Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.
Good afternoon DDO. Today our topic is that the governments should give money/food to the poor. I am Pro and the opponent is Con.
1. No forfeiting
2. No "kk's"
3. No trolling
4. BOP is on Pro
5. If you are not over the ELO of 2500, you cannot accept.
1. Government: The system by which a state or community is governed
2. Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth
3. A current medium of exchange in the form; of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively
4. Deficient or lacking
I look for the an exciting debate!
Thanks for Lee001 to accept. I am glad that she read the rules and accepted because she was over 2500 ELO. I will have few arguments.
1. If governments do not give food or money to the poor, they can't survive.
My first arguments is that if governments do not give food or money to the poor, they can't survive. This is because the poor have no money and food to do anything. We are not saying give as much like how the rich has money, but to save lives. Now days, people donate to places like Unicef. However if the citizens who afford to buy stuff, pay a bit more taxes to the poor, they can save lives.
For, example if there is a poor family with not much money, that cannot afford anything, they will soon stave. However if there is rich family who has millions of money, they will soon buy stuff that they want but not need. The things needed are food, money, shelter, transportation, and healthcare. However soon they will buy all kinds of things that they use only a few times. They will go to all sorts of vacations. What I am saying is that just buy some things of want, and just buy a lot of need. If you think that you do not need it, just don't buy it. You can give it to the government or to the charity to help the poor and not just buy unimportant things.
2. The government's main job is to keep care of the citizens and the country
One of the governments main jobs is to keep care of the citizens. If they do not help the poor, they are not doing their job. I believe that the government has to do their job. Even though they do their other jobs like making laws and having order, if they do not care for the citizens, there will be less economic growth. The poor can't pay taxes, but if the government takes care of them to let them live with some food and some shelter, and a bit of money, I think that the citizens can get a job, get usual income, and then keep an end in poverty.
If governments do not keep care of the citizens, with food money, or possibly healthcare, then they do not do their job. This is basically the same thing as not making laws. When the government does not do their job, they soon fail. This is why the US, China, and many developed countries are in a success becaus ehte government is doing the right thing. However, if they fail, soon the country itself will be poorer. I think that the government has to keep care of the citizens and the country.
3. To help the poor give them money.
The problem of poverty is huge, in rich and poor countries alike. Around the world, nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, living on less than $US1.50 a day. Even in the United States, on many measures the wealthiest country in the world, the Dept of Agriculture estimates that 14.5 per cent of the population experience food insecurity, defined as being ‘uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.’
Faced with images of the hunger and suffering caused by famines and extreme poverty, a natural and intuitive reaction is to send food. This reaction is often politically appealing in countries that happen to have large stockpiles of food, either because of unforeseen declines in market demand, or because of government policies such as price supports for farmers.
On the other hand, many advocates of development aid dismiss food aid as a short-term ‘band-aid’, and argue that the aim of aid should be to provide the ‘right’ kind of assistance, as measured by subsequent economic growth. Advocates of aid initially focused on economic infrastructure and industrial development, and have more recently turned their attention to health and education.
On the other hand, as with international food aid, the SNAP program is regularly derided as a bandaid approach. Liberals frequently point to education as the way to provide real opportunities for the poor.
Which of these approaches is right? Much of the time, neither. While support for health and education has a better track record than food aid, there is a growing body of evidence to say that, in both poor countries and rich ones, the best way to help people is to give them money.
To see why this should be so, ask: What would a desperately poor family do with some extra money? They might use to stave off immediate disaster, buying urgently needed food or medical attention for sick children. On they other hand, they could put the towards school fees for the children, or save up a piece of capital like a sewing machine or mobile phone that would increase the family’s earning power.
So, the poor family is faced with the reality of opportunity cost. Improved living standards in the future come at the cost of present suffering, perhaps even starvation and death. Whether or not their judgements are the same as we would make, they are in the best possible position to make them.
This is a straightforward application of Lesson 1. Market prices reflect (and determine) the opportunity costs faced by consumers and producers.
