fear being raped or hurt, etc. Plus, there's always the opportunity for improvement (and maybe help?), you get free therapy which most people desperately need, and best of all - free drugs to keep you sedated :D You might also meet a friend or lover; they may or may not be crazy, but the way I see it, we all date a few crazies.

(3) Finally, one should seek to send themselves to jail by committing what is known as a victimless crime - not robbing a bank. An example of a "victimless crime" is smoking marijuana; however, we all know that you are only really penalized for SELLING drugs - not consuming them. As such, I propose that said individual become a drug dealer. It's an industry that doesn't really discriminate on potential employees, and there's always a market demand for the product(s). Moreover, it embraces capitalism and promotes people to do their best work. It is not violating the rights of another (like stealing does) but instead lets consumerism and personal liberty prevail. Drug dealers are actually contributing to society instead of hindering it. If weak people give in to temptations and become useless and unproductive members of society, it's better we weed them out (hehe - pun intended). Only people who don't give in and/or can remain functional should be considered useful individuals performing jobs and roaming the streets.

(5) Anyway, in case there is a problem with my aforementioned suggestion, I recommend that one have sex for money. One's own retardation may stand in the way of them becoming a successful drug dealer (or even properly robbing a bank); however, even the dumbest and ugliest mother effers can get laid. I propose that the homeless individual should attempt to prostitute themselves in order to make a living. That way, at the very least they are getting off (beneficial to one's self esteem and overall happiness and mood stability). At best, they are getting laid AND paid. At worst, they re arrested for their "crime" and get sent to jail - with the same benefits Pro suggests - but they accomplish this punishment in a more moral way; by not infringing upon the rights of others.
Debate Round No. 1
leet4A1

Pro

Thanks to Lwerd for an excellent rebuttal. My opponent has provided counter-arguments to my three points, and added four of her own, so I will number them 1-7 and provide rebuttals alphabetically for clarity:
-----
1. Point conceded by my opponent, nothing to add here.
-----
2. My opponent's use of the word "might" in the first two sentences of her rebuttal to this point is very telling. One may or may not feel guilt for stealing, and if they did, it may or may not be too much for some to bear. I agree with this entirely, but I'm leaning much more towards "not", for the following reasons:

(a) A life of living on the streets tends to desensitize people. I can't imagine the guilt, if any existed at all, would last much longer than the first-class flight to Dubai.

(b) The robbery needn't be done in an aggressive manner, so as not to psychologically scar the bank tellers. The robber could very calmly state from the outset that he has no intention of hurting anybody so long as they just hand over the money. It is common robbery etiquette to use one's manners and "inside voice" when performing a robbery.

(c) So long as (b) is followed, and there are no psychological ramifications for the tellers, bank robbery is essentially a victimless crime. All banks have robbery insurance, so the only "victims" are the insurance companies, who have been committing daylight robbery for years. Frankly, if there were no bank robberies at all, all insurance companies would go out of business, there would be a massive loss of jobs, etc. The occasional bank robbery is an important social service.
-----
3. Two counter-arguments to this point:

d) Bank robbers are not placed in prison with hardened murderers and rapists, they are placed in low-level facilities. Frankly, these facilities are not as bad as movies have led us to believe. I had a mate serve a year in prison for break-and-enter and theft (not bank robbery as such but he stole a LOT of stuff), and his only real complaint upon his exit was that the library in prison had a very limited X-Box game selection. TRUE STORY. He had his own cell, his own shower and toilet, etc., so no risk of rape at all. I have also provided a link from a Michigan-based news site which shows that the biggest problem in low-level facilities is boredom, and a quote by an inmate who loves the food there and is thankful that the center accommodates his vegetarian lifestyle [1]. Life on the streets, on the other hand, is notoriously dangerous for obvious reasons. Therefore, I contend that a homeless person is far more likely to be abused, raped, etc. than a prisoner is a low-level facility.

