The Instigator
DerekHum84
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
kels1123
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Irony in the belief that welfare and abortion can both be opposed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 1/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,805 times Debate No: 1441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (10)

 

DerekHum84

Pro

A great deal of Irony exists in your stances of Socioeconomic topics. Especially in regard to abortion and subcatogrized beliefs that conflict with your own mindset.

On the surface you state that you have a disposition towards it. As do I. However, you also state you are not an advocate of Welfare either. My initial question to you is with 1.4 million abortions a year, that's 1,400,000 children that would be hitting the streets each year, how do you propose to fund their existence without welfare?

I do suppose they could always fund themselves by robbing us and commiting lucrative crimes for the next 18 years.
kels1123

Con

A great deal of Irony exists in your stances of Socioeconomic topics. Especially in regard to abortion and subcatogrized beliefs that conflict with your own mindset.

On the surface you state that you have a disposition towards it. As do I. However, you also state you are not an advocate of Welfare either. My initial question to you is with 1.4 million abortions a year, that's 1,400,000 children that would be hitting the streets each year, how do you propose to fund their existence without welfare?

I do suppose they could always fund themselves by robbing us and commiting lucrative crimes for the next 18 years.

I don't have a problem with welfare completely , I feel the system needs to be changed. I don't think it should be eliminated completely , however as its just an option of agree or disagree I must say disagree as I do not agree with the current welfare system that is in place. It doesn't help longterm and some people abuse the system.
As for saying that the 1.4 million kids that are aborted would all need welfare to survive , thats not true. Not all women that get abortions are poor and need government assistance , not to mention some of those kids that are aborted could be given up for adoption if the mother truly didn't want to have a child. There are wealthy women that have abortions as well as poor women.
Debate Round No. 1
DerekHum84

Pro

Although I prefer that this argument be focused stronger around the conflict in supporting the abolition of both, I will refer to statistical evidence for a rebuttal. As for the poor not being the primary users of abortion procedures, according to www.Abortionno.org(an anti Abortion website I provided as statistical evidence so that bias is of no concern) nearly 50% of all women who have the procedures live below the poverty level.

Adoption is a beautiful, selfless, process that many more women should engage in. However, the system which is supposed to be a proponent of the such, deters individuals from doing so by increasing the complexity beyond an individuals ability to work with the system. It's to complicated.

Lets try to remain on course from here on out. Public welfare and abortion are two principles that cannot be denounced together, logically. Ethics? Well, now that's "To each their own".

http://www.abortionno.org...
kels1123

Con

Again I am not sure I understand what you are trying to debate me on , you challenged me as to why I believe in both , I told you , what exactly do you want to debate me on. I told you my views on welfare. I do not have a problem with welfare , but the system in seriously flawed as are some social programs that we have . I know people that get the Gov't to pay for most of their rent , yet they have never worked and their youngest child is 8 years old. I know drug addicts that recieve EBT cards , yet do not support their children. I know people that get the Govt to pay most of their rent , yet they have other adults living with them with income that they do not fess up about. So yes I do not believe I should have to pay someone's rent because they just do not like working. I don't think my money should go into an addicts pocket when he is not even forced to pay for his children. So you are right I have some problems with the welfare system as it is now. i do not think that welfare should be eliminated completely , however on the profile questions I had to choose one or the other and since I do not agree with the way it is currently run , i chose disagree. Okay you state that all those children that are aborted would need welfare , eyt you just proved the numbers of women that would need wefare is 50% not 100%. There is no reason a woman can't give up her child for adoption. If you agree that abortion is wrong , what exactly are you debating me on????????
Debate Round No. 2
DerekHum84

Pro

The arguement loses validity, I suppose since you concede that you do not oppose welfare although your profile states you do. I suppose the debate becomes void of substance in that sense.
kels1123

Con

I disagree with the way our welfare system is , again I will state that while I do not disagree that welfare can be a good thing and is needed. I do thing there needs to be serious steps in fixing the welfare system. As it stands now , it is being abused and isn't as helpful as it should be . So again that is why I stated in my profile that I disagree with welfare , there are many things on the profile that to me aren't black and white. ie. I haven't responded on the death penalty because to me it is not just black and white . I do 100% disagree with abortion in every way.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Government is necessary, but it should not intrude on people's lives at the rate that it is now, and we're the least intrusive country at this point.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
How is anyone voting against me when I what I was being debated on wasn't actually how I feel. I was being debating for being against welfare and against abortion when really I am actually not really against welfare and yes I am still against abortion...
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
First, no where in your answer did you distinguish my example from what the government did; so don't be surprised if you find me doing your chores and then demanding half of your assets.

If men aren't angles, why does that suddenly change when one works for the government? And when have we tried anarchy? Ever since humans evolved from a hunter-gather society to one based on centralized agriculture, there has always been government. The closest we have ever came is Medieval Iceland and the American West. If you actually study those periods of time, these quasi-anarcho capitalist societies worked quite well. Again, you bring up how the government taxes us to protect us--how is this any different than a mob boss claiming you are in his territory? It is because countries, like Somalia, are dependent on the government to do things they turn into chaos when the government fails; there is no reason why a transition of moving away from having a government would not work. To say the IRS only raids people who are free-loaders is not true because there have been several instances where people were raided on false premises. That's why there were all of those congressional hearings in the 90's to investigate the IRS. We can vote politicians out of office, but this process is inefficient and unnecessary. If I were really George Bush's employer, he would be fired right now.

