The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Infidel tournament: Resolved, welfare should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 9 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,145 times Debate No: 20732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (9)

 

16kadams

Pro

1st round acceptance

2nd arguments (prefer no rebbutal for organization purposes)

3rd rebbutal+add on arguments

4th rebbutal + defense of arguments

Good luck:)

Definitions:
Abolish
To end The observance or effect of.

http://i.word.com...

(on phone links may look odd) ^ Merriam Webster

Welfare:

Aid in the form of money to the needy. (goverment giving)
http://i.word.com...
royalpaladin

Con

I accept and note that the burden of proof is on my opponent because he is advocating a change in the status quo.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I assume this debate is about America.

Cost of welfare

Of the total spending budget welfare is 11% of the budget, or 0.7 trillion dollars. [1] Abolishing welfare would easily cut the deficit. Total government spending on pensions is about 1.0 trillion dollars by 2012 (estimate). [2] In 2010 it cost about .75 trillion dollars. [3] The point is it is a very costly program and if we abolished it it would cut 11% of our spending.

Constitutionality

There is no part of the constitution entitling the government to pay for the poor. [4] I am not saying it is banned by the constitution, I am saying a cut would be ok. Also in my personal opinion having a welfare system oversteps the constitution's power as it doesn't say give his money her, or her money to him. Free money is not a right given to anyone, at all whatsoever.

It is immoral

47% of Americans do not pay taxes [5], and the ones that do pay for peoples living. Is that fair in our American society? No, in America the government says your money goes to X, you cannot argue it goes to Y or Z as it is their choice. It is theft, taking away hard earnings giving it to a small minority of US citizens, as my dad would say " My tax dollars are paying for welfare that gets abused, I am paying for drug usage right now and it makes me mad!". Also the people on welfare do not pay taxes, isn't that welfare? They use government roads schools bridges, police, etc. all for free while you and I pay for it, in my opinion that is a good gift from the US government, a genuine kindness, welfare is extra on what they need.

Another estimate says about 32% of Americans paid no taxes or negative tax (money given to them via return) in 2006. [6] It is still theft if you think about it, 68% of America is being robbed, above 53% where being robbed to a greater extent (less taxes = higher taxes so it is logical to say that their taxes are higher). there way it is theft and immoral.

Alternatives

I believe charity should help the poor not government entitlements. One of them is food for the poor. [7] Their goal is to feed the poor of the world, keeping them alive and well. One alternative. Also the catholic charities USA strives to reduce poverty through charitable giving. [8] These alternatives to the same thing without government mandates or pensions. If we abolish welfare the poor will still be OK.

Corruption

Examples:

"The executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid in 1977 claimed that Linda Taylor of Chicago used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps. He claimed that she went from district to district with many disguises, using more than 100 aliases." [9]

"Esther Johnson, who was sentenced to four years in state prison when accused of "collecting $240,000 for more than 60 fictitious children". [9]

Welfare fraud has cost the state millions, every year, and each state has its own penalty. [10]

This goes back to the morality argument, your paying for fraud every year, it is robbery! You are buying crime, paying for fake children, paying over! costing the tax payer millions! It is a waste of our money. Like JG went worth, instead it's his money use it when you need it.

Dependency

8% of people on federal benefits are dependent on the system. [11] According to this source 3.6% of welfare recipients are dependent on the system. [12] So based on this it creates laziness in a certain subset of people, and wastes the money. ok lets use the 1 trillion dollar estimate, and pretend no one frauds:

1 trillion divided by 3.6= about 2.7 trillion. [13]

So about .2-.3 trillion dollars wasted. Shame.

Basically a small subset wastes a lot of money, and their thoughts are "if I am being taken care of why work?" They are a drag on the economy and the system.

constitutionality part 2:

need to add this and do not wanna change the footnotes number. Later refute as a whole 1 group.

10th amendment:

The 10th amendment was made to limit the federal government and give powers to the states. [14] The 10th amendment gives all in-enumerated powers in the Constitution, that are not prohibited, to the states. [15]

The federal welfare system is unconstitutional along those grounds.

=conclusion=

The welfare system is a drag on society and has many problems with it and should be abolished, VOTE PRO! Your turn con.

PS; the reason the sources are that way now is so it is easier to find them. Probably a waste of characters though...