e) My opponent has essentially conceded that prison would outweigh homelessness, by saying that with my suggestion I "might be onto something", and then providing a list of possible crimes the hobo might commit as an alternative to robbing a bank. Therefore, I propose that either this point be dropped by my opponent, or all of my opponent's further points be dropped.
-----
4. I have two counter-arguments for the sugar daddy/mama scenario provided by my opponent:

f) It is entirely unrealistic.
As my opponent has admitted, this would take a hell of a lot of hard work and lying. To provide enough money to make this idea anywhere near competitive to robbing a bank, the sugar daddy/mama would have to be extremely rich. How does my opponent propose an unemployable vagrant seduce a rich person, someone so much higher on the societal ladder than he/she?
Here are just some of the lies the hobo would have to pull off to get even close to scoring on this idea:
"Nah, baby, I didn't soil myself… that's this expensive new cologne I got in Paris… Eu de Crud."
"I put the holes in the shoes myself, to lower wind-resistance whilst jogging."
"I collect these cans purely for recycling purposes… I love Mother Nature, and stuff."
"No, no, no… I don't smoke crack, you understand; I just buy as much of it as I can so it doesn't end up on the streets being sold to some poor kid."

g) If you somehow did manage to persuade some rich guy or girl to support you financially, you'd have to live with them, and we all know how boring and snobby rich people are. The bank-robber hobo would be independent and free of snobby b*tches for life. The gold-digger hobo would be subservient to his/her sugar daddy/mama for life.
-----
5. I think this is the best idea offered by my opponent thus far in the debate, but I favor the robbery idea for the following reasons:

h) Mental institutions can be as bad or worse than prisons, as the so-called carers quite often abuse the patients, sexually, physically and mentally. Has my opponent read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

i) As my opponent said, they would ply you with drugs and therapy, which (as my opponent has said "fake" being crazy) we can assume the hobo doesn't need in the first place. Taking psycho-active drugs and being forced into various methods of therapy one doesn't need can be very dangerous indeed, and we are talking about boosting the hobo's quality of life here.
-----
6. I agree with every word my opponent wrote about the merits of drug-dealing as a victimless alternative to robbing a bank. However, I again have several counter-arguments which my opponent is going to have to answer to:

j) To start a drug-dealing venture, one needs a lot of cash and contacts. You have to spend money to make money, and if the homeless guy had enough cash to start dealing, he wouldn't be homeless.

k) Robbing a bank is also a victimless crime, as I've explained above.

l) The financial benefits of robbing a bank outweigh those of dealing drugs many-fold.

m) Rob a bank, you're rich in minutes. To get anywhere close to rich, one would have to deal drugs for a long, long time. I know many drug dealers, dealing in many different drugs, and not one of them would I class as anything close to rich. Most of them aren't even financially stable.
-----
7. My opponent has said that "even the dumbest and ugliest mother effers can get laid", but I disagree entirely and I think Ragnar would be heart-broken to read this (jk :D). I can't imagine anyone so desperate and pitiful that they would consider having sex with a hobo, much less PAYING for the experience. If one wants a prostitute, there are cleaner alternatives and the only way a hobo could even compete in that market is by having the lowest price… I'm talking a few bucks a ride at best. At this rate, the hobo could barely afford to eat let alone rent a house/apartment and get off the streets.
-----

I'll leave it there for now, thanks again Lwerd I look forward to your rebuttal. :D

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.cm-life.com...
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Leet, for the response!

1. For the record, just because I conceded that being rich is better than being poor doesn't mean that I forfeited any point to the Pro. Instead, this is just an agreement which helps to establish the following contentions.

