The Instigator
Strycora
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
NoToMainstream
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Soup Kitchens should be promoted.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Strycora
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 958 times Debate No: 59101
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Strycora

Pro

Thanks in advance for accepting, NoToMainstream.

I will be arguing that soup kitchens should be promoted. I believe that people should be urged to donate to soup kitchens and to volunteer at them. I do not believe that there should be a soup kitchen tax, however.

First round is for acceptance/opening statements.
NoToMainstream

Con

No problem , my fellow man . I state otherwise though . Soup kitchens should not be promoted because of the effect that may not be obviously visible but detrimental to society as a whole . Good luck and enjoy the debate
Debate Round No. 1
Strycora

Pro

Soup kitchens are voluntary initiatives taken up by charitable organizations and charities that serve to feed those who have next to nothing. Why are they so important?

1. They provide a "safety net" that ensures that people who go broke and lose their jobs don't starve to death.

a) Anyone can lose everything; its a possibility that cannot be ruled out due to the chaos of market economies. Even if you consider yourself financially stable, the stability is conditional on many things such as the success if your employer or the growth/shrinkage rate of the industry you work in.

2. By feeding the hungry, they keep the peace.

a) Hungry, broke people have no concern for morality or the law; they are out of homeostasis, and like any animal out of homeostasis, their number 1 priority will be to get fed. They will kill for a meal, and once you've begun a life of crime, it's natural to continue with it.

3. They allow entities to aid the needy and therefore fulfill their religious/moral/existential goals.

a) As long as there are needy people, those motivated to help them are in the right. If soup kitchens are discouraged, the masses will change their moral compass, and helping the poor will be seen as an immoral act. Because helping others is moral, people should be encouraged to it in any way they see fit. Soups kitchens should be promoted as one of their options.

Conclusion

It is the right of an entity (be it an individual or an organization) to behave charitably. Charitable behavior is helpful to society because without it, those at the bottom would suffer greatly and will be more liable to turn against society. It is not necessary that soup kitchens should be funded by the government, so those that are unwilling to participate in charity are not losing anything.
NoToMainstream

Con

Before I begin arguments , I would like to address the arguments presented by the government side.

First of all ,you say that by feeding the hungry , you keep the peace. Well , first of all how can you assume that it guarantees peace ? Is it proved that areas with soup kitchens have lower crime rates? NO. This is because the homeless are there for a reason . They are there either because they are neglected by their families , lazy or have a natural attitude defect . So how can you say they just want food . Because as you can see in the modern society , most of the homeless steal money for drugs , alcohol , cigarettes rather than food .

Another point you mentioned was They allow entities to aid the needy and therefore fulfil ( correction ) their religious/moral/existential goals. First of all , I am here today to propose a better alternative to help the poor instead of soup kitchens so I am not saying that helping the poor is an immoral act as you suggested . So with that being said , your point is of no use to this debate .

When we say soup kitchens , we are talking about stationary , built to the ground centres that provide food for the people . It is not one of those YouTube videos that people distribute food to the homeless . That is not soup kitchens . With that in mind , I would like to move in to my first point .

By instigating soup kitchens , we are sending a wrong message to society . We are telling the younger generations that it is okay to be lazy in life , it is okay to not give your all in school because when you come out to the real world , we will help you by giving you food even though you don't want to help yourself . Do we really want an increase in the homeless ? Do we really want a mainstream negative attitude that emerges to this world in the form of our children when we are in a progressive era of technology and modernisation? Is all of it worth it? Imagine a world where majority of the human population starts to become poor and homeless . Can we even provide sufficient help in the form of soup kitchens? We should not let our emotions take control of our mindsets but think about this issue in the long - term .

Where do the homeless live ? Well , the homeless obviously begs . And where do they beg? The cities , of course ! They beg where there are a lot of people in an area . And soup kitchens which are catered to the homeless , obviously would want to set it up in a place where there are many homeless people . So imagine a city that is already so congested be even more crowded with the homeless queuing up for food and encouraging more of the homeless from other areas to go to that specific area to get that food . Consider the possible diseases that could spread because of the homeless's poor health and hygiene . Consider how the homeless can steal from others . Pick - pockets , daylight robbery and get swallowed into the crowd . Contrary to what the government said , I say that this will increase the crime rates not decrease it .

