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

Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless...

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,126 times Debate No: 14743
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Most people don't understand the point of tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for poor and homeless people. Having been on that side of the fence, and having a modicum of experience with the 501(c)(3) criteria, I intend to provide arguments to support my idea of tax-exempt, or tax-deductible, status for poor and homeless people.

Legally, corporations - especially tax-exempt non-profits, - are considered legal entities... not unlike human beings. They're "born" when they're incorporated; they're fed by the donations and profits they receive; they dress in buildings, and use tools to work; they learn, by keeping records; they keep themselves healthy and functional, with the help of their volunteers and employees; their brains are their boards of directors; their immune systems are the screening processes for volunteers and employees, and legal counsel; they make statements, and follow rules; they grow old; they can develop viruses and cancers, in the form of corrupt employees, volunteers and board members; they can perform first-aide on themselves with limited liability, and get surgery done on themselves by firing or getting rid of the cause of their problems; they can be insulted by other organizations, and injured legally; they can bleed out resources, and starve without resources or profits; they must make up a will to leave their assets to another corporation, in many cases; and, they can even die.

The question is: since the Law already recognizes tax-exempt organizations as being legal entities, and human beings are also legal entities, why can't human beings receive tax exemption?

If homeless and poor individuals could solicit donations and volunteership from others, without repercussions, and not have to pay taxes on the charity they receive, the government would be able to shut down all kinds of programs that are not only operating in the red, but are also a burden to the average taxpayer. People would be more inclined to act charitably which, if history and psychology are any indicators, would inspire them to a higher standard of morality; nearly-simultaneously reducing illegal and immoral activity on an exponential level, and eventually inspiring them to selfless acts of kindness. In my humble opinion, win-freakin'-win, baby! Other reasons are as follows:

I know a lot of people dislike the I.R.S., and want to get rid of them. Their mantra is, "No Taxation, Without Representation!". But, from my perspective, the Bible advocates using corrupted systems for whatever good they can provide. It also advocates joining with your enemies, to work toward a common cause...

Here's why I believe that tax exemption would be good for individuals:

I~ They could get the help they need, when they need it.
II~ People could rest easy; knowing that their donations and volunteership are going to people who need it, in the way that they need it, and knowing as well that these people are subject to the same laws that govern other tax-exempt non-profits.
III~ In return for donations and volunteership, tax-exempt individuals could give tax write-offs to people who want something in return... which would be almost as good as cash. With fewer taxes being collected, and more people getting what they need to get out of their bad situations into more stable ones, the economy will naturally revive more rapidly than any "stimulus" plan could ever accomplish the goal.
IV~ They could get whatever they need, from the right sources, ensuring they get the best they can get... including medical help when, and in the way, they need it... hence, ensuring the uselessness of the new "universal health-care" laws.
V~ People with this tax exemption would be able to file for it for no cost, ensuring that nobody would have to do without.
VI~ Keeping proper records, these same people would be relatively free from government oppression and the "nanny-state".
VII~ It would seriously hurt only the corrupt organizations, which would ensure a change in their policies that would be necessary for them to actually do what they say they're designed to do.
VIII~ They could invest in future needs, without actually wasting the donations or volunteering they receive.
IX~ At the final fulfillment of their needs, they could re-incorporate for a for-profit business; relinquish their tax exemption; or incorporate with other tax-exempt individuals into a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, with which other individuals could affiliate... ensuring unity of all the interested and involved people, and organizations, under one common cause: the betterment of their fellow "man".

Of course, some would argue that homeless and impoverished people usually don't have to pay taxes... after all, you can't get blood from a stone, right? That's yet another part of the point: they're already half-way there!


first off id just like to say thankyou to my opponent for this debate, and good luck :)
prequel args:
Q- "The question is: since the Law already recognizes tax-exempt organizations as being legal entities, and human beings are also legal entities, why can't human beings receive tax exemption?"
well, looking purely from a legal stand-point, organizations can only receive tax exemptions if they are productive enough and meet the requirements, and I am certain that no homeless person meets the same criteria.

