Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory.

My opening argument is very simple.

1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme

2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class

3) It gives a very low amount of money back.
http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return

4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.

Hello. Before I start off, I want to say a couple things. First of all, I won't actually have much to argue in this debate, because there's only so much I can say. Second, I want my opponent to know that I agree with everything he just said in his opening argument. This might seem that I have just disproved my entire argument, but that is not true. Unfortunately, my opponent is fighting the wrong battle.

The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory."
My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed."
The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay.

To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it?
And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?

Hello. Before I start off, I want to say a couple things. First of all, I won't actually have much to argue in this debate, because there's only so much I can say. Second, I want my opponent to know that I agree with everything he just said in his opening argument. This might seem that I have just disproved my entire argument, but that is not true. Unfortunately, my opponent is fighting the wrong battle.

The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory."
My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed."
The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay.

I would like t go bit by bit.

1) My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default.

"To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it?
And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?"
2) The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed. My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.) But it doesn't say that we can't make a new social security system.

3) For example, the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60.

4) I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine.

Vote for the best argument, please.

I would like to say/ask a few things before actually debating.

1) Why did my opponent post my entire argument over again at the top of his argument? (Without quotation marks, I might add.) What was the purpose of that?

2)"My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default."
I have read over ALL of my opponent's previous debates, and in every single one of them he points out to the readers what his opponent failed to do, why his opponent's arguments are "null and void", why this means he is the winner. Please, zdog234, the constant repetition of this sort of behavior in which you address the readers and actually tell them how to think, in which you attempt to make up their minds for them, becomes quite aggravating after some time. It is only common courtesy to allow a person to have their own thought process and to make their own decisions. If you refrained just a bit from your constant instruction toward the readers on how to vote, I have a feeling that your arguments would be more appreciated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the actual debate.

"My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default." (again)
In this case, this statement is faulty. I did in fact address my opponent's points. I said that I agreed, but that these points addressed the wrong issue. I did not go into detail on each point because there was no need.

"The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed."
Actually, the topic of this debate deals with the CURRENT social security system. The current one has not been changed.

"My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.)"
Umm, where does his argument say that? Yes, that's the topic of the debate, and he took the con position. However, I don't remember reading that statement at any point up to this moment. I would also like to make note of the fact that my opponent just agreed with my argument.

"I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine."
He has? I remember reading him agreeing with the fact that no one would pay, but I do not recall seeing a single remark about my second question: "And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?"

To Recap:

My opponent's arguments are this:
1. The current social security system is unfair: it is not even, discriminates against the poor, and gives very little back.
2. The social security system could/should be changed: "the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60."

My argument is this:
1. The current social security system is messed up, that is true. But by making payment into the current social security system optional, no one would pay. The only outcome of that would be that the people who need financial support CURRENTLY would not be able to get it. And those people would suffer. Yes, the social security system could be changed, but the CURRENT one has not been, and that is the system we are dealing with. I hate to break it to you, but in this debate we are not talking about a brighter future. We are talking about the present. And in the present the social security system might be horrible. But by making payment not mandatory, we would only be creating more problems, not solving any.

It is quite common that debaters stray from the topic of their debate, and try to distract readers by bringing in other issues. I do not deny that my opponent is a good debater. But in this argument, my opponent and I did not take two different sides of an issue, we fought two different battles. I agree with my opponent that all readers should vote for the best argument, but I also think that readers should make sure they carefully assess this before making a selection.