Let's actually understand how soup kitchens work . The homeless , queues up to get food . But let's stop right there . Queue?
Homeless people with their current state won't understand the etiquette of how society works . There could be shoving , fighting . Death might even occur considering the desperateness and the terrible state of the homeless.

So instead of witnessing all the defects and disadvantages I have mentioned , I propose that people might as well invest through the government to improve the facilities of schools that provide free education for the poor and everyone else in need. After all , as suggested by many world leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi , education is the key to prevent poverty from occurring in the first place . Think about it: Every educated person is not rich, but almost every education person has a job and a way out of poverty. So education is a fundamental solution to poverty.
-- Governor Kathleen Blanco .

Conclusion :
Soup kitchens is a cure . Education is prevention . Prevention is always better than cure . With that being said , I would like to end my arguments by reinstating that Soup Kitchens should not be promoted .
Debate Round No. 2
Strycora

Pro

I would like to remind my opponent that I am not "the government" nor a representative of it. I am an individual arguing for the promotion of soup kitchens. Remember also that I am not arguing for government funded soup kitchens.

If we examine them closely, Con's arguments are full of fallacies. Typical for arguments generated by a politician. I will go through them individually.


Argument: "how can you assume that it guarantees peace ? Is it proved that areas with soup kitchens have lower crime rates? NO. This is because the homeless are there for a reason . They are there either because they are neglected by their families , lazy or have a natural attitude defect ."

Rebuttal: I am not saying that impoverished individuals only want food, I am saying that they definitely need food. That homeless people use money to buy drugs and alcohol is merely a reason for charitable individuals to volunteer at soup kitchens rather than just giving them money. I sense condemnation in your argument here: please remember that it is not only lazy/bad people that can fall on hard times and need help from the community; anyone can lose everything. We should be careful not to make sweeping declarations about every homeless/impoverished person. By feeding the hungry, we make it just a little bit easier for them to get back on their feet. We satisfy their only universal craving (all impoverished people are only necessarily addicted to food and water) and in doing so we allow them to focus on getting their lives back together.


Argument: They allow entities to aid the needy and therefore fulfil ( correction ) their religious/moral/existential goals. First of all , I am here today to propose a better alternative to help the poor instead of soup kitchens so I am not saying that helping the poor is an immoral act as you suggested . So with that being said , your point is of no use to this debate .

Rebuttal: Fulfill is spelled as F-U-L-F-I-L-L. Look it up. Anyway, you claimed to propose a solution to institutional poverty. Individuals who want to volunteer at/donate to/organize soup kitchens are not trying to preform the governmental task of eliminating institutional poverty: they are trying to feed the poor who are mere days away from starvation. I will get back to your point on education shortly, but here I maintain that trying to feed the poor is a worthwhile and morally valid endeavor. If nobody does it, it won't happen and people will suffer and die as a result.


Argument: By instigating soup kitchens , we are sending a wrong message to society . We are telling the younger generations that it is okay to be lazy in life , it is okay to not give your all in school because when you come out to the real world , we will help you by giving you food even though you don't want to help yourself . Do we really want an increase in the homeless ?

Rebuttal: This argument makes the outlandish assumption that being homeless and wating in line for a basic meal at the soup kitchen is something that younger generations will aspire to. Regardless of whether soup kitchens exist, our culture is so consumerist that everyone has dreams of becoming rich, and everyone fears becoming homeless and hungry. Your argument that helping homeless people to survive will increase the societally perceived economic value of homelessness, causing people to "go hobo" is absurd. You might argue, then, that soup kitchens will turn the homeless complacent so that they don't try to find a job. To that, my retort is that no starving people will be able to successfully apply at a job, nor will they survive to be hired.


Argument: "Imagine a city that is already so congested be even more crowded with the homeless queuing up for food and encouraging more of the homeless from other areas to go to that specific area to get that food . Consider the possible diseases that could spread because of the homeless's poor health and hygiene . Consider how the homeless can steal from others . Pick - pockets , daylight robbery and get swallowed into the crowd . Contrary to what the government said , I say that this will increase the crime rates not decrease it ."