Bible reference: the bible, however, does not advocate your stance on how to use the govt in any way shape or form. don't you remember? Jesus said "give unto Caesar what's Caesar's..." (Luke 20:20-26)

so rather than what my opponent says, I propose we deny them tax exemptions, because:
we need to allow suffering because without suffering we are excluded from meaning. the Evil is not suffering, but the attempts to rob one of his or her suffering, thus making life incomplete and robbing him/her of meaning as a whole.

I~ In "softening the world for them are we really helping them?" without suffering, they have nothing to compare life as a whole to. thus, even if there life has positive experiences, they would not know so because you would have robbed them of the antonym of witch they could compare there meaning of existence.
II~ 1st, homeless people wouldn't have taxes..... 2nd, the poor are poor generally because they rest too much, if they however, had un cushioned suffering, they would have comparison, and thus drive to do better, an causing them to find there "meaning is suffering" as Nietzsche would argue.
III~ although "excessive" taxes are bad, the Govt does need money to run off of, and this would create a double bind:
1. tax exemptions would spread beond the poor, thus alleviating the suffering of a larger group and acting as a larger entity of evil
2. people would be lazy, as is there nature, and would largely ignore the programs
witch thus flattens your claim here
IV~ this would be no better than the universal health care. here I advocate the status quo as it was prior to universal health care. lets "NOT" go the way that Canadian health care system, shall we?
V~umm.... lets not go the way of Rome either... they fell majorly as a result of the fact that 51% of there population was on a Govt check, witch means that 49% of the population was providing for 100% of the population.
VI~as long as the Govt exists, it will always be power hungry and even if your plan accesses this advantage, the nature of Govt will, inevitably, in time, over-write it.
VII~how would it do this? also, extend my suffering argument. by alleviating suffering, we would be, consequentially, majorly harming the entirety of the U.S. population.
VIII~They are poor for a reason.... do you really think they would wisely invest? also, extend my argument here about the volunteering/donations section.
IX~so we bankrupt our Govt? I would ask "if the Govt barely has enough money as it is, and really doesn't have any at all, and we lessen the income of the Govt, how will it pay for these?" also, what % of the GDP would this take away?

....umm, homeless people don't pay taxes.... sooooo this would not affect half of the group you claim to help.
now, I do believe that my opponent has good intentions, however, you know full well it is said that "the way to hell is paved with good intentions". He fails to Critically analyze the situation, witch is what I have successfully done. I argue that " we should do what immanuel kant called 'public use of reason' as opposed to 'private use of reason'. for kant, private use of reason is purely expert knowledge: some authority tells you, 'we have this problem'; you propose solutions. public use of reason is something more radical, where you don't just solve problems, but think about a larger scope of, first, is the problem itself formulated in the right way? is this the true problem? why do we have this problem? you know, you don't just accept..." (Zizek)

***Impact calc***
1. in his proposed world- we exempt people from taxes, but cause the govt to collapse by bankruptcy, and our health care system to go down the drain. also we rob a large portion (with the possibility of robbing almost the entirety of the population) of meaning. thus destroying the U.S. as it were.
2. my proposed world- we protect the necessity of the circle of life allowing individuals to discover there "meaning in suffering". also, we advocate for better health care, and we cause the Govt to flourish. and we arn't based off of false premises, we correctly analyze the situation. a critical framework of analization is necessary.

1. how much of our GDP would this take out?
2. how do homeless people (and largely, poor people) pay taxes in any way shape or form similar to corporations?
3. would your points esentualy be the bill proposed?
4. how does the bible support your stance?
5. how would giving people free things heighten there morality?
5.5. what are your historical examples on the morality argument?
6. personally, what inspired you to to take interest in this matter?
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to guitargod, for taking me up on my debate. You, my friend, are awesome-sauce!
Prequel arguments:
Q-"well, looking purely from a legal stand-point, organizations can only receive tax exemptions if they are productive enough and meet the requirements, and I am certain that no homeless person meets the same criteria."