2a. Pro contends that a bank robber wouldn't feel guilty after committing his crime. While it's true that people have a variation of guilty consciences, my main point here still stands - the individual becomes a morally bankrupt individual whether they acknowledge it or not. Stealing is infringing upon someone's property, and even if one doesn't feel sad about what they've done, they still have to live with the reality that they are criminals. You cannot justify theft (which my opponent has attempted to do) so regardless the robber would be burdened with the consequences of the crime. In addition to guilt, this could mean regret, paranoia, or even a thrill which could lead to further bouts of risk taking and crime. Regardless, my rebuttal to Pro in this regard doesn't encompass all of the points I have been trying to establish, which mostly come into fruition when you move onto my contentions.

2b. Many times bank robberies do not go as planned. For instance, a teller would call for police back-up or a patron or guard will interfere. In that case, there's no guarantee that the perpetrator wouldn't accidentally be hurt or killed, or that someone else wouldn't. Point being: The operation may not go smoothly and you cannot assume that a teller would just politely hand over the money.

2c. Pro is under the impression that robbing a bank is a victimless crime because all banks have to purchase insurance. However, who do you think pays for that insurance? That's right - the bank's customers. The only reason that banks have any money in the first place is because customers put their money into the banks. Therefore, the customers are the ones paying for insurance, so regardless the customers are the ones that suffer. And even if you go the route that customers would have to pay for this insurance regardless of whether or not the bank was robbed, even insurance money collected and dispersed is just redistribution of other people's money. So, by robbing someone, someone is always being stolen from, their rights and property being infringed upon immorally and illegally, etc.

3a. Pro operates under the assumption that a bank robber would be sent to a low-level prison facility. However, the links I'll provide will prove that bank robbers do, in fact, get sentenced to federal prison [1] [2] [3] and those are just a few of many scenarios.

3b. Next Pro somehow comes to the ridiculous conclusion that just because someone MIGHT be better off in prison than on the street, that all of my aforementioned or additional contentions should be eliminated. That's absurd. I stand by my points: Stealing is wrong, and federal prison can be dangerous. The point here is to acknowledge that just because life on the street can be tough, so too can life in prison. There's no guarantee that it will be better in 1 place than the other. In one situation you're worried about being cold; in another you might worry about being raped or killed. Sure on the inside you get three free meals, but on the outside you might be able to score something better than what's served inside. So the point here is this: There's no guarantee of safety either way, therefore my other points will prevail (reasons why stealing is wrong, and alternatives to stealing).

4. Pro contends that one wouldn't be able to get a bf/gf if homeless. I negate. He's operating under the assumption that a homeless individual is a bum hobo. In fact, there are plenty of people living in homeless shelters who DO have significant others, aren't smelly or dirty, etc. Example: I have a friend who ran away from home when she was pregnant, became homeless and lived in a shelter. She was technically unemployable because she was diagnosed with high-risk pregnancy, meaning she couldn't really do any labor and just had to sit down all day. Yet, she somehow managed to get a boyfriend even in that condition. Another example: The famous song writer Jewel infamously lived in her car on her road to stardom. She wound up becoming rich and famous and scoring quite a few men despite her stint being homeless. So, while Pro is correct to say that it would be damn near impossible for all homeless people to date, it's still true that some can. All I said was that this should be your first and foremost option - not your only one.

5a. Pro points out that in mental facilities, patients are often abused sexually and mentally. First off, the individual in this scenario might enjoy the sexual "abuse." This is because of course they will not actually be mentally unstable. That also excludes the possibility of any other types of abuse. Not all people in mental facilities are bat shyt crazy either; some just have minor problems - ones you could hardly even tell, sometimes. So, the individual could fake taking the drugs (if they didn't want them)... not to mention that those drugs are incredibly minor and not really harmful, and just live life pretty normally without the hardship of prison. Keep in mind that just as there are low-level prison facilities, there's low-level mental facilities as well.

5b. No, mental facilities aren't perfect... but are prisons? I find it ironic that Pro is concerned about the mental health of the homeless person in 1 situation but not the other. Prison can have devastating mental effects, including but not limited to paranoia, depression, claustrophobia, delusions, psychological fear, etc. says this government study [4]. Plus, a selective interpretation of objectivist philosophy may lead some (like Ragnar) to conclude that prison or the deprivation of liberty is equivalent to taking one's life. For a homeless person, this is not justified.