Exactly the same points apply in rich countries. Giving poor people assistance in kind, such as food stamps and subsidized housing, has a lot of political appeal. Not only does it meet an apparent need, but it appears to reduce the chance that the recipients will waste their extra income on luxuries, or on alcohol and tobacco. In addition, as in the case of the US food stamps program, it may also be possible to form a political coalition with producer interests, represented by the farm lobby.
Thinking in terms of opportunity cost, however, we can see that aid in kind almost inevitably results in waste. The opportunity cost of subsidized housing is the low rent paid for the house, while the opportunity cost of moving usually includes going to the back of the line. So having secured subsidized housing, people will stay there even if the house no longer suits their needs, because it is too big, too small, or too far away from a new job.
The same kinds of problems come up with food stamps. Families poor enough to get food stamps face all kinds of problems. They might, for example, need urgent medical or dental care, or be faced with eviction if they don’t make a rent payment.
Most of the time food stamps cover only part of a family’s food budget, so they are really just like cash. Families can meet some of their food bills with stamps, then use the money they save to meet other needs The opportunity cost of spending more on food is the alternative that can’t be afforded.
But it’s precisely when people need money most, to the point where they are prepared to live on a restricted diet, that the limits of food stamps start to bite. If poor families were given money, they could choose to pay the rent bill even if it meant living on rice and beans. That’s a hard choice, but it might be the best one available.
Unsurprisingly, then, poor people often try to change some of their food stamps for money. This is denounced as ‘fraud’ and used as a reason for cutting food stamps even further.
It is market prices that determine the opportunity costs of goods and services for individuals and families. So, when people choose how to spend additional money, the opportunity cost of one choice is the alternative that could be bought for the same amount.
The idea that poor people don’t understand this is patronizing and wrong. The tighter are the constraints on your budget, the more important it is to pay attention to them. Poor people often have less access to markets of all kinds, including supermarkets basic financial markets such as bank accounts and face complex and variable prices as a result. Nevertheless, many of them manage to find highly creative ways of stretching a limited budget to meet their needs. Additional constraints, in the form of payments that can only be spent in particular places and on particular goods, are the last thing they need.
For these reasons, I hope you vote for Pro!
Thank you Pro for starting this debate!
The topic states "Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor."
My main argument will be 1. Just like welfare, freely giving causes the needy to be dependent on the government 2. The government shouldn't give out these thing, charities should.
 Dependent - "a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support."
 Give - " freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to."
When someone relies on someone, or something else, they become dependent on that person or thing. They *expect* these things (food--money..etc) to be freely given to them. They expect to get these things without doing anything for it. They don't believe they should or have to do anything in return.
The problem with this, is that the homeless have become do dependent that they are unable to live on their own *without* the support of the government. The government doesn't teach the homeless social skills, appropriate behaviors and basic professional skills. They don't teach them how to get a job, how to fill out a resume and such. So, if the government were to cut off all types of welfare, the homeless would NOT be able to survive on their own because they have became too dependent.
As provided by the definition of "give" it's easy to comprehend the fact that the homeless have become dependent on any aid given to them, and they're not taught anything that will better them and further them in life.
The resolution also says that we should *give* money to the homeless. This is completely ridiculous. Freely giving money to the homeless would old help those fund their drug or alcohol addiction.
Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs. Alcohol abuse is more common in older generations, while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007).
As you can see, the statistics are pretty high for homeless with an addiction. If the government were to *freely* give out money, the homeless would be able to fund their addiction even more.
"Governments solve large problems by general means, but the problem of poverty is individual - the government doesn’t have the ability to solve the problem at the personal case by case level that leads people out of poverty. Only private charities, well meaning, community or sectorial-based and unlike the public sector, unencumbered by bureaucracy, can solve each individual’s problems with the follow up needed to teach them how to fish, not give them fish.... In any case, even if the poor person is in a state of destitution, we do not believe governments should directly provide money to this person, as done today. In our points, we detail our view of why it is the government’s role to directly take care of basic needs, such as feeding those who can’t afford to buy food, but not provide those people with financial aid on top of that.
What we propose is over time, reduce until cancellation the amount of money given on the basis of relative socio-economic status, while at the same time using that money to enable larger tax breaks towards giving to charity or employing the poor. We’re only cutting financial support - not actual services which enable basic rights, such as public health or schools. This will also bring about a big change in perspective, and allow the people to contribute to the causes that they believe in, instead of taking their money for a program that consistently fails to deliver results.