From a certain perspective, it could be argued that a homeless individual doesn't really meet the requirements for productivity. Certainly, it's extremely difficult to meet such productivity and requirements, when one has lost so much, and must now redirect concern toward survival itself. However, as my drill sergeants were quick to remind us, you can't help anybody else, until you get the help you need for yourself. In other words, the argument could likewise be made that, in attempting to become a productive member of society, the person in question is, in fact, becoming productive; and the issue really centers around whether or not the person in question will continue to endeavor toward meeting the requirements, or not. There are special cases, in which the I.R.S. will allow an organization a sort of "grace period", to meet requirements. It may be that such a grace period could be extended to individuals.

"Bible reference: the bible, however, does not advocate your stance on how to use the govt in any way shape or form. don't you remember? Jesus said "give unto Caesar what's Caesar's..." (Luke 20:20-26)"

While I respect my opponent's research, I must disagree on the point about the Bible's perspective on taxation and government. Firstly, the remainder of the text reads, "Give unto God what's God's", thereby reminding us to give what is owed to those to whom we owe it. However, in ancient Israel, the Law of Moses demanded charity from the people; both in the form of personal charity, and in a form of taxation we know today as "tithing". If necessary, I can provide specific references; however, there are many references throughout the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

My opponent takes a difficult position, in arguing for the necessity of evil. However, when considered in it's totality, it is a noble argument.

My opponent claims that, without suffering, there is no use for us; however, I do not support that concept. In a biblical sense, suffering is an unintended result of sin; which is an attempt to perform in a manner uncommon to the intention of the Creator. The connotation of Genesis 1 and 2, is that an individual's meaning is in how well suffering is averted, by proper stewardship of those creations put under his or her charge. It is when sin enters the picture, that suffering becomes apparent. Even the Buddha recognized the fact that suffering is undesirable (while perhaps the wrong term to use, I trust the reader will understand the intention of the term), and a better goal is to attain the alleviation of suffering. While it is suffering that provides some measure of activity and excitement, suffering is both subjective (to an extent), and undesirable to every living creature. Whether suffering is living on the streets, or living in a penthouse because of a lie, it's still undesirable; and that is what makes it suffering.
I~ My opponent makes a good philosophical point: "without suffering, they have nothing to compare life as a whole to." However, returning to the philosophy of the Buddha, and perhaps of Lao Tzu, it is this competition that causes unease and unrest. Suffering causes us to feel impending doom. While useful, it is useful as far as the compulsion to alleviate suffering. One may wonder if it's suffering that is necessary, or effort.
II~ Firstly, while homeless people would have no tax, such a predicament would only last until they were no longer homeless. It would be temporary, and achieve the higher goal of personal and social improvement.
Secondly, I must again disagree with my opponent; It's a generalization to claim that the lethargy of individuals is indicative of the entire group. Some people just can't catch a break, mainly because of circumstances making such efforts necessary.
III~ My opponent claims that the government needs taxation to operate, and this is somewhat true. However, taxation was originally enforced in WWII to fund the war effort.
1. My opponent claims that, if tax exemption spreads beyond the poor, it would alleviate the suffering of a larger group. That's only true of unmonitored systems .
2. I must disagree that people are lazy: the very attempt to survive is a testament to natural human diligence.
IV~ I don't argue in favour of a Canadian system of healthcare; rather, I argue that people who can, would provide as they can, of their own free will. This would still be a totally privatized system.
V~Likewise, I am not arguing for government support. I'm arguing for dismantling government support, by using the legal tools available, to allow and encourage personal charity.
VI~The reason the government has power, in our nation, is because people are convinced to will it. If tyranny is exposed, the people will rebel. If the government wants control, they placate the people.
VII~By alleviating suffering, a new purpose develops: to ensure the prevention of suffering. Further, what's to stop someone from saying that causing suffering (evil,) is good?
VIII~One can only guess as to why people become "poor": the average person lives a couple paychecks away from homelessness.
IX~The main reasons for government "bankruptcy" are centered around two facts: that politicians, who have private incomes greater than their government salaries, take tax money for their own useless profits; and that too much money is used in pork-spending.
While homeless people don't pay taxes, the reason is because they have no such opportunity yet.
My opponent and I obviously have different perspectives, taken from different experiences. I don't know my opponent's experiences, or how he endured suffering; however, I do know the suffering of losing all one's money, losing a job, losing a place to live, and struggling to survive in a world that only pretends to care by pouring money into greedy, elitist systems that subsist solely on the lie that they use their donations for the sakes of others. My proposal may be drastic - I'm usually the first person to admit that I'm insane, - but, "Drastic times call for drastic measures"... and really, does my opponent's perspective really sound like Kant's concept of utilitarianism?

