The Instigator
pussyphat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Screening people who obtain social assitance from the government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
DeFool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 793 times Debate No: 26299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

pussyphat

Pro

This debate is argueing for the right to screen any family, people or persons obtaining welfare from the government. The screening will be for everything from illegal drug use to internet and tv.
DeFool

Con

I want to thank my partner for having presented this topic for discussion.

A tedious, be necessary task is the chore of definitions.

The premise, which reads...

"This debate is argueing for the right to screen any family, people or persons obtaining welfare from the government. The screening will be for everything from illegal by DownloadNSave" href="?id=26299">drug use to internet and tv."

...I understand to represent a debate over whether or not state governments should investigate matters such as whether or not recipients of taxpayer funds are engaged in any of the following nefarious activities:

- Watching television
- Using illegal drugs
- Logging onto the internet (sending and receiving emails, searching for a job, watching movies, etc.)

I interpret "persons obtaining welfare from the government" as meaning "persons who receive public assistance, taxpayer funds, and/or other forms of public aid."


If we agree on these definitions, I will challenge the premise on the following grounds:

1. "Those who receive public funds" would include so many millions of Americans, that this program would be prohibitively expensive. Every soldier, corporation, large farm or agribusiness, oil tycoon and public sector employee receives public funds. Investigating this many citizens, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, would be massively burdensome to taxpayers. (I agree that we should drug test congressmen, however.)

2. Without any reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are being used by these men and women, they are well within their rights to refuse to comply with any such drug tests. Watching television and surfing the web are not illegal - and the constitution strictly forbids government monitoring of this private activity. These factors make any such program impracticable to implement.

3. This premise is profoundly unserious. There are no policy proposals that might be adopted by any state that make such humiliating and draconian measures likely to ever become law.

Therefore, my argument, as of this round, is that this type of measure is intended only to humiliate the poor. The best outcome for taxpayers is that families in need will prefer to starve rather than risk becoming the subject of a potential serious criminal investigation - which will require time and money in order to fight off. This negligible gain will be overwhelmed by the extravagant cost of implementing such a program. Additionally, so many millions of Americans will qualify as having "received welfare" that much of our constitution (habeas corpus, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, etc) will need to be suspended for an unacceptably large share of the American public.





Debate Round No. 1
pussyphat

Pro

pussyphat forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

Please allow me to extend all of my arguments, while I await my partner's presentation.
Debate Round No. 2
pussyphat

Pro

pussyphat forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

Many thanks to any who might have bothered to read my monologue. Despite the anticlimax, I hope that you might trouble yourself a bit more, and evaluate our performances here. I am almost embarrassed even to ask.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
pussyphatDeFoolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
pussyphatDeFoolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full FF
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
pussyphatDeFoolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro's forfeit but arguments go to Con for lack of a counter by Pro as well as the fact that his arguments were generally sound on their own.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
pussyphatDeFoolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes no arguments. Conduct for FF.