The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

It's time to re-introduce unemployed single mothers to the workhouse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 10/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,860 times Debate No: 9618
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The 1601 Act for the Relief of the Poor (colloquially known as the "poor laws") created a proto-welfare state in Great Britain and one of the main tenants of this legislation was the workhouse (1) where the poorest in society were provided with food and shelter in return for an honest day's work.

However, with the formation of the National Health Service and the Social Security Department after the Second World War the last of the workhouses closed as the state then provided a safety net for all citizens - guaranteeing them free housing, health care and a modest income should they become needy.

Unfortunately, however, this system is now being seriously abused by perfectly able young women who prefer to rely on state handouts rather than go out and work for a living.

One of the consequences of this is that Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe (2). Here, young women know that if they are aged sixteen or over the Government is duty bound to provide them with their own house to live in together with a decent income so that neither mother or baby suffer any hardship. Indeed, unemployed single mothers are even entitled to free pamper days at private salons where they receive massages, facials and manicures at the taxpayers' expense. (3)

In the light of the huge cost of this scheme, various right-wing think tanks have suggested abolishing the welfare state altogether in order to remove the incentive for teenage girls to deliberately get pregnant and become wholly dependent on the taxpayer for their general well-being.

Apart from punishing the genuinely needy, the problem with this plan is, of course, that at a stroke hundreds of thousands of young mums and their children would be thrown onto the streets and expected to fend for themselves.

Of course, some charities may step in to help but the enormity of the problem would surely be too much for them. There are around 500,000 young lone parent families in the UK and it costs the taxpayer �4,000 ($6,360 / EUR4,320) per month to support each of them (4),(5). This amounts to �1,200 ($1,900 / EUR1,300) per taxpayer per year which is far more than any NGO could ever hope to raise through voluntary donations.

So, what's the solution? My suggestion is to re-invent the workhouse so that becoming reliant on the state is less attractive for single mums. In return for food and accommodation, single mothers would be expected to do an honest day's work in a factory attached to the workhouse while their children are cared for collectively in an in-house cr�che.

But please don't think of this as a quasi-prison – it wouldn't be. Although the women and girls would be paid in kind rather than cash they would be free to leave if they either found a job on the outside or a partner that would be willing to financially support them and their children.

So, the workhouses' inmates (or guests as I would prefer to call them) would be allowed to leave in order to attend job interviews and there would also be regular open-evenings held whereby eligible men would be invited to meet the women with a view to taking them and their offspring under their wings – think of it as a cross between speed-dating and choosing a pet at the dog pound.

This scheme would be self-financing so would, therefore, save the taxpayer billions of Pounds every year and, in addition, it would reduce the number of kids brought up by single mothers whose only motivation in giving birth to and bringing their children up is the extra state benefits this enables them to claim.

For these reasons I strongly affirm that it is time to re-introduce unemployed single mothers to the workhouse.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.workhouses.org.uk...
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(4) http://www.poverty.org.uk...
(5) http://www.taxpayersalliance.com...
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him well.

Firstly, let's consider what my opponent saying, he wants to put weak, females to hard labour. This is fine, but thsi could put hard working men out of jobs in various industries.

Gentlemen, let's not be fooled by American propaganda: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Women are by in larger weaker than men and incapable of performing the same tasks at the same rate and speed. It is simply against the laws of nature. Instead, I propose these women be made work in brothels:

Firstly, unemployed mums can range from 16 year olds from East London and Birmingham, to 33 year olds in Chester. This will appeal to all men looking for a sexual fetish. What's a bonus is that these women have proven experience in this area!

Secondly, it will allow the male work place to marry better wives. Men can now get freebies from their local council brothel, and will now choose women on conversation skills, cooking, sewing and child minding rather than looks

Thirdly, most women would not like the prospect in working in the local council brothel (for some strange reason beyond me) and will work hard to get their grades p. This will allow for a smarter woman overall. Also, women will excel in home making skills, so men can live a life of luxury in their homes. It will also replace the current sex. ed module with 2 lines for boys:

"Lads, don't waste your time on these inexperienced women. Visit the local council brothel!"

And one for girls:

"Do it and end up working 9-5 on your back, knees, etc."

Not only will this make prepubescent pregnancy plummet, it will ensure women are well read up before doing it with lads .But hold up! Young, prospective gentlemen can get experience fore only 9.95 per hour*

* = Excluding tax. Rates may vary according to Breast size + Coccyx diameter / Moles + spots

What makes this system even more attractive is that it can be used for nearly any industry!

Tourism? Britain would soon outdo the Netherlands, get massive revenue and be hailed as the best place ever.