Source[s] on cost:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [1]
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [2]
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [3]

constitutionality source[s]:

http://www.archives.gov... [4]

Morality/taxing source[s]:

http://news.yahoo.com... [5]
http://www.taxfoundation.org... [6]

Alternatives source[s]:

http://www.foodforthepoor.org... [7]
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org... [8]

Fraud/corruption source[s]:

http://en.wikipedia.org... [9]
http://www.spamlaws.com... [10]

Dependency source[s]:

http://www.cato.org... [11]
http://aspe.hhs.gov... [12]

Other math:

http://www.google.com... [13]

constitution part 2 source[s]:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com... [14]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [15]
royalpaladin

Con

Negative Case
My sole contention is that welfare reduces "unfreedoms" and promotes the advancement of society. In his award-winning work, Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics expands the concept of liberty to include five types of basic freedoms: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. [1] Sen furthers that each of these five freedoms is inextricably linked, meaning that poverty is not merely a lack of wealth, but is also "a deprivation of basic capabilities" [1]. Thus, as Sen notes, reducing poverty is instrumental to ensuring the development of a free society that promotes all five freedoms.


SA: Welfare reduces poverty and thus improves economic facilities. By providing income to individuals who lack
basic necessities to survive, welfare ensures that the poverty levels in any given nation are reduced significantly. The fact that welfare reduces poverty has been proven to empirically true. By studying the adoption of major welfare states in 1960-1991, Kentyworth and Bradley concluded in separate studies that both the aboslute poverty rate and the relative poverty rate decreased in nations that adopted the welfare state model. [2]

CountryAbsolute poverty rate (1960–1991)
(threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)[3]
Relative poverty rate

(1970–1997)[4]

Pre-welfare Post-welfare Pre-welfare Post-welfare
Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2
Belgium 26.8 6.0 19.5 4.1
Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9
Denmark 26.4 5.9 17.4 4.8
Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1
France 36.1 9.8 21.8 6.1
Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1
Italy 30.7 14.3 19.7 9.1
Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5
Norway 9.2 1.7 12.4 4.0
Sweden 23.7 5.8 14.8 4.8
Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1
United Kingdom 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2
United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Thus, the adoption of welfare reduces poverty in both the relative and absolute sense. This, in turn, advances the development of a nation by reducing the amount of unfreedoms that plague it.

SB: Welfare reduces crime and thus increases protective security. One of the major impetuses for committing crime is financial insecurity. According to Joseph Williams of the Christian Association for Prison Aftercare, 53% of the incarcerated individuals in the United States earned less than $10,000 per year prior to their incarceration. [3] Because welfare reduces the amount of poverty, it can reduce the amount of crime in a nation and thus increase security. A study conducted by C. Fritz Foley of Harvard University proves this to be true. According to Foley's study, crime rates in poverty-stricken areas followed cyclical patterns. At the beginning of the month, when welfare checks were distributed, they would be relatively low, and they would increase steadily throughout the course of the month. [4] Moreover, areas that provided welfare in a staggered form experienced significantly lower crime rates than areas that offered a single check at the beginning of the month, indicating that the prime reason that these individuals were committing crimes like burglary and larceny was to ease financial insecurity. [4] Thus, by reducing crime rates, welfare increases protective security and reduces unfreedom.


Affirmative Case

Cost

As a side note, my opponent's estimates as to the cost of welfare is excessively high. Welfare cost about $496 billion, not the 0.75 trillion that he attempts to claim. [5] However, welfare was actually beneficial even though it cost $496 billion. In 2005, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, welfare kept "15 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million people." [5] Even if it does cost a great deal and we can cut the deficit by abolishing welfare, note that this is not the only beneficial solution. Defense spending currently amounts to 20% of the budget, and there are many wasteful wars (such as the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan) as well as bases in areas such as Germany and Japan that could potentially be cut in order to reduce the deficit and government spending. There is no reason to cut welfare, especially because it provides a plethora of positive effects while there are plenty of examples of wasteful spending in other areas of the government.

Constitutionality
A common misconception about welfare is that it is unconstitutional. However, the Tenth Amendment notes, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Welfare (known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF) is not run by the federal government; instead, it is administered by the states. The federal government provides block grants to the state governments to ensure that needy individuals are not kept in poverty [6]. Thus, welfare is constitutional because it is administered by the states.


Immorality

First, my opponent's claim about how 47% of Americans pay no taxes is a false myth that was created by Donald Trump in his attempt to win the presidency. In reality, 86% of Americans pay taxes, meaning that 14% do not. [7] Moreover, this number is artificially low because it was preceded by a massive tax cut in 2009 [7]. In fact, a large percentage of this group includes corporations, and not individuals below the poverty line. In the last three years, 30 major corporations have paid no taxes, meaning tha the United States has lost $160 billion in potential revenue. [8] This figure discounts the fact that the average corporation pays 18.5% or less in taxes even though the corporate tax rate is 35%, meaning that the government has lost even more money due to unfair tax cuts. [9] In addition, since its inauguration, TANF has cut the number of welfare recipients who by 53%, meaning that it has not gone towards paying for immoral activities; rather, it has gone towards improving the lives of millions [6]. This a morally righteous end for the state.