6. As an alternative to dealing drugs, robbing a bank is far worse. It is NOT a victimless crime as I have proven. A transfer of wealth without consent still means that someone is losing money. On the other hand, choosing to smoke pot is the choice of the individual, and in fact the dealer is servicing society by providing a risky service. To combat the idea that you need a lot of money to get started, I negate - Have the homeless person start by saving $10 to buy a dime bag (.5 of a gram). That person can then sell 2 nicks, have a little bit left over, use that to sell in the next round, etc. In other words, yes, it would take awhile to get things up and running and profit significantly... however, the goal isn't to become Pablo Escobar, my friends, but just to get by.

7. Now, as far as having sex with undesirable people, this link complete with pictures of real live prostitutes will illustrate just how desperate some people are to have sex or score the occasional BJ [5]. So yes, people WILL pay for sex with not so well-off or hot/clean individuals. Further proof are crack whores you'll see roaming the streets, who manage to survive (and smoke crack) all on a prostitute's salary. Talk about effective budgeting. Not to mention that Pro is completely ignoring (a) pimps or (b) the best option of legalized prostitution (great wages!) if they could just make it to Nevada.

8. Time for a new contention: The individual could apply for the services and aid of social programs (welfare, unemployment, medicare, etc.) and of course utilize shelters, soup kitchens, the church and other charities.

[1] http://www.thenewstribune.com...
[2] http://www.sj-r.com...
[3] http://www.timesleader.com...
[4] http://aspe.hhs.gov...
[5] http://thejebbica.com...
Debate Round No. 2
leet4A1

Pro

Thanks Lwerd.

1. Lol, of course my opponent has not marred her argument or forfeited any leverage in the debate by conceding this point. It was a concession nonetheless. :)

2a. CON initially made two arguments for this point: that the robber may feel remorse for the deed, and that robbing a bank is immoral. I stand by my negation to the first point that although the hobo would be a criminal if he robbed a bank, that it is unlikely there would be any remorse felt for such an action. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there are very few times as desperate as living on the streets using bubble-wrap for a blanket. Most hobos have been exposed to or taken part in such depravity that the robbing of a bank would be childs-play. As I said in Round 2, any remorse which was initially felt would likely not last.
As for the fact that stealing is immoral, I will not disagree. However, what does that matter really? My opponent can be optimistic, but I'm going to stick with realistic. You want to get off the streets, and you have no means of getting a job, you're going to have to do something immoral, as my opponent's alternative suggestions (prostitution, drug-dealing, fraud) show. In the ratio of benefits to how immoral one must act, bank robbery wins hands-down.

2b. My opponent's rebuttal to this point didn't really address my initial point at all. My point here was to show that there need be no trauma (mental or physical) inflicted upon the bank employees if the robbery is done correctly. My opponent has stated that it's possible that an innocent by-stander could be hurt, but I fail to see how. To ensure this doesn't happen, the robber could take a gun without bullets. If the police do in fact get called, and they show up brandishing guns in your direction, you give yourself up for arrest. You'll then be taken to jail, which was one of the two original reasons to commit the crime in the first place. Nobody would get hurt in this robbery.

2c. My opponent is clearly incorrect in stating that the bank's customers are paying for robbery insurance. Can you imagine if you had $10,000 in your bank, and after it was robbed and insurance paid out to the bank, you found that you only had $9,000 because they had to take a grand out to help pay for the robbery? Of course not! That money is your money, regardless what happens to it once it's deposited.

3a. My opponent has provided three links to show that bank robbers can in fact end up in higher-level prisons, such as those with rapists and murderers. What my opponent has conveniently failed to mention is that the robbers in those cases have a long history of robbing banks (one guy had robbed six in as many weeks)[1][2][3]. The fact is, for a first-time offender, particularly somebody in need, as with this guy [4], the penalty is minimum security prison, so all arguments from last round stand.