This will keep the same amount of money in the welfare system, or possibly more, but now the money will be targeted and used more efficiently, more discerningly, and the problem of poverty will be reduced significantly."
It's *not* the government's responsibility to freely give money and food to the homeless, so an alternative is that charities should do the work, I mean they already do.
 1. Charities are focused. Each charity is aimed at a specific problem, and chooses the tools & personnel most suited to solve it. None of the govt’s overhead means more efficiency. Charities aren’t burdened by needless rules, that apply only in governmental projects. They can hire and fire with no constrains, with much of the staff actually volunteering.
3. Charities have to be efficient. If they don’t show results, or if the donors feel that their money is misused, they’ll lose donors, just as if volunteers feel that their efforts are wasted, they’ll leave for a better charity. Also, by law they are more transparent then byzantine govt programs, and must be so to keep the donors happy, and acquire new ones.
4. Many Charities work directly with and in the community - charities can better understand what each community needs, and how to best supply it.
As you can see, many charities are quite capable of helping the homeless. They can shelter then, and help with them with providing food. Some charities even have programs to help the homeless get their life back on track. Pro's resolution included money, meaning he believes the gov. should freely give money. This in fact would *worsen* the homeless causing them to A. Fund their addiction and 2. Become dependent and lack life skills.
Thanks for your arguments.
Now I will go on my rebuttals.
1. In this statement, I think Con misunderstanded something. The affirmative side never said that the poor should give nothing in return for what they get. Either the resolution. The resolution didn't say that we needed to give things back or nothing back. I think this is just a misunderstanding of Con. Also if Con says that statement, the poor can do jobs that are free, and they give some money. They can help the government by doing some jobs. If the poor at least do this, the government can at least give them food or give money from their jobs.
2. Part of her arguments is a copy-paste. How I can prove. When I am writing my arguments, only that part is white.
These are my rebuttals. If there is any coplains or further rebuttals, I will get to them later.
Okay first off, Pro plagiarized his 3rd argument. He bluntly accuses me of plagiarizing, but unlike him I numbered and cited my sources.
Pro states I misunderstood the resolution.
He says "In this statement, I think Con misunderstanded something. The affirmative side never said that the poor should give nothing in return for what they get. Either the resolution. The resolution didn't say that we needed to give things back or nothing back. "
Well if you look at the definition of "Give"- cause or allow (someone or something) to have (something, especially something abstract); provide or supply with ( https://www.google.com...) you will see giving means to freely give something without expecting something in return. Maybe you should try clarifying.
Honestly, I'm irritated because Pro didn't rebut *any* of my arguments. He left them all untouched and therefore, he agrees with my case.
But to be fair, I guess I'll rebut his points.
Pro states "If governments do not give food or money to the poor, they can't survive."
False. As provided in my argument, charities and shelters can help feed the homeless. Pros statement merely suggest that if the government docent help the homeless, they'll die, which is untrue.
Pro then states "The government's main job is to keep care of the citizens and the country"
Well, it may be their job, but there are many charities and churches who feel like its their duty to help the homeless, so let them.
To help the poor give them money.
Like I argued in R2, giving them money is NOT the awnser. They will likely fund their addiction and not use it for basic necessities. That's why we should only provide them with food and water.
I'm not happy with where this debate has went. -.-
I totally rebutted everything. I know I didn't rebut the third so I will right now.
3. Even though the government can't help every single one who is in poverty, they have to at least help. The government's job is to takes care of the citizens. They must at least do something. Also like what you said, charities can't do everything too. We need a lot of the governments help to do this.
Why I won this debate
1. I made good rebuts, and even though it took some time, I rebutted Con's points.
Vote for Pro!
Dependence case and he didn't say anything about my alternatives. Therefore, he didn't rebut any of my points. He left my alternative un-touched, meaning he agrees with my alternative.
I in fact, rebutted all of his points in round 3.
Pro says you should vote for him because "I made good rebuts, and even though it took some time, I rebutted Con's points." But he didn't really rebut anything?
So, vote for Con!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|