The Instigator
SaadTheWise
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Equality2447
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Social Security should be drastically cut, if not eliminated altogether.

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 5 votes the winner is...
SaadTheWise
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 595 times Debate No: 43329
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

SaadTheWise

Pro

Social security was established during a time when extreme measures needed to be taken. It is now an outdated system that puts strain on the general population. The cons of this system outweigh the benefits for those who reap from them. It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure that one retires out of poverty, but the responsibility of the individual to save for himself.
Equality2447

Con

Unfortunately many people, ederly people who forged the way for us to be sitting here right now having this debate depemd on social security and we should not cut it. Infact by your logic shouldn't we use social security again because this is, the worst depression since the great depression, worse In some places like Michigan. The elderly have forged te way for us to be here right now and we should not though them away because it is not convent for us, when the elderly were raising us it was not convenient for them should they of not paid for us and thrown us away.
Debate Round No. 1
SaadTheWise

Pro

The generation which you speak of that forged the way for us is unfortunately almost all but gone. You now speak of the generation after "The Greatest Generation", which you argue would be snuffed by social security.

Under this logic, you can keep extending your argument indefinitely to say that we cannot snuff the elderly who rely on social security since there will always be an elderly generation relying on it.
The fact is that many people (but unfortunately not enough) have been saving for retirement little by little for as long as they have been working, and could be prepared to retire without it.

I do not argue that cutting social security would not hurt in the short term, but I do argue that the benefits would outweigh those hardships in the long run.

As a capitalistic society, we reward those who work hard to succeed. Yet Social Security in its essence throws much of that hard work away. It redistributes the wealth of the people to ensure those who were less responsible with their money are still covered. It is not a surprise that the United States is in as much debt as it is. Government spending is through the roof, and it is inflated and unnecessarily large programs like social security that are to blame.

I reiterate that it is the responsibility of our government to uphold our constitution and defend our nation, but it is upon the responsibility of the individual to ensure his or her quality of life is up to their standards. When you work it is your money that you are earning. It should be you who decides how to spend it.
Equality2447

Con

Equality2447 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SaadTheWise

Pro

SaadTheWise forfeited this round.
Equality2447

Con

Equality2447 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
Shame Con FF'd
Posted by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
I feel that pro made a very good libertarian argument, although I think social security would not be a broken system at all if congress were not allowed to borrow from it. Instead, all the money would be untouchable and could only be received and distributed. There is no good reason that money meant to help the elderly and retired should be used to buy a tank. Social security is a carefully, well made system it's just that the fools we have elected to congress have tainted it like everything else.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
SaadTheWiseEquality2447Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Saad made more convincing arguments. Con's main point was that old people depend on it now, but provided no reason why they would be worse off without it. Also Con forfeited first thereby conceding to most of pro's arguments
Vote Placed by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
SaadTheWiseEquality2447Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, and his grammar was certainly worse than Pro's. I don't understand why people arbitrarily start debates. Pro, you did make me think twice, but I still disagree. Challenge me to a debate that allows 2 day intervals, and I will accept.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
SaadTheWiseEquality2447Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
SaadTheWiseEquality2447Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
SaadTheWiseEquality2447Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate that I am voting for pro at all I was hoping that con would put up a fight but he would rather forfeit. Anyway, pro had better grammar and arguments, neither had poor conduct and pro could not sway me from being against this idea but I refuse to vote at all for someone that would abandon their beliefs and forfeit so easily.