Going on another invasion? Take the women with the soldiers! It would make the troops fight harder to save the women back at base, and slash homosexuality among the soldiers.

Simply put, there is no other place more ideal than the average unemployed mother than the brothel!
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Aha! Just as I thought - Panda wants to put these vulnerable young women in council-run brothels. Ladies and gentlemen, please ask yourself what his motivation for this scheme is. Does he really think it will be beneficial to society in the ways that he claims or does he have an ulterior motive?

Could it be, dear readers, that my opponent is planning a career as a council brothel manager? Is he contemplating a mealtime scenario where he is supervising the distribution of food to his nubile young wards? I think we all know what's going through his head, don't we?

"Please, Mr. Panda, can I have some more?"

"More? MORE?"

"Yes sir, could I have another portion please?"

"So, you want another portion do you, young lady? Well come up to my room after dinner and I'll give you a portion alright. That's right you cheeky little minx. I've got a quarter pounder with cheese you can get your mouth round any day of the week. Phoaarrrr!"

Shocking! This is a respectable debating site and there's no need for that sort of filth here. Frankly, I expected better from Panda and if he repeats these sorts of lurid, degrading thoughts I will have no option but to report him.

Anyway, moving on, although some of my opponent's arguments were sound enough, I did make a couple of observations.

Firstly, he suggested that women from these council brothels would make better wives. Well, I suppose it depends on your priorities. These days, you cannot expect your bride-to-be to be a virgin but given your future wife's former profession, she's going to have a quim like a wizard's sleeve isn't she? It would be like throwing a sausage into the Albert Hall wouldn't it?

Secondly, Panda suggested that his scheme "will this make prepubescent pregnancy plummet". The prepubescent pregnancy rate is already zero – girls need to have reached puberty in order to conceive – even though the likes of Gary Glitter and Jonathan King would have you believe otherwise!

So, all in all, while my opponent's scheme certainly has its merits I do not believe it represents a substantial improvement on my gym-slip mum workhouse caper.

Vote Pro. Thank you.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank Mr.Eggleston for this enlightening debate.

Has my opponent really found me out? What wishy-washy silliness he is using, I would NEVER service a women, let alone state employed pleasure lady. I demand it. They want seconds? Too damn bad, they should knit, sow or something along those lines until I'm ready.

However, what is Mr.Egglestons ulterior motives for his state run workhouses? It's quiet obvious, he wants hundreds of woman concentrated for one reason a one reason only - To discuss fashion! It is so obvious before my eyes. Mr.eggleston clearly intends to talk to these dozens of women about howhe could improve his Autumn scarf collection, or the best glossy hairspray for his brown locks. It is his escape from the manly world of brothels, and thus, should not be respected. His ultimate next step is obvious - Introducing unemployed single Fathers to the workshops. Can you, ladies and gentlemen, guess what they'd be used for? Yes...Precisely. No further comments.

I stated that would allow women who do not wish to spend most of their time in bed to try and get their grades up and study. They will obviously be chaste until marriage and remain loyal to their husbands, so as not to be sent to the "love homes", as they will be dubbed. Simply put, natural selection, the strongest will adapt and survive to reproduce. Women working in brothels would make poor wife's if they are the stupid ones, obviously, but they will be good for polygamist Mormons.

As fro prepubescent pregnancy, I was attempting to alliterate. I obviously now realise the phrase fell far short of it's literal meaning, so my apologies. Let me replace it with "Pre-tween Pregnancy Plummets" (Tween is a word for a Twenty year old to twenty nine year old, hence the 'Tw')

While I understand my opponents apparent good on the paper of his scheme, it his a ploy for his hidden flamboyancy.

Vote CON for council brothels.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Christ, that's funny...it's debates like these that make DDO worthwhile. :)
Posted by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Well someone take it....
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Diddo with Kleptin. I'll take it :D!
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
LOL Kleptin
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Was going to take this and offer the counter position that we should put them in brothels and not workhouses.

Was not sure how funny it would be, and I am very busy.

Anyone up for that position XD?
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
If you want to take it, Mr. Panda, PM me - I know you are far more capable than most 14 year-olds - most adults in fact.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I'm 14. Jeez.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
It's age - my last opponent was only 14 and completely ruined what could have been either a funny or informative debate

http://www.debate.org...

It turned out to be neither.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks, that's much appreciated, especially given my last debate!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
brian_egglestonI-am-a-pandaTied
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 I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
brian_egglestonI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jessabel 7 years ago
Jessabel
brian_egglestonI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestonI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 drewMurrdotCom 7 years ago
drewMurrdotCom
brian_egglestonI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
brian_egglestonI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70