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

Summer Regular Tournament - Welfare should end in the U.S

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
That1User has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/22/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 94015
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Resolution is:
Resolved: Welfare should end in the U.S

I will be arguing for the resolution, my opponent will be arguing against it.

Definition of Welfare: a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc. (taken from Merriam-Webster)

BoP is shared

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Conclusion

- No Kritiks or semantical arguments



I accept.
Pro's BoP is to prove that Welfare should end in the U.S., as Con my BoP is to negate the resolution by proving that Welfare should not end in the U.S.
Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency

End: (The) Cessation of a course of action, pursuit, or activity (

In the United States:
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate.

Welfare and Unemployment

The effects of welfare on employment can be quite severe. As I will explain more later, welfare is often seen as an unemployment trap because it essentially removes the incentive to work by literally handing benefits to the unemployed. As more un/minimal-skilledlabourworkers find themselves out of work and in need of welfare, they tend to consciously avoid further employment in fear that they will lose the benefits that are being handed to them. This is counterproductive because finding new work is essential to climbing up the “ladder”, from which people develop their skills, which allows them to find a better-paying job. Not onlythat,but as Milton Friedman explains, welfare deprives families, especially those who feel they should provide for their families, of their dignity. In turn, this can further amplify economic issues, where parents begin to feel that they are incapable of providing for their children, and decide to permanently rely on welfare for however long the program is designed to last.

These are also well supported by statistics. The bulk of the United statespaymore than a $8/h job in welfare benefits, while 6 states pay more than a $12/h job, and $8 states pay more than the average salary of a U.S teacher. [1] The citation also includes a ranking of top welfare-paying states, with Hawaii being on top, paying out the equivalent of a $17.50 job in welfare benefits.

A study done by Hotz and Mullin also indicates that cutting welfare benefits can have a positive effect on employment, as they measured employment rates between two different groups, one being the experimental group, where these cuts were tested, and the other being the control group, to compare changes against. The result was that a modest cut in benefits can lead to a modest increase in employment. [2]

Political Corruption in the Welfare System

The title is quite self-explanatory, but to summarize, welfare is also a working tool that attracts voters, especially from immigrants and other minorities, who've had trouble finding work. For example, Immigrants who come here from Mexico, and are provided with welfare benefits, are more likely to vote for the party in support of these benefits than they are for the opposition. The same goes withanyone who's parents have had financial issues, and could not afford proper schooling for their child. Instead of giving these people the freedom to climb up the skill ladder, they are stuck in the welfare trap under the illusion that these benefits have been kindly fought for by members of a certain party. However, it's clear that this is more likely to part of an agenda to outcompete the opposing party.

Evidence for this exists on PewResearch, which has found that of Latinos who are likely unauthorized immigrants, and who identify with a party, are overwhelmingly supportive of the democratic party, likely because of the abovementioned illusion. [3]

Spending has not Improved Poverty Rate

The below graph indicates poverty rates and anti-poverty spending. [4]

As seen, the poverty rate has remained relatively stationary, with a few ups and downs, but the graph doesn't show much vertical displacement when graphing the data. On the other hand, percapitaanti-poverty spending has gone up tremendously. This clearly indicates a fault in the system – that the increased spending isn't tackling the problem, and therefore should be scrapped and replaced with more entry level-based employment benefits for these people such as the EITC, which provides a tax credit to those who are unemployed, incentivizes them to continue work.


Welfare spending has proven to be less than useful in tackling the issue with poverty. It acts as an unemploymenttrap,and is also used to advance political agendas by parties who are known for their support of these programs.

Moreimportantlythough, it is highly ineffective, and should be completely replaced with a more suitable alternative.








As Con, it is my BoP to negate the resolution by proving that Welfare should not end in the United States.

What welfare is:
"A government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc. (taken from Merriam-Webster) Welfare offers economic protection for those who do not have it, and it provides money for things such as food, water, housing, and medical costs. Money for these things fulfills the physiological level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is the 1st because without food, water, shelter, and medical care an individual cannot survive in life. ( Welfare also fulfills the 2nd level of needs in the hierarchy, which is safety. Safety includes economic, personal, and medical security, and welfare provides this safety net for citizens currently in a state of insecurity and allows for citizens who are doing alright for something to fall back on in case things go wrong. If welfare is terminated in the United States, millions will have their safety net cut. According to the US Census Bureau, 52.2 million Americans are recipients of welfare (, and 65% of American children are dependent on a type of welfare. ( If Welfare ends in the United States, then millions of people will lose their economic security to provide for their most basic needs such as food, water, shelter, and medical care, thus welfare should not end in the United States.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponents arguments are all based on the assumption that welfare is the only way that allows these needs to be met. Basic necessities such as food, waterand shelter can all be achieved via a wage payedby employment. The goal should be to bring people who are reliant on welfare, back to work. However, this "safety net" seems to act like a spider web, where anyone who finds themselves unemployed and unable to meet financial needs, are trapped in a welfare program where it is too risky to leave. I have pointed this out in my initial arguments, where I compared welfare programs by stateto an equivalent wage provided by a job on a per hour basis. The more the program gives out, the less likely people will want to work. Not only does this lack of employment affect families on a personal level, but it also has adverse effects on economic growth. Small businesses find that they need to compete with welfare payments to attract workers, resulting in less overall employment, similar to what happens with the minimum wage. [1]

Like I already mentioned, a more practical and effective approach would be to implement policies that encourage employment. Tax credits to low-income workers would prove to be much more effective, as it promotes employment, thus allowing workers to access those goods my opponent mentioned, while maintaining their productivity and leaving family providers with a sense of dignity - that they are actually able to work for their money rather than just receive it from government.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by OreosAreCool 2 years ago
I linked the site because it explained the effect I was talking about, and I showed a correlation between welfare and unemployment. If you disagree with cat's opinion on the minimum wage, then that's fine, but it doesn't matter since the link was only used as elaboration rather than evidence.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 2 years ago
obviously the link means something to you as you cited it to help prove your point.

the irrelevance applies more to the cato institute.
Posted by OreosAreCool 2 years ago
The link doesn't mean much, as the reference was made just to describe the effect. Whether or not you agree that the MW has that effect or not is irrelevant.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 2 years ago
a link from the cato institute? really?

there is no one more utopian than a free market zealot.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
Easily a win for Pro. Con's argument was undeveloped, while Pro had a very large and well written argument.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
Sorry for my underdeveloped argument, I was under time restraints.
Posted by OreosAreCool 2 years ago
I don't know why some words just merged into one, sorry about that. You can ask me here what I meant to say if one of the merged words seems unreadable
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.