***Impact calc***
1. My proposed system would end frivolous government spending, with the private manipulation of legal loopholes. With government waste and oppression rendered impotent, the private individual would have a chance to prosper. While it would alleviate suffering, my opponent's arugment centers on the idea that undue suffering is somehow "good", while the alleviation thereof is somehow "evil".
2. My opponent may be considering greater good; but he still proposes sacrificing some for others; when we don't know it's necessary, or who deserves to flourish, while others flounder. My proposal: "Government isn't the solution... government is the problem".
To answer:
1. Eliminating government waste and politicans' pay the GDP would remain largely unaffected,
2. Once afforded the earliest opportunity, these poor and homeless people pay taxes on their earnings, like everyone else,
3. My point would necessitate the bill be proposed, &
4. Both Ezra's story, and Rehoboam's story oppose overtaxation; and Lev. 25:10 supports deductibility for the poor.
5. Charity engenders compassion, and alleviates excuses for crime.
5.5. Consider America, pre-WWII: There was no income tax...
6. I know what it's like to be homeless.


Prequel arguments:
Q- but my point is that your comparing them to corporations using that as justification to give them tax breaks, but when we follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it falls flat. that's my point, and it wasn't rely an argument, just food for thought.

Bible reference:
"While I respect my opponent's research, I must disagree on the point about the Bible's perspective on taxation and government. Firstly, the remainder of the text reads, "Give unto God what's God's", thereby reminding us to give what is owed to those to whom we owe it."
--yes, and we do not owe poor people anything.

"However, in ancient Israel, the Law of Moses demanded charity from the people; both in the form of personal charity, and in a form of taxation we know today as "tithing". If necessary, I can provide specific references; however, there are many references throughout the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy."
--and we still do, through the church. key word "church". it is not the governments place to administer charity.

I never said that evil is neccisary first of all, if I remember correctly I actually said "the Evil is not suffering, but the attempts to rob one of his or her suffering, thus making life incomplete and robbing him/her of meaning as a whole."
evil is evil, but maby I should explain. suffering is not evil, it completes life and allows us to know meaning and through meaning is produced the value of life. but when you remove suffering, they you create a sort of sped up nihilism which, through consequence, causes the value of life to devalue.
I believe the confusion here is I may have been a bit vague in how this work, so I will explain it here:
lets start at the beginning. most everyone has some sort of drive. drives are driven by the self and what we deem "important". now we must ask the question "what drives us to want to help others?". the answer is simple, because of the way it makes us feel, it makes you feel good.
this point is made by zizek and explained clearly, its only a few minutes long, blease, I ask you to watch this:

and also, talking from a biblical point, on the contrary, god uses hardship and suffering to bring us closer to him (thereby giving us meaning and creating value to our life). take jobe for instance. he had everything, money, a loving family, power, and he loved god. Satan asked god if he could tempt jobe, and god allowed Satan to basically ruin jobes life, yet as jobe reaccounts, in the end, it brought him closer to god.
I~first, I just want to point out how ironic and contradicting it is that my opponent, who uses the Christian bible to support his points, quotes Buddha and Lao tzu.... second , this answer is only proof of what I say. he said " it is this competition that causes unease and unrest. Suffering causes us to feel impending doom. While useful, it is useful as far as the compulsion to alleviate suffering. One may wonder if it's suffering that is necessary, or effort."
-it is this fear of an impending doom that drives us as people to do better and to denounce our apathetic and sinful nature. thus without cause, there is no drive, and they would completely lose sight of meaning.
II~ 1. but your only proposing tax breaks.... your ideas specifically would not affect the homeless, no where in your points did u mention of any sort of housing programs.
2. even the bible supports this. the bible states that human beings have an inherently sinful nature, and apathy is not of god, therefore is apart of our nature. also, were is your evidence? examples?
III~ and we are at war right now, and there was taxes before ww2, just allot more pressure put on paying them in ww2.
1. but why would you monitor it? Didn't you say that you believe suffering is bad? You've just contradicted your whole thesis here. also, our govt is so big that every aspect of it is subject to abuse, what makes this an exception?
2. the only reason people go into survive mode is because of the impending doom they see when in times of suffering. this is not the rule of human nature, merely an exception.
IV~ if its purely from the private sector, how can you grantee that they will receive it? how can this even be affected by your bill?... its to vague of a point...
V~ but that has nothing to do with tax exemptions... also, how exactly are tax exemptions for the poor going to make richer people become more charitable? sounds like your making quite the assumption here...
VI~ not exactly.... look at our govt at the beginning of the U.S. and compare it to now. it have gained an exponential amount of power over us. this is proof of my claim. history proves. go read some ayn rand, she explains this.
VII~ the bible does, "do unto others as you would have done unto you". but (as supported by the example of jobe), suffering is a neccisary part of life, if you can I would ask you to read the first chapter of the will to power by Nietzsche. it explains this very clearly.
VIII~ you obviously don't know what poor is... go visit any 3rd world country, come back, then give me your definition of poor.
IX~ so we lessen the income of the govt before we take care of this? that would only result in the multiplication of our deficit....
but how do tax breaks affect homeless people?
reffer back to the example of jobe for my answer on this. also, im not advocating util.... im only advocating the logical framework of thought utilized by Kant.... nothing more.
1. you only propose a tax exemptions... how do you solve for frivolous spending? seems like your reaching a bit here...
2. I agree that "Government isn't the solution... government is the problem" as quoted by my opponent. But he seems to think that buy the govt handing out tradable tax credits and giving tax exemptions /reductions, that we can solve poverty..... first, that is using the govt, second, solving poverty is impossible. Jesus himself said "the poor will always be with us".

1. How much of the govt anual income from taxes would be reduced?
2. but how do tax breaks get homeless people to not be homeless any more?
3. got all i need on this one.
4. ok, got all i need here.
5.can you be a bit less vague in your explenation?
5.5. there was also slavery... and sexism on a larger scale... but america has changed for the better has it not?
6.for the reccord, me 2 man, I know where your coming from.
Debate Round No. 2


Prequel arguments:
Q- Fair enough... Never claimed to be a lawyer, after all...

Bible reference:
"--yes, and we do not owe poor people anything."
Perhaps "owe" was the wrong word for me to use... however, it is mandatory for any believer to look after the welfare of the poor, as best they can; and, in the past, God did destroy entire civilizations for a lack of charitable compassion. One example is found in Ezekiel 16:49... some of Sodom's sins are listed as, "... pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness... neither did she strengthen the hands of the poor and needy."

"--and we still do, through the church. key word "church". it is not the governments place to administer charity."
Were this a few decades ago, I might wholeheartedly agree with you. However, the fact remains that laws have been passed for the government to control the administration of charity. In our Constitution, amendments are allowed for the purpose of ratifying and clarifying those laws. In states, counties, and individual cities, laws are likewise passed for the purpose of regulating more general laws that might otherwise be abused. Why not flip it around, and use a legal loophole to regulate the abuse of legalism?

