The Instigator
BigSky
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Alysin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is welfare hurting America?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
BigSky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 29842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

BigSky

Pro

A friendly debate on whether or not welfare is hurting our country, I noticed you support it.
Alysin

Con

I would love to debate this topic. I do support it because it gives citizens The chance to live with The basic things they need.
Debate Round No. 1
BigSky

Pro

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for her acceptance to my debate.

I will begin by defining Ineptocracy.

Ineptocracy- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

How does this relate to welfare? Obama supports welfare to a non-working class of United States citizens, he represents the "least capable to lead," those receiving the welfare act as "the least capable of producing.. the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed," and the welfare itself is the " (reward of) goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."

Let's take an example of this, if a jobless citizen is paid $100 dollars a day in welfare, chances are that they will be less inclined to find work unless they can get a job that beats $100 dollars a day. What support is there of this?
In the U.S., there are 4,300,000 people on welfare, not all of those Americans are physically incapable of working, and not all of those Americans are searching for work. The Obama administration seems fine with it, so why is such a controversial issue? The money sent to welfare programs comes from tax payers. So let's take another look at our definition of ineptocracy. "Members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers." So our welfare receivers take in the money that working Americans own, which discourages those producing to not produce. Which eventually results in a country without produces, no money that can go to welfare recipients(which at that point would be everyone), and a government who is at a loss for what to say or do. The question then arises, why did that administration get elected in the first place? We once again shall go back to our definition. "The least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing." The administration that supports welfare is voted in by the increasing number of welfare supporters, which can no longer search for jobs to become producers, because there are no longer any jobs available. At that point, how could an economy recover? It couldn't. Foreign countries wouldn't help us, because we were almost 17 trillion dollars in debt to them in the first place. The solution, limit welfare to those who are completely incapable of working, and to those who aren't working, start a program that will only give them jobs. That would be a start.

Over to you con

http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Alysin

Con

I forfeit. I don't want to debate this. You've already changed my mind.
Debate Round No. 2
BigSky

Pro

I win then... glad I changed your mind on this.
Alysin

Con

:) I got lazy
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Alysin 4 years ago
Alysin
Super bowl?! I totally forgot! Wait , I don't care haha.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
I'll get on to post my debate later or tommorrow, super bowl is coming on soon and I have to log off.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
BigSkyAlysinTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
BigSkyAlysinTied
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 conceded without a debate.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
BigSkyAlysinTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Regretfully, must award full points to Pro, after reading Pro's opening argument I was anticipating another anti-Obama proselytizer's destruction. I do hope Con's mind was not changed, as most of what Pro stated was incorrect.