The Instigator
Bchatman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

People who spend their welfare money on un neccesary things should not be allowed on welfare funding

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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,483 times Debate No: 61831
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)

 

Bchatman

Pro

People who are on welfare and spend their money on un necessary things should not be allowed to be on welfare. I am agreeing with this, so someone has to prove why they should be allowed on welfare even when they spend their money on their wants instead of needs.
Wylted

Con

The burden of proof is clearly on pro in this debate. The government can't reasonably differentiate between unneccesary and necessary good stamp spending. Even the definition of necessary will change from person to person. Foodstamps allow the purchase of candy for children. Most people will consider the candy unneccesary, others would say it's a necessary luxury. Hey, kids need a treat occasionally.

Now you're discussing the government micromanaging what's bought with Foodstamps. Our individual dietary needs can differ dramatically for person to person. How is the government supposed to micromanage these decisions?

In summary here are the problems. Pro wants the government to micromanage people's food purchases which involve taking into account everyone's unique and different nutritional needs as well as taking away the occasional candy bar that most kids can look forward to, without so many other luxuries in life.
Debate Round No. 1
Bchatman

Pro

Yeah you're right because people are going to spend their welfare money on whatever they want. Food stamp money should not be acceptable for candy bars, because a child can live with out candy. Quite frankly kids nowadays don't need junk food. I think that there should not be any form of welfare unless you are disabled and I mean disabled as in you literally can't work.
Wylted

Con

I'm probably even more of an extremist than my opponent. I sincerely would like to see all forms of welfare and social spending completely abolished. However if it's not being abolished than it needs to be done correctly. My opponent came here to speak her opinion and to try and discuss if people on Foodstamps should be alowwed to spend beyond necessities.

I gave my response showing how implementing my opponent's vision would be too tedious, and based on how unique everyone's dietary needs are it would involve too much micromanaging of people's food purchases to be capable of implanting this.

It's easy to miss, but my opponent just conceded the debate. I'll copy and paste it here for the benefit of the voters.

"Yeah you're right because people are going to spend their welfare money on whatever they want.

I'd like to end this by saying that the occasoinal candy bar though not a necessity goes a long way towards keeping a kid near the poverty line sane and is one of the few things they have to look forward to at the beginning of each month.

Vote con because of the concession, because pro's plan wasn't elaborated on enough and because pro never got past my very few objections.
Debate Round No. 2
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bchatman 3 years ago
Bchatman
my message was to them
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 3 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
I've seen some ignorance here, but this comment thread is astoundingly full of it.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 3 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
I've seen some ignorance here, but this comment thread is astoundingly full of it.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Was that message to me or to them?
Posted by Bchatman 3 years ago
Bchatman
I did not start this debate for all the bullshitt that is going on. Grow the heck up and take this crap somewhere else. @Wylted
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
If you want government to force your neighbor to pay your bills, by all means vote democrat. If you want government to force your employer to give you more money than you are worth, please,by all means, vote democrat.If you are a freeloader, vote democrat.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
@Mikal, Shadowking,

Can you guys please take this to a different venue.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Bittch you wrote: "Not to mention in pms with both of them they called your vote horrible at least." PMs to me or you? Be clear, dipshit. Your grammar sucks. Again I have nearly all my votes intact.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I said that was via comments you dolt. There are more they sent *me* in private messages say you were a crappy voter. If airmax says you suck at voting, you suck at voting. As you have to be objectively bad at voting in general to have a vote removed at all. You have had over 5 removed, so yes you are an objectively bad voter in every sense of the phrase.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Unless that comment attributed to him below by Michelle is a comment from a comment section, Michelle has committed libel. He has never sent me personally a PM like she claimed.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
BchatmanWyltedTied
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: I'm awarding arguments to Con due to Pro's lack of any real argumentation aside from opinion sharing. Pro needed to show why they shouldn't be allowed to which would include sharing evidence of the harms that would come from such a practice. Con was able to rebut everything said by Pro whereas Pro fell short of providing anything of actual substance to affirm their position. Con wins this.
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
BchatmanWyltedTied
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: Pro only gave her subjective opinion, and no actual argumentation....
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
BchatmanWyltedTied
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: Pro needed a mechanism of action, something that Con challenged from the outset. Lacking that, Pro cannot uphold his BoP, lacking as he does a method for ensuring that people can be monitored for where they spend those funds and on what. Moreover, Pro never provided a single actual benefit I can see to changing these policies. Con wins this without a fight.