The Instigator
UltraGuru27
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Re: The United States federal government should increase social services people in poverty in USA

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,858 times Debate No: 11287
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

UltraGuru27

Pro

We need social services to keep people from dying or suffering in the US.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"We" do not share the same precise needs. We may share general categories of need, government-provided social services not among them. While within a context in which such services exist one is at a prohibitive disadvtantage without them, this is due mostly to the fact that one will end up paying the taxes anyway. Unless one is incompetent at providing any value to any person who can provide a value, without those taxes one is at no such disadvantage and use their competence at providing such value in exchange for what one needs.

Now, certainly, the incompetents need government sponsored, tax funded "social services." But why would a competent person have any concern about that? Or why should someone who has no concern about something be forced to?
Debate Round No. 1
UltraGuru27

Pro

Social service programs have proven to be successful to keep persons in poverty from starving and suffering. The more of them the government initiates, the less crime there will be, and the positive effects outnumber the negatives.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

It is of very little interest to keep people who have not earned food from starving and suffering. It can hardly be called a positive, it's essentially neutral to slight negative if a charity does it (depending on how much it costs them), and it's a large negative when it's done by taxation.

"Reducing crime" by paying off the criminals is known as tribute and encourages people to invent new crime waves to "get reduced." Also, you cannot reduce crime by eliminating a crime that is done some of the time and replacing it with a crime (government theft) that is done all of the time. If you are defining crime in purely legalistic terms of course then your definition has no place in a debate about what ought to be the law in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2
UltraGuru27

Pro

UltraGuru27 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Forfeits iz as forfeits doez.
Debate Round No. 3
UltraGuru27

Pro

UltraGuru27 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

And dey doez az dey iz
Debate Round No. 4
UltraGuru27

Pro

UltraGuru27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Why set it to 5 rounds if you can't even finish 3?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
No, community service is not productive and cannot always be used.

Let's say you dangle out a hundred bucks for some bum, and tell him to "earn it" by picking up trash on an empty lot. The lot currently has a bidder who'll pay a thousand bucks for it.

After he cleans it up, another bidder comes who'll pay a thousand fifty.

Was that productive? No, you destroyed the one hundred dollars worth of goods he will consume, and only increased the value of the lot by 50 dollars. In other words, you destroyed 50 bucks.

Though I am in favor of Planned Parenthood.
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
Let me clarify, instead of just "qualifying" people for welfare due to lack of income, lets have them earn it, community service is productive and can always be used. I say instead of handing out welfare checks we hand out contraceptives instead, problem solved.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
By definition, if work is productive it doesn't need a "welfare program." It only needs it if the cost of the program is greater than the product, i.e., the work is not productive but destructive. So, if indeed your qualification for being for a welfare program is productive work, you cannot be in favor of a welfare program.

Unless, of course, what you care about is not actual productive work but rather making receiving the welfare program unpleasant. If one is to have a welfare program, (I'd rather not), I'm glad at least to have it unpleasant.
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
Im ALL for welfare/social programs, as long as they work for it. It takes away every incentive of working for something, or for that matter earning it. Why would someone get a job and work when the government will just hand it to you twice a month. And in those cases where you are THAT poor that for whatever reason you cant get a job... grab a shovel and dig some ditches, or pick up some trash on the side of the road. Do some type of productive work or community service...earn your keep just like the people paying for those "social programs", you know the tax payers, the workers, the REAL strugglers in America.
No votes have been placed for this debate.