Alternatives

Even opponents of welfare acknowledge that alternatives are not adequate to reducing the poverty rate. Sheldon Richman notes, "Second, abolition of welfare may indeed leave some people abandoned. In any society some people will be so lacking in ability, energy, and ambition that they will languish. Private charitable acts will help some but not all of such people."[10] In addition, empirical evidence has proven that private charities cannot reduce the poverty rate; only the welfare state can, as evidenced by the table in the first subpoint of the negative case.

Corruption

Although some people may be corrupt, the majority are not, as indicated by the fact that TANF has reduced the number of recipients by 53% and by the fact that it has legitimately reduced the poverty rate in every nation that has adopted the welfare state. So, addition, this corruption is not a reason to abolish welfare because it is vastly outweighed by the positive benefits on the lives of the truly destitute. In addition, if there is corruption, the solution is to create a stronger enforcement mechanism to prevent it, and not to abolish welfare and thus harm those who honestly need aid.

Dependence

First, turn his dependence statistic, because if 3.6% of people are dependent, then over 94% of people are not. Second, his math is incorrect. He should have multiplied by 3.6% (not divided by 3.6); he literally used fake, convoluted math to make up a number.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

[3] http://capaassociation.org...

[4] http://www.people.hbs.edu...;

[5] http://www.cbpp.org...


[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...;


[7] http://www.politicususa.com...;


[8] http://thinkprogress.org...;


[9] http://money.cnn.com...

[10] http://www.fff.org...


Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

I am on my phone again :( this will suck.

R1: money is a rightWell I don't see anything about this in the consitution. And many people pay no taxes, so of welfare is a "right" then basically you are entitled to my money. Luckily that is not the case, you have no right to other peoples money. (1) Spending if other peoples money leads to many problems and is a violation of property rights. (2) so in all technicalities you have no right to other peoples money. Also having no money does not violate rights. Poor people still vote, still political freedoms. They get tax returns, economic facilities. Etc. poor people still have rights.

R2: poverty rates
Now let me privide my own graphs.

A phone does not do graphs so I have to do links:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... (3)

Now it only goes to actual 2008 spending. But we see a constant increase. If welfare worked we would see more spending would lower poverty rates. Didn't work:

http://www.census.gov... (4)

On page 16 I believe it has the poverty rates, it stays similar seems like it increases despite the welfare spending.

Also since welfare was started, poverty has not decreased. (5) since welfare was passed average incomes have slightly declined. (5) Also dependency increased. (5)

R3: welfare reduces crime

False.

Lifetime access to welfare is one reason we have a crime problem. (6) Areas with more single parents tend to have higher crime rates, welfare increases the amount of single parents, thus raising crime. (6) (7) Also we'd lock births increase crime. (6) (8) Also welfare is linked to more unmarried fathers. (6) and unmarried fathers are more likely to do drugs and other crimes. (6) (9)

Welfare increases all of these factors that increase crime. How does it logically lower crime? Furthermore welfare areas have fewer role models that leads to increases in crime. (6) (10)

Defense of arguments:

RC1: cost

The new Obama budget of 2011 requests welfare costs hit 900 billion. (11) Currently welfare spending costs nearly 1 trillion. (11) Welfare is expected to cost slightly over 10 trillion in the next 10 years. (11) (12) Welfare in 2011 will be 13% of federal spending. (13) in 2010 welfare spending almost hit 900 billion. (14)

Welfare is costly.

RC2: Constitution

This was only aimed at federal welfare, not state. We argue both here, but this one argument was focused federally FYI.

"McCulloch v. Maryland defined this as to Congress may enact legislation within the powers" (15) now, nowhere does it say in the constitution that social programs are in congresses power.

"Until the New Deal era, a general acknowledgement that individual social welfare, more specifically the use of public monies for the purpose of charity by the national government, was unconstitutional on the national level prevailed in government." (15)

Now I see no new amendment saying we have a right to welfare, so technically it still = unconstitutional.

Now we're talking:

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14 (15)

No provisions attained by ANY. See first rebbuttal. Welfare is you give money to you. Read above it is prohibited.

RC3: immorality

I see nothing about Donald trump...

In 2007 38% paid/owed no taxes, recently that number hit 47%. Yep, 47% pay no taxes. (16) Also not your fault, your politicusa source link is broken. Another estimate says 46% pay no taxes. (17)

Now who pays no taxes?

Half of the people paying no taxes are a couple with 2 children making less then 24k$ a year. (17)
This estimate says those making 25k or less a year are 76% of the people who make no taxes. (18) only 1,400 people who make over 200k pay no taxes. (18) do its not the rich (usually) that pay no income tax.