Rebuttal: The only reason that a soup kitchen would cause congestion in the city would be that there are so many hungry people in the area. If this is the case, then the soup kitchen is providing a much needed service. Your argument that a high density of homeless people in one area would increase the crime rate of the city may seem valid but is flawed in reality. Homeless people found misbehaving can be denied food by the soup kitchen, and police can patrol the area to ensure that no crimes are being committed: it will be easy for them to watch over a single facility and the surrounding area, easier, in fact, than if the hungry were dispersed throughout the city. Remember, also, that full tummies are less dangerous in principle. I am glad that you brought up the point about disease: in response, I propose that organizations that start soup kitchens should do even more good and place another, clinical facility nearby that treats sick people that cannot afford medical care and promotes good hygiene throughout the area.Remember also that I am arguing that soup kitchens should be promoted: there should be more of them. If there are soup kitchens everywhere, then the homeless needn't all flock to one.


Conclusion

Banning soup kitchens sends the wrong message to society. The correct message to send is that soup kitchens are good and that those who work for them are providing a good service for the poor, and by extension, society as a whole. Banning soup kitchens tells the younger generations that its OK to be selfish and that we do not have to do anything when we see our fellow man starving in the streets. What kind of moral code is that?
My opponent proposed that the solution to poverty is to invest in education, however, he did not provide a method of implementation. How are we supposed to make sure that EVERYONE is educated enough to be secure in their jobs? That sounds like a far off goal that would involve fixing the whole economy. Soup kitchens do not work towards a far off, institutional goal; they are valuable because they help to reduce the suffering of America's worst off residents.
Con suggests that we give up on these people because all homeless people are lazy criminals. This claim is blatantly false: anyone can fall on hard times, and many are born into poverty. Letting people starve to death when we have the resources to prevent such horror is sin, it is institutional evil, it is selfishness, and it shows an extreme deficit of compassion. People should be allowed and even encouraged to help the poor through soup kitchens and other charitable programs.

Thanks to Con for participating.
NoToMainstream

Con

First of all , I congratulate the government for going against his own word in the comment he posted of this debate regarding the content of Round 3 . First of all , I apologize for using the term 'government' as I have taken part in too many verbal debates . And yes , I took in mind when you say that we should not implement the tax. And fulfil is British spelling as I have been taught through British Education here in Malaysia.

First of all , the pro today said that my views were parallel to a politician . Thank you for the compliment . If you examine the content of this debate closely , The Pro is seen as a politician because he manipulates my most fundamental point
He said I didn't have A way of implementation. I did . People can invest through the government.

I would just like to address one or two points said by pro . You said that banning soup kitchens sends a wrong message to society . Again , you manipulate my words and the topic today . The topic is Should Soup Kitchens be promoted . I'm not saying it should be banned and I never will but there is a better approach in the form of education . And when you say police would be patrolling the area , you should have clarified that under your scope of the debate .

Think about it . Majority of the homeless are well deserving of their places . How often do you see someone in the streets who lost all his money through robbery ? Almost never . The hard fact of life is that you can't please everyone . All we can do is we give people CHANCES in schools . And if they can't help themselves , it's not our duty to help them .
It's not wrong , but it's not advised . Thanks to Pro for participating .
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Strycora 3 years ago
Strycora
Voters' advice: Assume less about people.

Good debate to you, sir.
Posted by NoToMainstream 3 years ago
NoToMainstream
Voters , before you vote , please be more empathetic . how would you ,as con , approach this debate in any better or more relevant way compared to mine . Please be more understanding . Thanks.
Posted by Strycora 3 years ago
Strycora
So that all arguments may be addressed by the opponent, please do not post any new arguments in round 3: it'll be for refutation and closing statements only.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
StrycoraNoToMainstreamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro demonstrated food very important within soup kitchens, and con simply had too much assumptions
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
StrycoraNoToMainstreamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved food a necessity. Con set up a false dichotomy between SK and edu, and assumed homeless to be lazy.