The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Quickfire debate on welfare

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: 11/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,427 times Debate No: 6069
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

ournamestoolong

Pro

I want to see if you accept before I spend forever posting an opening argument so you start.
Puck

Con

As Pro - the burden is yours.
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Pro

I disagree but comply nonetheless.'

RESOLVED:Welfare should not be eliminate

R1: I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status. It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status. Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income.

R2: The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget.

R3: People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money. And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving.

I will stop now as I am running short on time.

Note: I will add sources later
Puck

Con

"I disagree but comply nonetheless."

Consider it a lesson - challenge someone, have an argument to challenge with.

"I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status."

False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others.

"It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status."

Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity.

"Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income."

Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals.

"The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget."

The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare.

"People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money."

Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause.

"And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving."

What are you doing to survive if you are not working?
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Pro

As I have time constraints I will start right away

"False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others."

The point is that though the orginizations may exist, the govenment not intervening to save some ones life is as good as killing.

"Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity"

Welfare doen't advocate irresponsible behavior. Rather it advocates for human beings to help one another.

"Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals."

Yes but by not providing welfare you are not protecting the populace and giving them the oppurtunity for happiness. In fact you are preventing it.

"The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare."

My point is that many people say people on welfare have a easy life. They do not. And to counteract your point of being forced to pay for welfare, it is exactly the same for me. I must pay for TWO wars I do not support. But this is how our government provides funding.

"Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause."

But as I stated before, people need welfare to survive, you can't change the cause.

"What are you doing to survive if you are not working?"

I should have rephrased that , people need to help their families survive. And just finding a place to sleep at night would be hard enough.

It has occured to me I will not have time to locate sources.
Puck

Con

"The point is that though the orginizations may exist, the govenment not intervening to save some ones life is as good as killing."

Who are they killing again? There are institutions in place where that is not a set outcome? By such rhetoric the government is also responsible for every act of suicide, every alcohol overdose etc.

"Welfare doen't advocate irresponsible behavior. Rather it advocates for human beings to help one another."

No. It advocates the theft from one person to support the less willing. Helping others does not require state intervention in the least. Also how can it be advocating help of others when it actively forces one to participate?

"Yes but by not providing welfare you are not protecting the populace and giving them the oppurtunity for happiness. In fact you are preventing it."

Again. It is not the state's role to hand out happiness cheques at the cost of another's productivity. Think that makes those who pay taxes less happy? Why do those less willing get a higher "happiness" free ride from the state? Not paying taxes would make me happy - so the state, under your argument, should let me right? :D At any rate, if welfare induces ridicule as you say, then not being on welfare and being self sufficient would make them happier. :D

"My point is that many people say people on welfare have a easy life. They do not. And to counteract your point of being forced to pay for welfare, it is exactly the same for me. I must pay for TWO wars I do not support. But this is how our government provides funding."

Straw man - you are arguing against me, not "many people". Your profile also says you are 14 - not sure what taxes you are paying at that age. The fact that one must, and the government enforces it with threat of violence does not make it right either - that's a rather bad assumption to make. :D The government socialises far too much, too much is in state control - that is why they take taxes - not because it is right.

"But as I stated before, people need welfare to survive, you can't change the cause."

Wrong. People need to be productive to survive. The government restricts an individual's chances by their choices in economic and structural governance. Those who truly lack the capacity - the very few, to be self sufficient, can easily be taken care of in non state enforced manners.

"I should have rephrased that , people need to help their families survive. And just finding a place to sleep at night would be hard enough."

Plenty non profit organisations and religious organisations do that. Sleeping takes up a third of the day at any rate. Plenty time to work for the rest. :D

"It has occured to me I will not have time to locate sources."

Not sure anything you said required one.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Conduct: Tie - Normally I'd fault Pro for wasting an entire round because he didn't post an argument. However as I understand he is new. Next time post your full resolution with supporting points definitions and sources for your points in the first round. Especially if it is a 3 round debate.

Spelling and Grammar - Con. No serious errors, Con however had better use of language and grammar that was just enough to tip the scales for me.

Convincing arguments - Con Pro never proved his resolution and Con had excellent refutations of any minor point that pro provided. Also the whole not helping is killing was rather skewed logic in my opinion.

Reliable sources - Tie no sources used. However Pro really should have used at least one source to prove some of his points. Especially since he had the burden of proof.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Conduct - TIE: Both debaters were respectable/ no attacks.

Spelling and Grammar - TIE: No serious errors on any side.

Convincing Arguments - CON: CON successfully argued that happiness isn't the concern for the government, and refuted all of Pros points.

Reliable Sources - TIE: Neither side used sources
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
just a note, we had 30 minute arguing periods.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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 Hushed 8 years ago
Hushed
ournamestoolongPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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 dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
ournamestoolongPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
ournamestoolongPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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