Now why is this immoral? Because 53% of America pays for all of their work, and well that's immoral.

"[The] social point of view . . . cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service. . . . This [to live for others], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] humanity, whose we are entirely." (19) quote by Auguste Comete

Welfare=immoral

RC4: Alternatives

Private charities can help lower poverty. (20) Also many charities educate give etc. this one does. (21)

Seriously education is power, if charities make schooling programs then poverty would be healed. As 21 says some already do. (low on room gonna shorten)

RC5: Corruption

24% of LA welfare requests contained some type of fraud. (22) but in the UK 1% commuted fraud. (sorry for the other country stat) (22) 2.45 billion dollars where overpayments in 2001. (23) probably higher now. There is a problem.

No welfare vote pro

I need less sources;

http://lewwaters.wordpress.com... (1)
http://www.lewrockwell.com... (2)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... (3)
http://www.census.gov... (4)
http://www.cato.org... (5)
http://www.cato.org... (6)
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "Dan Quayle Was Right, Atlantic Monthly, April 1993. (7)
http://pda.physorg.com... (8)
Robert Lerman, "Unwed Fathers: Who Are They?" The American Enterprise, September/October 1993. .(9)
Wright, Green, and Warren. (10)
http://www.heritage.org... (11)
http://www.heritage.org... (12)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... (13)
http://www.forbes.com... (14)
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com... (15)
http://www.nytimes.com... (16)
http://www.forbes.com... (17)
http://www.usatoday.com... (18)
http://www.thefreemanonline.org... (19)
http://world-poverty.org... (20)
http://amitabhasociety.org... (21)
http://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com... (22)
http://waysandmeans.house.gov... (23)
royalpaladin

Con

Ok, so I am going to divide the debate into major topics instead of into cases. This is slightly unorthodox, but my opponent is doing this, so it is easy for the reader if I do it as well.

Unfreedoms

His only responses to the Amartya Sen analysis was that "money is not a right" and that nobody has a right to other people's money. This is nonresponsive to the concept of unfreedoms. Sen does not view "unfreedoms" through the lens of "rights"; rather, he sees them as harms to the development of society. That being said, "money is not a right" is non responsive for two reasons. First, I never said that money was a right, so you can throw this out the window. Second, even if for some reason you do not buy this, the right to life is not listed as a right in the Constitution, but we do not claim that people do not have that right. Similarly, there is no reason to deny that people have a right to money on those grounds. He notes that "stealing" money is a violtion of property rights, but note that this is not theft because the wealthy have earned their fortunes due to the advantages that they hold in society. Welfare is contributing to the advancement of society as a whole, and not to an individual person. Finally, he says that "poor people still have political freedoms", but this idea is nonsensical because they do not have equal access to political freedoms as others do. The wealthier are more influential in the political realm because they can use their money to run ads, campaigns, lobby politicians, etc. Sen notes that economic degredation leads to the degredation of other rights; the fact that they can still vote is meaningless because it is the weakest form of political expression.


So, extend Sen because the analysis was not adequately responded to. This means that his burden is to prove that welfare creates unfreedoms in order for him to win the round.


Poverty
In response to the Kentyworth and Bradley data, he pulls out some analysis from the year 2008 and claims that welfare fails. There are three reasons to prefer my evidence over his. First, his evidence is limited to one year, while mine occurs over a span of forty years and thus my evidence is able to show a trend while his evidence cannot. In fact, he is not examining trends at all; he is simply giving you faulty analysis based on a single year. Second, his evidence is only limited to one country, whereas I have given you numerous examples in which the adoption of the welfare state has led to massive reductions in poverty. Thus, my data is more applicable and more likely to be true. Finally, his data is based on 2008, which was a year in which a gobal recession occurred. Thus, his data is inferior to mine because mine controls for other circumstances while his does not.


So, you can extend the poverty analysis and vote con based on the reduction of poverty alone. The impact is that I am reducing the unfreedoms that Sen discusses, whereas he is clearly magnifying them.

Crime

In response to the studies that I presented to you, he simply notes that welfare leads to crime because access is limitless. I have three responses. First, you can extend the TANF analysis from my first rebuttals because it explicitly shows a 53% decrease in the number of people who use welfare. Second, extend the turn on his statistic: 94% of people are not dependent on welfare, meaning that they do not access it for a limitless amount of time. Finally, note that his claims about "limitless free rides" are completely wrong because TANF is only given to adults for five years. "There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods" [1]. This link-turns his analysis because it depends on the idea of limitless access, which is clearly false.