3b. My opponent's arguments for this point fall back on stealing being wrong and the fact that one may end up in a high-level prison facility and therefore be possibly subjected to rape etc. My arguments from 1a and 3a show that this is simply incorrect. My opponent is correct, there is no guarantee of protection in jail, but there is definitely a lack of protection on the streets. There is no guarantee that the food in prison will be any good, but three meals a day, however unappealing, is better than the possibility of starving to death, which is a definite reality on the streets. In terms of warmth, security, electricity, the ability to better one's self and eat right, minimum-security prison beats homelessness easily.

4. My opponent is correct again... of course it's possible for a homeless person to get a gf/bf. But we're not talking about an occassional lay, we're talking about a sugar daddy, i.e. a person rich enough to support the hobo at least enough to make it more worthwhile than robbing a bank. My points from last round about how inconceivably difficult this would be for a homeless, unemployable person stand.
My opponent provided the example of Jewel, but come on. How many hobo buskers do you walk past every day who can sing like Jewel? This is one example of millions of homeless men and women across the world, and should not even be considered a possibility, let alone taken as representative.
Besides, my opponent has admitted that this option would be "damn near impossible". I want my homeless man living well sooner rather than later, and he'd just as likely starve to death waiting for a sugar mama than actually find one.
My opponent also failed to address the fact that finding a sugar daddy/mama would leave the hobo subservient to some rich snob he/she probably doesn't even like. Robbing a bank would leave one just as well-off, and no less independent for their trouble.

5. Everything my opponent has said about the benefits of mental hospitals apply equally to minimum-security prisons.

6. I provided four arguments to show why robbing a bank would be a far better idea than dealing drugs, and my opponent has only addressed two of them. She has not answered to the fact that the financial gains of robbing a bank far outweigh those of dealing drugs, and has actually supported my argument that to become so much as financially stable dealing drugs is very difficult and very time consuming. Regarding the argument that capital is required to start a drug-dealing venture, my opponent's idea sees our hobo start out selling dime bags and move up to bigger stuff, but come on man, life is short and my kind of homeless guy wants good results and he wants them now! Once again we should look at the risk to benefits ratio, and we can conclude that robbing a bank far outweighs dealing some yahndi. With the ridiculous drug-laws of my opponent's home-country and my own, the penalty for getting caught selling drugs would be on a par with that of robbing a bank, but robbing a bank is actually worthwhile.
I have answered to the morality, victimless crime arguments above and need say no more on the subject.

7. First of all, the link my opponent provided here is a busted link, it doesn't work. I can imagine that it was intended to point at a bunch of ugly @ss prostitutes, which was somehow supposed to support my opponent's contention that one could not only make a living, but make a good living from being a prostitute no matter how ugly or smelly. My opponent misses a few key points here though. How well are these ugly prostitutes doing? Hell, I could become a prostitute right now, but there's no guarantee I'd make any money for my effort, much less enough to get one off the streets. My opponent points to so-called crack whores she sees roaming the streets as evidence that prostitution is a worthwhile venture for our beloved hobo, but crack whores are so-called for a reason.. they work for crack. Sure, they manage to survive and smoke crack, as my opponent has suggested, but they're no better off than our hobo for their effort, which has reduced them to possibly the most depraved act a human can force themselves into. My opponent talks about the guilt associated with robbing a bank, what about that of s*cking off some stranger for nickels?
My opponent's points about pimps and brothels is moot, because one must still find a pimp or a brothel willing to hire them, and the same problems present themselves.

8. The options presented by my opponent here merely represent the typical life of a hobo. This is the life we are trying to get our hobo away from in the first place.

