The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should there be a homeless shelter in every city?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 76125
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Even though the decrease in the unemployment rate has occurred, there are still more people on the streets. Things like sickness and disease, starvation, and the elements are killing off these innocent people while most of them don't even deserve to be there in the first place!
Putting a homeless shelter in reach of them could get their lives back on track. They could cover meals and clothing and shelter for a few days. Maybe even assist the unfortunate person to get a job.
I say all of this to explain that I really don't like when people stand on the streets with cardboard signs and beg. They need a home!


The answer is not so much whether there should be a homeless shelter or not, but whether homeless shelters are effective for homeless people.

The problem is that homeless shelters are NOT working for them, and they end up in a cycle of being homeless without the resources to help them get back up. I believe there should be homeless shelters ONLY if the programs are effective in assisting them to leave a life of homelessness, and offer them a positive service while their stay in the shelter. Are their programs and businesses who will assist them to find jobs, and is it successful? Is the shelter safe and sanitary? Is it 24 hours a day? How often does a homeless person has to stay in a shelter before finding a permanent home for themselves?

There are some who stay years in a shelter, not just a few days. We need a permanent solution, not a temporary one. I suggest building affordable homes for people in place of shelters, and also to provide them jobs in order to solve homelessness for the long-term.
Debate Round No. 1


Personally, I think homeless shelters are doing a great job and are very effective. One of my friends (I'm not allowed to say) was having a great life until he got fired, lost his licence, and couldn't find a place to live in for a while. He doesn't have any family members that are living so he couldn't really do anything. One man tried to donate some money to him, but it wasn't enough for him to get some things done. In the end, he had to go to a homeless shelter for help. Now he has a job at Target and is working to get his licence back now.

From this experience, he shared some things about how they treated him and that he felt great and the workers didn't try to put him down. He only needed to sleep there for a day and for him, it was the most help he had ever gotten. This is a prime example that homeless shelters are effective.

I do agree with you (Con) that a permanent solution like what you suggested about the affordable homes should be placed. That could work and homeless shelters really do need to be sanitary in my opinion. With people coming in and out and leaving things and sicknesses, it would have to be clean to be able to treat others.

So to sum that all up, I believe that yes, homeless shelters are effective and do work to help people, but there should also be a solution for long term help, like maybe what Con suggested.


In the end, I agree with you about having homeless shelters in every city, as a transitional stay towards long-term housing. The effectiveness of homeless shelters varies, and depends on how well their services and programs are provided. Each public or non-profit homeless shelter/programs is different. We do need to improve the experience of homeless people staying in the shelters in the future. Sorry, I am not a good contender for Con.
Debate Round No. 2


I don't have anything else I really need to state. Homeless shelters are important, considering the fact that 13.2% of the American population is homeless or in a bad situation. They have to be sanitary, clean places and be able to help the homeless get back on their feet. I agree with Con that the shelter should actually affect people and not just push them along.
Hopefully you'll vote for Pro. This is my last argument.


MindforThought forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by maddy_girl 2 years ago
It's my first one, too.
Posted by MindforThought 2 years ago
Sorry, this is my first debate. I don't know how to forfeit. I think I'm supposed to wait until the time is up, sorry about that.
Posted by kr111s 2 years ago
And who will pay for this? I can agree to as many privately funded philanthropic shelters as you want, but I make the choice not to give any money to assist the homeless and don't wish for this choice to be taken away.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Some cities don't have homeless people. Take Vatican City for example
No votes have been placed for this debate.