Next, extend the dropped Williams analysis about how the majority of crime is linked to financial hardship. This is extremely important in this round because it solves the issues that he discusses about single parents and drug usage. These are not linked to welfare; rather, they are linked to poverty. This is important in this round because it backsolves his other claims as to the links between welfare and crime. If you do not buy this, extend the Foley analysis which further provides evidence for this and then notes that providing welfare in a staggered form drastically lowered crime rates.


Finally, since my opponent has decided to invoke his personal morality about single parents in the round, I would like to note that TANF has actually provided an impetus for marriage. "Since the enactment of TANF, the share of children living in single-mother families decreased from almost 22 percent of all children in 1997 to 19 percent in 2002, and the share of children living in cohabiting families rose from 5 to 6 percent . . . TANF allowed states to impose family caps on the receipt of additional cash benefits from unwed childbearing. Between 1994 and 1999, unwed childbearing among teenagers declined 20 percent among 15-17 year olds and 10 percent among 18-19 year olds." [1].

Cost

He gives you nothing but fake analysis. Welfare costs 400 billion at the most, and not the 1 trillion that he claims. 1 trillion is about 1/3 the size of the deficit, but he claims that welfare costs 13%, not 33%, so he is contradicting hismelf. Even if you do not buy this, he dropped the analysis about using other means to cut the budget in a more effective manner and the analysis about how the benefits of welfare vastly outweigh the costs, meaning that it should not be abolished even if it is costly. Extend those dropped arguments and vote con.


Constitutionality

Other than magically deciding to be a moving target and claiming that this debate is centered on the federal government (which is not true because it is not specificed by the resolution and it was not specified in round 1), my opponent drops the 10th Amendment analysis, which explains that welfare can be taken up by the states. This is relevant for a single reason: TANF, or welfare, is administered by the states, and not by the federal government. Thus, it is perfectly constitutional.

Immorality
Apparently the source that I provided to show that his 47% statistic is fake is having server problems, so I am going to quote one of my opponent's sources instead. From his New York Times Source: "All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality. . . Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47." [2] (Note: This was Source 16 from the opponent's Round 3 speech).

Also, extend the analysis about protecting life throught the reduction of poverty. That is a morally worthy goal for the state, so welfare is not immoral.

Alternatives

Extend the dropped Richman analysis, which explains that charity cannot solve poverty because it is inconsistent and cannot be given to all. Then extend the data from the affirmative case, which clearly shows that poverty was reduced because of welfare. When charity was used, poverty was greater; when the welfare state was adopted, poverty decreased drastically. This provides both analytical and empirical analysis as to why charity cannot solve for the poverty problem, and both were dropped by the opponent.

Corruption

I never denied that corruption exists. I simply noted that it is outweighed by the positive impacts of welfare, and that it only amounts to about $40 billion, which is three times less than the amount of Medicare fraud that doctors commit. The solution is not to abolish welfare; it is to make corruption more difficult. These were all dropped, so extend them and vote pro.


Dependency

He dropped all of the analysis that I had for this point.


Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;


[2]
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

R4: Un-freedoms

So the thing that matters here is: the right to wealth.Now, welfare=his money is now yours. You say people deserve this (implied, see resolution) with that argument. I have defeated that =, and there is no right to wealth anyway. We are supposed ot be a free market system, his money is not yours, your money is yours and his his. [1]

R2: Poverty

So you want more accurate data, although mine was adequate. But here I go:The poverty is similar now then is was when the war on poverty began in 1964. [2] When welfare reform forced people out of welfare, poverty had a slight decrease. [2] (this means less welfare = less poverty). Under one poverty measure in New York Poverty rose 22%/ [3] [4] Also, welfare may impede progress towards diminishing poverty. [5] Once welfare was reformed and less people where on welfare employment increased. [6] Less welfare=less poverty. So less welfare, not more welfare, lowers poverty.

R3: Crime

Note I have proven single mothers increase due to welfare. Let's say is again, welfare increases single mothers. [7] Kids raised in single parent homes are more likely to commit crimes. [7] [8] [9] Also children born in single parent homes are more likely to be thrown into poverty. [10] (relates here and to poverty argument above). Now, in my opinion is it sad that many African Americans are living in poverty, they are the largest chunk, 40%. [11] Now, 30% of LA African Americans are in jail. This shows a small link to poverty and increased crime. [11] One of the big reasons people commit crimes is because of poverty. [12] So as I have proven welfare increases poverty, so logically it increases crime. Also welfare leads to increases in non married births. [7] [13]

"According to the study, in the years from 1965 to 2002, higher rates of out-of-wedlock births in a given year correlate with higher crime rates " [14]

So if welfare increases this then logically welfare increases crime.

Welfare users are more likely to abuse drugs then other people. [15] So abolishing welfare would reduce drug induced crimes (like a LSD addict shoots you due to a bad trip), so more welfare still logically increases crime, less or none would decrease it. Defense of my argument.