Thanks very much Lwerd, I couldn't have hoped for a better opponent. :)

[1] http://www.sj-r.com...
[2] http://www.timesleader.com...
[3] http://www.thenewstribune.com...
[4] http://cancrime.com...
Danielle

Con

Sup, Leethal :)

1. Being rich is better than being poor. We can proceed.

2a. Alright, I acknowledge that not everybody would feel guilty for their robbery; however, my point was that some people MIGHT. This is just a minor detail and something to consider while you ingest the bigger picture - stealing is wrong. I maintain that stealing is wrong and stealing is always wrong -- people are entitled to their own property. I'm not denying that desperate times call for desperate measures, and as such, the homeless may feel compelled to steal in order to survive. However, my point was that this option is still wrong. So, other moral options are preferable over a blatantly immoral option. That's why my suggestions are the superior choices.

2b. Pro's point fails here because he suggests that a robber perform the robbery without bullets so as to avoid any type of accidental death or injury. However, if one got caught robbing a bank without feasible use of a weapon, they most likely would not be sent to federal prison (which ironically was my opponent's criticism of my proposal). In fact, a big reason why bank robbers get sent to prison is not only for the theft but for the illegal possession of the firearm, intent to harm or kill (as is blackmailed by the threat, etc.). Of course even without a gun one would get in trouble; however, not to the extent that Pro wants. What's the point of staying locked up for a few days/weeks? Is it worth all that comes with it? This goes back to my 1st point. It's not just guilt that the person would feel, but stress, inadequacy, the hardship of prison, etc.

2c. Pro's assertion that it is not the bank customers who pay for robbery insurance is false. As he said, if you put in $10,000 to the bank, you will not find $1,000 (or any amount) has been deducted for insurance. However, the bank that purchases that insurance only has the money to purchase the insurance because CUSTOMERS put their money into the bank. How do banks make money? By charging interest on loans. How do they have money to lend out? Because other people put their money into the bank which is what the bank lends out... and does other things, like paying employees, earning a profit, and yes, buying robbery insurance. So, bank customers indirectly pay for robbery insurance.

3a. Pro tries to prove that bank robbers don't get sent to federal prison by claiming the examples I gave were flukes (since those people happened to be involved in 2 or more bank robberies. However, this legal website explains: Bank robbery is penalized differently from "normal" robbery because banks are federal institutions. As a result, bank robbery is a federal crime that carries federal punishment. Federal penalties for bank robberies are generally much more severe than state laws for robbery [1]. As you can see, bank robbery is ALWAYS considered a federal crime and as such carries with it federal penalties (including federal prison). So actually, all of MY arguments should be extended (regarding the danger and hardship of life in federal prison and why other alternatives are superior).

3b. Pro writes, "There is no guarantee of protection in jail, but there is definitely a lack of protection on the streets." However, Pro is ignoring the countless options I gave in previous rounds: homeless shelters, soup kitchens, charity, the Church, applying for welfare, etc. So, while he keeps insisting that "minimum security prison beats homelessness easily," you'll see that is a completely moot point because point 3a explained why federal prison is actually the basis for comparison.

4. Pro spends a considerable amount of space arguing that a homeless person would most likely have a hard time finding a bf or gf, and I would tend to agree with that statement. As I said in the last round, I simply mentioned it as a POSSIBILITY - a first (and best possible) option - not a realistic one. In other words, the first thing you should do is try to find a sugar daddy (or mama), however, in cases where that couldn't happen... i.e. most of them... then you should move on to the other alternatives.

5a. Pro glazed over this point by stating, "Everything my opponent has said about the benefits of mental hospitals apply equally to minimum-security prisons." First of all, once again, minimum security prisons are NOT what's in question. Second, he's wrong -- Some benefits of small scale mental facilities not available in prison are: better food, sympathy points (instead of harsh judgment), little to no fear of being raped or hurt, the opportunity for improvement (and maybe help?), free therapy, free minor sedatives, a greater opportunity of meeting someone of the opposite sex or who appeals to your romantic interest, etc.

5b. Pro ignored point 5b, where I explained how going to prison can have damaging and devastating effects on one's own mental health and well being. In other words, it could severely damage someone in a whole new way (and screw them up to the point where being homeless is not their only issue).