The real problem are authoritarians such as yourself who somehow believe that they posses the knowledge to govern everyone else. The government is a leach that siphons off the creative and productive energies of the people it rules.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
We have tried anarchy. That's why humanity has switched to civilization moderated by government. It's why James Madison said "if men were angels, no government would be necessary", but you obviously know of this quote and simply don't agree. You're probably also not a fan of John Locke and his social contract either.

The constitution was written, establishing the government you seem to hate so much, so as "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Whether you think so or not, the government does a much better job of establishing all of these things better than anarchy has done or could ever do. But to do these things requires that everyone pay into the government so that free loaders don't enjoy these benefits without paying in like everyone else. Democracy also allows you to vote out of office the politicians you don't think are doing a good job of handling your money. Every country even halfway capable of maintaining civil society taxes its citizens to make this possible. The only forms of anarchy you have to relate to are countries like Somalia, so I have no idea why you would advocate for such a system.

If the IRS raids a business or audits an individual, its because they were trying to free load. How would you feel if you had an employee who collected pay checks from you but never did any work? While the government can't fire you like you would that employee, they can raid your business and take what you owe for the protections of the law and the infrastructure you take for granted. Instead of raiding your business, however, I think the owner should just have their citizenship revoked. Then you could go live and operate your business in Somalia like you seem to prefer and not have to bother with the civil society our government and system of laws offers.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
I break into your house, do your dishes, fold your laundry and feed your dog. Now I put a gun to your head and demand money. Is that justified? How is that any different then what the government does? You can call me cynical all you want, but that is not an argument.

Why do you think the government has to provide the roads? We are already seeing the privatization of roads at a rapid rate.

What makes you think government are wards off chaos? Just look at what is going on in Iraq. Is the War on drugs civil? What about when the IRS raids a business? I would love to try anarchy too, just so people will realize how unnecessary the government is.

If I provide money to someone for a service without the force of government, it is a voluntary exchange of goods and quits being government.

You may know how good you have it, but you are blinded to how much better it could be.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
You really are too cynical to have a rational debate with. I don't know what your prior dealings with the mafia have been, but typically, you must pay them money so they don't break into your business and burn it down. That's about the only protection you get from them. And would you prefer that those roads were not built? Even if they weren't paved, they would have to be maintained by someone, but I'm willing to be that the person to pay for that still wouldn't be you.

Taxes have always been a part of civilized society. Without them, the government has no ability to ensure civility and ward off chaos and anarchy. However, it seems as though you would welcome anarchy. Frankly, I would love to try anarchy out just so we all could see how well your business would fair without the protections provided by the police, fire departments, copyright and trademark laws, legal system, and the utilities that your business needs to survive, not to mention the roads you use to transport yourself and your products. The success of your business and the safety you take for granted in your personal life are directly attributable to the civil society that government ensures. Your insistence on depriving the government the ability to ensure this civil society is akin to biting the hand that feeds you.

Would you provide tax revenue to the government without that force that you so decry? Would anyone? That "force" ensures that everyone pays their fair share, and keeps people like you from free-riding on the backs of people like me, who know how good we actually have it. God help you if you still think i haven't answered your question
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
The mafia provides services of security. Also those roads were built with money that was taken by force, so you haven't answered anything. So again, answer the question.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I did answer your question, Daxitarian. Paying your taxes, whether they are individual or business, pays for all of the services you take for granted. Just because government services exist that you don't actually take part in or utilize does not make the government akin to the mafia demanding protection money. The mafia never built the roads that you drive on to get to your business, nor do they put your kids through school, nor do they give you any of the utilities you use everyday. You're right, kels1123. Abuse is a rampant problem. That's why I mentioned that their budgets shouldn't be cut. Because when they are, its oversight that suffers. I know what an EBT card is. Like I said, I knew of someone abusing food stamps as well. Both section 8 housing and food stamps are often used by the same kind of people, but they are separate programs from TANF and are administered by different government agencies. Abuse is a problem is every program, some more than others. I think, though, that we see it in much the same way. These are good programs that need better oversight. It would be nice if these programs got the funding they needed so they accomplish their stated missions while employing enough people to effectively oversee it.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
mindjob, I have 3 cousins that are hooked on OCs and recieved an EBT card , no children. An EBT card is food stamps which is also part of the welfare system. As for social problems there is also the case of housing , why should any person be able to not work and have the government pay almost all the rent? I know a single mom who busts her butt working and can barely cover the rent , most months she can't and is late and leaves herself with no money left over, but she gets no money to help with the rent. Yet my aunt who has a teenager , some grown up kids and an 8 year old and barely ever works , unless if she gives it a shot for a month or so. She lives in a house with 5 bedrooms and only has to pay $300 a month , the government pays the rest. Does this seem like a good system? I never once said white women were not receiving welfare nor did I specify any such color or race of people receiving welfare or other social programs. I do think in some cases welfare and financial assistance programs can be good , however I also think it seriously needs to be fixed and they need to stop letting people abuse the system. I have seen a single mother of 5 get welfare assistance , go back to school and become a nurse. That is great in my eyes , but the system is often abused as well.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
Nice long-winded answer that answered nothing. How is the government different than the mafia forcing itself into my business and demanding money for protection?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 DerekHum84 9 years ago
DerekHum84
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 adamh 9 years ago
adamh
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 
Vote Placed by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
DerekHum84kels1123Tied
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