RC1: cost

You just claim my analysis wrong, yet have no evidence to back it up. We are debating ALL WELFARE, so federal welfare costs about 434 billion. [16] Welfare is 13% of the budget. [17]

Also later you get mad about me specifying. This debate does not specify so all welfare, state or federal is allowed. And arguments only for one are then ok.

RC2: Constitutionality

You provide no real arguments. Just a repeat, well similar wording as last time. I will proceed:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 also in [18]

Now, modern welfare is not mentioned, hence it is unconstitutional.

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854 also in [18]

Federal welfare=unconstitutional.

RC3: Immorality.

Well my sources, my multiple sources from just as credible ones as yours, said 47-46%. But I suspect you want more:

"The number originates in the estimate that roughly 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. " [19].

This says the tax policy center, not Donald trump as you think. So a non partisan group not a guy with funky hair made this.

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009" [20]

I conclude this argument.

You can't extend the argument on poverty as my previous arguments show welfare has negative effects on poverty, or has little difference.

RC4: Alternatives

You can't extend an argument I refuted without spelling it out. I refuted that argument, 2 birds with 1 stone.

Also private charities have been much more successful in helping the poor then welfare. [21]
Also many charities are making ways to end poverty through funding them but forcing them to look for a job, this had been successful. [22]

My point: charities work, this refutes all of that.

RC4: Corruption

My other arguments showed 24% of welfare applications are corrupt in some way. 14 million people are on welfare. [23] This is, 3,360,000 people abusing the system. But let's use your estimate of 40 billion. Well Medicare loses 48 billion. [24] more people are on welfare so this cost should be higher, this indicates welfare is more corrupt.

RC5: Dependency

I forgot the formula, re-do it. Also I used the conservative estimate.
This says 1/6 americans are dependent on welfare. (25) So the numbers change. So technically we choose 1 and go. So your results may me more in reality.

Out of room vote pro

sources :

http://www.onlywematter.com... [1]
http://www.cato.org... [2]
http://www.heritage.org... [3]
Sam Roberts, ���‚��"Calculating Poverty in New York: More by City Standard, and Less by Federal One,���‚��� The New York Times, March 3, 2010. [4]http://www.thefreemanonline.org... [5]
http://www.oycf.org... [6]
http://www.cato.org... [7]http://www.singleparentspot.com... [8]
http://foreverfamilies.byu.edu... [9]
http://www.heritage.org... [10]
http://www.pubdef.ocgov.com... [11]
http://whydopeople.net... [12]
http://www.frc.org... [13]
http://www.physorg.com... [14]
http://www.npc.umich.edu... (15)
http://www.heritage.org... [16]
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [17]
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com... [18]
http://money.cnn.com... [19]
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... [20]
http://www.lp.org... [21]
http://www.thefreemanonline.org... [22]
http://www.usatoday.com... [23]
http://www.politico.com... [24]
http://www.freedomworks.org... (25)
royalpaladin

Con

Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase. Unfreedoms
Ok, so my opponent continues to misrepresent Amartya Sen's analysis and claim that nobody has a right to money. First, this is not response to the concept of unfreedoms. Unfreedoms are a measure of society's development, and not of individual rights. Insofar as this is true, you can extend the entirety of the Sen analysis because he has not even attempted to refute it. Even if you do not buy that, however, extend the argument that explains that just because a right is not listed in the Constitution does not mean that it is not a right. He offers no reponse to this, and it directly counters his "welfare is not a right" argument. In addition, he dropped the analysis about how it is not theft because welfare is not done for the individual; rather, it is done for society as a whole, and because the rich have prospered the most from society, they have the greatest stake in its advancement. These both demolish his assertion about how money is a right; he completely dropped them, so please extend them.


Poverty

He still has offered no response to the Kentyworth and Bradley data, which show that in a forty year span, nations that adopted the welfare-state model had massive reductions in poverty. In response to my argument about how his data only covers one year, he gives three new sources that he claims show increases in poverty. However, when we examine his sources, we can see that they contribute to my side anyways.

From his Cato source: " Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase. "


From his Heritage Source: "New York City recently adopted a similar poverty measure to the one being
developed by the Obama Administration. Under the current federal measure of
poverty, the city’s poverty rate fell from 19.1 percent in 2005 to 17.76 percent
in 2008. However, under the new poverty measure the 2008 rate rose to 22
percent.[5] "


Note that his Heritage source explicitly states that the non-Obama federal poverty program reduced poverty in NYC, but that Obama's plan increased it. That means that Obama's plan was a failure, but that welfare as a whole was successful. In addition, notice the blip in the year 2008: that was during a period of recession.