6. Pro points out that I don't address 2 benefits of robbing a bank over dealing drugs: the amount of time it takes to acquire wealth from starting from the ground up, and the fact that robbing a bank gives you a massive amount of money all at once. Alright, first, I think it's incredibly ironic that Pro's argument regarding the amount of time it would take to build a successful franchise was, "come on man, life is short and my kind of homeless guy wants good results and he wants them now!" If said homeless guy was so concerned about the value of his life, then why would he want to go to prison (as I said, some say a loss of freedom is equivalent to death - a point which Pro didn't address). Second, the money isn't the only thing that's in question here.

If the goal is to receive a pay out and/or go to jail - with the more realistic option being jail - then I fail to see why a big pay out at once is even worth mentioning. We're operating under the assumption that the robber is going to get caught, and in that case, my argument regarding a bank robbery not being a victimless crime is what extend here and makes it trump Pro's suggestion. As I said, robbing a bank is less moral than being a drug dealer (in which someone chooses how to allocate their property i.e. wealth rather than stealing someone's property or wealth).

7. Please extend my arguments regarding drugs to prostitutes. The point is not that prostitution will bring you a lot of success, but that it's preferable because it's the more moral option (not stealing). I'm sorry my other link got removed -- it was a good one -- but this image best explains what I mean [2]. The point is - In the prostitution scenario, one is choosing how to spend their money, and in the other, money is being stolen which is the inferior ethical option. My point was to prove how hookers - even gross ones - can earn a living and even still afford the luxuries on the side, i.e. crack.

8. Here I posted a new contention: The individual could apply for the services and aid of social programs (welfare, unemployment, medicare, etc.) and of course utilize shelters, soup kitchens, the church and other charities. This was perhaps my best contention (in addition to the ones I thought of AFTER posting my R2 argument lol so I can't tell you what they are here, but...) Pro didn't refute this. He said, "The options presented by my opponent here merely represent the typical life of a hobo. This is the life we are trying to get our hobo away from in the first place." Well, since I posit that this life is better than prison (for the aforementioned reasons including mental and physical) then this is still a viable contention for the Con.

Thanks a lot, Leethal, this was fun!

