The Instigator
Lordknukle
Pro (for)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Welfare be removed?

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 9 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,591 times Debate No: 17975
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

Lordknukle

Pro

The argument shall go as follows:

1. Intro (No argument points to be brought up this round)
2. Body/Main Case
3. Cross Examination
4. Conclusion

I will be arguing as to why welfare should be removed from the political system in the United States.

Experienced debaters need not apply as I am very new to this website.

Thank you
Calvincambridge

Con

I will accept your debate with the position welfare needs reform.
Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

First, I would like to start by defining the term "welfare".
Welfare- "Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need".

This definition raises many questions such as: What does being in need really mean? Who is in need and who isn't? Is a person who sits on the couch, does nothing, and mooches money of the government in need? In reality that is the majority of the people on welfare.

I would like to start off my argument with the subject of:

TAX PAYER DOLLARS IN RELATION TO WELFARE

The United States government spends a different amount of money each year on welfare. Averaging out the number, I found that on average it spends about $300 Billion dollars each year.(1) Why should we, the tax paying people be shelling out our money on people who can easily earn it themselves. Short answer, we shouldn't. We live in supposedly Capitalistic society. Therefore, this is a sink-or-swim free market system. We dont like in a communistic society where everybody is equal and deserves the same amount of money. The US is not a soup kitchen which should provide to the poor. This is the survival of the fittest. Our taxpayer dollars should go to more worthy causes such as curing diseases or wars.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

In the preamble to the United States Constitution it stated that:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."(2)
What did they mean when they said "promote the general welfare". Most people agree that "promoting the general welfare" means buildings schools, infrastructure, health regulations, and a governing police body (3). The government has no obligation whatsoever to provide to the poor. The have an obligation to PROTECT them but not to provide for them.

LEADING TO WELFARE

This paragraph obviously does not apply to every single person on welfare. However, it applies to a fair portion if not majority of the people. How did they end up in a situation of welfare? Many of them have become dependent on welfare because of personal problems. Getting involved in drugs, alcohol, gambling addictions, too many children, and many other personal faults. Should the taxpayers pay for the people that can't even make the right decisions for THEMSELVES? That is for you to decide but I believe that answer in quite obvious.

CONCLUSION

Welfare is a harmful part of government subsidy that has done nothing but harm for the United States. It takes money of the hard-working middle and upper class and gives to those who CAN but WONT help themselves. Government and taxpayer money should be spent on other important things such technological or medicinal advances. In short, welfare should be removed.

Sources:
(1)http://www.ourdime.us...
(2)http://www.usconstitution.net...
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Calvincambridge

Con

The answer to your question is yes but in the days of horses there was no global warming. Showing if horses return to the playing field that will help to remove global warming.
Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Pro

I thank my opponent for an informative rebuttal about horses and global warming. However, this is about the removal of welfare. Since this is the cross-examination round, I can't criticize my fellow debater since he posted nothing relevant to my topic of discussion.

In conclusion, welfare should be removed because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars that can go to other uses.

Vote Pro!
Calvincambridge

Con

This will be the previous round and this round. The people who sit on the couches and are lazy should be kicked out of welfare and we shouldent pay taxes for it but that is no reason to remove reform not removal. For people who do really need it removing would be very harmful. Vote con
Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Pro

Thank you for your body case and cross- examination.

In conclusion, I would like to say that welfare is a failed system. It is both a waste of taxpayer dollars and discrepancy to our capitalistic society. My opponent did not bring up any convincing arguments as to why it should stay as is. I hope that you will seize the opportunity vote for me.

VOTE PRO!

Thank you for this pleasant debate.
Calvincambridge

Con

VOTE PRO !!!!! i HAVE MANY ARGUMENTS ELECTRIC CARS ARE USELESS.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
This debate made me literally lol.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
So much for 100.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Come on guys, lets get to 100.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
trolls will continue to be trolls. people like calvincambridge should be banned.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Is it me, or does this debater sound familiar?
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Since this is the cross-examination round, you can only criticize about the content that I put before.

Good Luck
Posted by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
sorry mixed up the debates
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
You are up
Posted by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
oh.... well I do't agree with that you are saying welfare should abolished and be no more I saying it should stay but change.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Your sentence is contradictory "reform" is change while "stay" is keep same.

You are debating that Welfare needs to be kept AS IS..
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: 56-0
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "The answer to your question is yes but in the days of horses there was no global warming." Hmm...interesting response, though the debate was about welfare, not global warming. All seven points to Lordknucke, zero to Calvin.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "but in the days of horses there was no global warming" Fallacy with no means of evidence. Humans only contribute for 3% of the carbon output and our automobiles didn't kick it into overdrive.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry for your wasted time
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was absolute fail, con failed to address anything.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was really really close.
Vote Placed by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate trolls...
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LordknukleCalvincambridgeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious. Con provided no arguments.