From his Free Man Online source: "Since 1950, the number of (official) poor as a percentage of population was approximately 30%. From then until 1968, the figure dropped steadily, to about 13%. But then, right in the heart of the Great Society years, when more money than ever was being spent to decrease poverty even faster, the trend line flattened. After ten more years marked by ever-increasing outlays, the percentage of poor in our population had dropped only to 11%. Two years later, in 1980, it was back up to 13% again. The more we spent, the less progress we made. " Note: 1980 was also a period of recession.


So, his own sources agree with the Kentyworth and Bradley analysis: overall, welfare has caused a reduction in poverty rates.

Crime

He basically ignores the argument that there is a confounding factor with all of these other factors (single mother, etc.): poverty. Note that since I win that poverty decreases under welfare, welfare reduces crime. In addition to this, you can extend the completely dropped the Foley study which proves that when welfare is applied in a consistent, spread-out manner, it reduces the amount of crime that poor citizens commit.


Cost

Ok, so he just conceded to that 400 Billion number that I gave you, and not to the 1 trillion that he was claiming. Extend the dropped arguments about how even if it is costly, the reduction of poverty and unfreedoms far outweigh the cost because they lead to the advancement of society.

Constitutionality
My opponent is missing the point: the federal government does not administer welfare. In the United States, TANF (welfare) is administered by the states. Insofar as the 10th Amendment gives states the right to do anything that the federal government cannot do, TANF is absolutely constitutional. He dropped this, so extend it and vote Con.

Immorality

Again, my opponent misinterpreted his own source. Here is the analysis from his own source: "All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality. . . Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47." [2] (Note: This was Source 16 from the opponent's Round 3 speech).


The only people who dodge paying income taxes are the rich, and only 10 percent of people do not pay taxes, so his argument about payments is false.


Alternatives

Ok, so he still continues to drop the Richman analysis, which explains that charity cannot work because it is subjectively applied and is not enough to protect the poor. In addition, the Kentyworth and Bradley analysis shows that the welfare state is the only way to reduced poverty significantly; during the "charity era", poverty was much higher than it was during the "welfare state era". Extend those dropped arguments and vote Con.


Corruption

He continues to drop the weighing analysis: even if some people are corrupt, welfare benefits the vast majority of the people (according to his new estimate, 75% of applicants are not corrupt), so the negative corruption effect is outweighed by the positive effect. He then concedes that MEdicare should not be shut down even though there is a greater spending on corruption in Medicare than there is in welfare. This simply means that just because some people in the program might be corrupt, that does not mean that we should abolish the program as a whole.


Dependency

Ok, so after dropping the facts that TANF has caused a 53% reduction in welfare and that TANF only has a five-year limit, meaning that it is impossible for people to be dependent on it, he brings up a new 1/6 statistic. First, how do we know which statistic of his to use? His first statistic was 3.6%,which is completely different from 1/6. His statistics contradict each other, so we should accept neither. Second, in both cases, the vast majority of people are not dependent, which corroborates the evidence that I gave that TANF caused a 53% reduction of people on welfare.


Voting Issues

Arguments

I clearly won the poverty analysis as well as most of the other arguments on the flow.

Conduct


My opponent deliberately miscut his evidence, which is a conduct violation.


Sources


My sources actually say what I claim they say, and some of his sources actually benefit me, so I should win this as well.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Thanks if I do this again I will refine my points to all of the advice.
Posted by Chthonian 5 years ago
Chthonian
Pro consistently focused the debate against the American welfare system and raised a good point that there is no constitutional guarantee to receive money from the government. However, there seemed to be some confusion as to whether the scope of the debate covers just monetary assistance or all welfare such as government-funded programs to help the needy. It was also unclear whether the debate was specific to federal or state aid or both. Pro makes some glaring math errors and misused some of his referenced information, some of which Con points out. Con provided ample evidence to contest most of Pro claims, thus Pro didn't establish the burden of proof to convince us that welfare should be abolished.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
RFD:

First, Con clearly wins on the analysis, by providing clear and concise arguments and applying logic; Pro on the other hand commits a number of correlation-causation fallacies (Ex: "Also welfare is linked to more unmarried fathers. (6) and unmarried fathers are more likely to do drugs and other crimes. (6) (9)"). This by itself is a voter, I was told that welfare reduces crime and provides for the fundamental freedoms that I was told society needs. Pro totally drops the societal argument by only asserting that we dont have a right to other peoples money--this could've been a great argument, but he just ASSERTED it. Con tells me that lowering poverty provides for greater societal freedoms, Pro tells me that it's wrong to take away peoples money. To win on that Pro would've had to run some theoretical an-cap arguments or something. He didnt. The status quo allows for taxation, so I'm going to assume that its just, and have to vote on the societal impact.