[1] http://www.legalmatch.com...
[2] http://pix.motivatedphotos.com...
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Udel 1 year ago
Udel
Con argues that in prison you could be raped or beaten, and on the street you have freedom. Also that you might be morally bankrupt by stealing. Then Con gives some alternative options to robbing a bank to go to jail. Pro responds by saying the moral issue is not relevant, because not everyone cares (and he gave good reasons why that is) and robbery might not hurt anyone anyway. Pro also wins in pointing out it would be hard to get a sugar mama like Con suggests, and says going to a loony bin is worse than prison. Pro explained why Con's proposals were unrealistic, but Con responded to all of Pro's points for example saying they could go to a low level mental facility. She mentioned life in jail can have really harmful effects and trying other options is better than auto stealing. Con also proved homeless prostitutes exist proving people have other options. Con wins the moral point because she says even if not everyone feels bad about stealing, its still immoral to steal and creates a victim, and she gave vitimless crime options. COn also proposed shelters and soup kitchens and other things Pro did not really defend. Conduct to Con for Pro's vote bomb.
Posted by 150Hancock25 6 years ago
150Hancock25
Centering on a very important ethic, I found this argument to be very interesting and almost totally convincing prior to a great deal of critical thinking. Clearly stated by the author, the conclusion of this particular passage is that if an individual is homeless and unemployable, he or she should rob a bank. An addition to this main conclusion, a sub-conclusion for this passage is that whether this person gets caught or not, their standard of living can only improve. For this argument the author provides us with several crucial premises that are extremely valid and provides great merit to these two claims. Even though the author puts forward various premises that are very powerful, he also uses an analogy that is very misleading and inaccurate.
After analyzing this argument for several minutes, I was able to witness several important details that label this argument as bad. Although this author makes several valid points (i.e. it would suck being homeless), the author makes a particular statement that is very outlandish. I feel that the author's statement "people in prison live in luxury compared to the homeless" is extremely farfetched and inaccurate. Although in prisoners receive three square meals a day and a roof over their head, one who is incarcerated is essentially a living being with absolutely no freedom and/or civil liberties. In addition to losing all of the rights and freedoms that the homeless posses, prisoners have a number of number of negative consequences that they must deal with. Prisoners are not able to see their families and friends whenever they suit, they have to live constant fear of their personal safety and they are told what to do and when to do it.
Although the homeless are faced with a number of consequences as well, these individuals are still treated humaely by other member of society unlike most men and women wasting their life in jail.
Finally I feel this analogy is poor in defending this argument is because although living
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
Can't wait for my votes to be scrutinized hehe.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Arguments to leet. Most of Lwerd's counterplans didn't seem feasable at all.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
This is funny. TheLwerd claimed that her vote was to counter vote-bombing. However, at the time that she "recast" her vote, theLwerd actually received one more vote-bomb than leet, and was overall losing the debate 30-22. How could this be surprising to her when she agreed that she lost?
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Lwerd: "Lee -- I voted before I read your request. I can always change it and erase my votes, but ironically enough you got more points than I did from my vote lol. I voted like this -- Before debate (Tie), After debate (Con), Conduct (Tie), Spelling and Grammar (Tie), Arguments (Pro) and Sources (Con) ... So even though I have all ties but 2 to me and 1 to you, because I gave you the vote for most convincing arguments, you're actually beating me... I'm the only one who voted and the score is 3-2. So! My voting actually helps you lol but I will refrain from voting if you want :)"

There's the biggest lol.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
lol @ theLwerd indeed.

If her and Vi didn't vote 7 down the line for her, I'd be winning.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"Nah I doubt that man, I know Lwerd wouldn't do anything of the sort..."

lol @ theLwerd
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
@Lwerd- you know I love you, but I have to disagree with you.

"Not a mental institution; a mental FACILITY"
-There's no difference. A facility is in reference to a building or set of buildings, institution is the organization itself.

"Have you ever watched House or Girl Interrupted? Those places are FAR better than prison!"
-Girl Interrupted is set in a private mental hospital in the 60's, and House is set in a fictional hospital.

"And what about my point that a loss of liberty can be equated to a loss of life?"
-Have you ever been homeless? Losing your home can be equated with losing your life. Pro made the effective argument of a homeless person getting 3 square meals a day, healthcare, etc.

"Also, to become a dealer you don't need to purchase anything. Ever hear of theft? That's how most people do it."
-#1 you didn't say 'dealer', and #2 that's not how "most people do it". I have two friends about to face 5 years to life in prison. One for the interstate traffic of marijuana in amounts exceeding 5,000 kilos, and another for leadership of a crime enterprise. They would not have been successful at all if most dealers "stole" their product. The dealers? No jail time for most of them.

I honestly don't think you won this debate. I came into the debate thinking Pro was just being foolish, but he actually convinced me vs. your arguments which didn't hold much water in my opinion like your statement about robbing a bank. Pro wins in my opinion. Sorry ;) (but you're winning anyways, so who cares what I think)
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Haha on this site, that's very possible.
48 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 1 year ago
Udel
leet4A1DanielleTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
leet4A1DanielleTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it's hilarious that Danielle changed her vote after leet4A1 thought the matter regarding the fact that Danielle voted for herself was over.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
leet4A1DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
leet4A1DanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
leet4A1DanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by ccstate4peat 6 years ago
ccstate4peat
leet4A1DanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
leet4A1DanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
leet4A1DanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Manastacious 7 years ago
Manastacious
leet4A1DanielleTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by innomen 7 years ago
innomen
leet4A1DanielleTied
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:32