Con also wins on the counterplans, she points out that welfare is beneficial and that spending is better cut in other places, which to me is significant. She nets Pros offense while keeping her own initial offense. Pro didnt even respond, another voter.

Finally, I really didnt see many impacts coming off of Pros case towards the end, and certainly not enough to change the status quo. Con win.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
RFD:

Poverty reduction:

Pro drops in R4 that his evidence is bad because it doesnt examine trends and only applies to one country. Con's source gives several different countries that adopted welfare and then reduced poverty. Thus, Con's evidence is preferrable. I ignore Pro's new sources in R4 since debate practice forbids new arguments/sources in the last round. Implication - Con wins that welfare reduces poverty.

Crime:

Pro drops every single one of Con's studies, so this goes Con by default. They directly respond to the ones Pro gives in R3. Again, Pro introduces 7 new sources here in R4, all of which are ignored since new arguments are forbidden in the last round. So from the debate, welfare reduces crime.

Cost:

Pro drops the Defense Spending alternative. There's other ways to reduce the deficit. He also drops Con's R2 argument that the benefits of welfare outweigh the costs. And in R4, pro gives a source that AGREES with Con's 400 billion number. Con win.

Constitutionality wasnt that important in the grand sceme of things.

Morality:

As con showed, Pro's *own source* says that 90% of households pay taxes. Which means that the theft Pro brings up isnt as widespread as he believed. But actually, Pro doesnt really respond to the fact that this is still taking money frim the rich and giving it to the poor (theft) even if its just 10%. But Pro doesnt extend it, so...

Dependancy:

Dropped entirely by Pro.

Alternatives:

Pro drops the Richman evidence, which indicates that charities alone cant solve the problem. Pro just gives more sources for his argument wthout ever responding to Con's, which subsumes all of them. Also, alternatives arent even necessary since Con's (conceded) evidence from earlier shows that Welfare itself does just fine.

By sheer level of drops/concessions, welfare reduces poverty, crime, helps the economy, and any money it costs could me countered by cutting military spending. Con win.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
and on another note

why the heck did I have to retype my RFD 5 times.....
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
@16kadams

Most of your arguments pointed for reducing welfare...not abolishing it....

You should have continued with Cost seeing how Medicare is considered welfare....and thus 700 billion dollars is the correct number...even so that still only points to reduction not abolishement.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
"1 trillion divided by 3.6= about 2.7 trillion."

Wat.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Reading now. Not sure why no one has given s/g to con.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Gileandos, I refuted the immorality and cost arguments, and he never responded to those refutations. Should I quote what I said, or are you going to learn how to read?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Gileandos, I refuted the immorality and cost arguments, and he never responded to those refutations. Should I quote what I said, or are you going to learn how to read?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Chthonian 5 years ago
Chthonian
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Args in comments. Conduct - Pro introduces several new arguments and sources in the last round. Grammar - Pro's rounds are riddled with typos and grammar mistakes. Con's writing was much more fluid.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In terms of substance, neither debater accepted any factual claim made by their opponent so this debate was extremely unproductive. However Pro made a series of vague claims supported only by links which he barely attempted to explain. Con explained the logic behind her claims and turned Pros arguments against him with his own sources. Based on that Con was far more convincing. Con showed superior knowledge and application of sources. SG is fairly obvious.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con get arguments. First, Pro dropped many of Cons arguments and analysis. Second, Pro failed to provide a basis of how exactly to abolish welfare. There is no legal precedence to abolish and it does help people (reduces poverty, does not really affect crime). Corruption is irrelevant, as Con basically pointed out, since most people are not corrupt and much more than 53% of people pay taxes. As for crime, Con rightly pointed out there are to many factors other than single parents. S/G-obvious..
Vote Placed by lovelife 5 years ago
lovelife
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither one seemed to do anything too horrible for conduct, I liked con's table in round two but that's all that stood out. Don't vote on grammar unless it's horrible, neither had horrible grammar. Con's arguments actually made sense and was supported both in her sources and with my real life experiences and independent research. Don't vote on sources unless one uses horribly biased ones neither seemed to do so.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Pro's facts to be more convincing.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed how welfare causes many societal problems. Con loses sources because she used Wikipedia many times. And, as Con taught us from her vote on my debate, Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Also, Con loses conduct because she was quite rude to Pro in the debate and many others involved in this debate (namely the voters). She has not handled herself in a mature way.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
16kadamsroyalpaladinTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was frought with assumptions. The idea of welfare promotes 'unfreedoms' was gutsy. Pro on the other hand did a remarkable job asserting the immorality argument and the cost argument. Arguments to Pro he met his burden with poor refutation. All in all good debate and great read.