I think I get where you're coming from on this, now... however, I must still disagree on some level. The fact that suffering can bring about some greater meaning or benefit does not negate it's evil. As a matter of expediency, were suffering abolished, it would enrich the quality of life; after all, if good can come from suffering, and suffering limits the quality of the benevolence it produces, it stands to reason that suffering dilutes meaning (where meaning is related to beneficiality). Further, if such meaning can be achieved without suffering, it stands to reason that meaning without suffering is more expedient. This is the argument of the Christian faith, and other forms of monotheism and "universal" religions (religions that extend beyond demographics of any kind): that suffering, rather than being an aide to meaning, is a hindrance thereto; and, the goal of the adherent thereof is to abolish as much suffering as he can, as the Almighty allows. While suffering can bring meaning and purpose to life, it is only necessary as long as the suffering persists; and, in my perspective, it is expedient to abolish suffering, and focus the purpose on an attempt at greater happiness.
This argument reminds me of the argument made by Abraham Maslow, in his heirarchy of needs. However, the question would then be whether or not the quality of life was enhanced by the need, or the fulfillment thereby.
I watched the video, and it is a very convincing arugment; however, I rather hold the position that it is not self-gratification that causes us to seek an abolition of suffering... rather, I hold the position that it is the selfless desire of one for the benefit of others, that causes such a quest. While we may feel some gratification from the accomplishment of a goal, it is my contention that such gratification is only peripheral; and a result of our satisfaction in knowing that others are no longer suffering. There is, as I'm sure you're aware, a noticeable difference between the actual suffering which I'm covering herein, and the desire for greater happiness: one is the deliberate cultivation of something, while the other is a loss of it.

God does use hardships to bring us closer; however, we need to get closer to Him for a reason. In the story of Job, Satan - the antagonist, - was attempting to cause suffering, to turn a man against God. God proved that a man will remain faithful, even in spite of suffering; and, as a result, his goal became to alleviate Job's suffering, by reimbursing him twice what he lost.
I~Indeed, ironic; however, I'm not sure that "contradictory" would be the right term... both philosophies, and the Christian faith, seek to alleviate suffering on some level... From the very beginning, however, it was the Maker's plan that we enjoy life, rather than suffer. God is not willing that any of us perish, but that all of us come to repentance. Furthermore, God provides a way to escape the suffering that leads to suffering.
II~ 1. The tax-deductions would encourage people to donate directly to those who need the resources most. With those resources they could get housing, food, clothing, and everything else they need. Thus, these tax-deductions would encourage greater and more effective charity; not to mention the influx of capital into the market.
2. You and I will probably have to differ on the idea of total hereditary depravity. It is my contention that the Bible supports the position that mankind becomes sinful, because of the effects of sin on the environment and pressure from people in one's life; rather than because of inheriting sin or sinfulness. We could cover this later.
III~ I'm talking specifically about income tax; not sales tax. Sales tax is far less burdensome.
1. Monitoring it would alleviate suffering from abuses of the system. This monitoring would be a joint effort, between the government and the people; as our government was meant to operate in the first place.
2. Exactly my point. Suffering is an exception to the rule, which causes us to change in response. Therefore, rather than being crucial to meaning, suffering is sometimes indifferent, and often antithetical.
IV~ With the passing of this bill, it would no longer be legal to prevent people who are homeless or poor from soliciting funds, like a charity.
V~ Tax-exempt status goes hand-in-hand with tax-deductible status. Many wealthy individuals give to charity, for tax-deductions. Hence, giving poor and homeless people tax-exemption would give the rich more opportunities for tax-deduction.
VI~ One point of this bill, however, is to give the people greater control over their own funds, allowing for a transition of power back to the people in a way the government really can't afford to deny.
VII~ The problem is, if suffering were a truly natural part of life, there would be no desire to alleviate it. The very nature of suffering is to upset a delicate balance. Sin itself is one of the causes of some forms of suffering, but sin is not natural.
VIII~ I literally didn't have one red cent to my name. I may not have lived in a war-zone, but I have gotten water from the ground, and done things I don't want to mention here (not illegal).
IX~ Correction: we don't lessen the income of the entire government. We cut waste out of the equation. It's wasteful to give millionaires an additional government salary.
1. Less tax-money, means less money for pork spending and politicians. Less money for pork spending and politicians, means an end to government waste... not an end to necessary programs.
2. I agree that I plan to use the government, using this method. However, like suffering, authoritarian tools can be used for beneficial purposes, as well. As to the statement, "The poor you will have with you always", this is a fact, which cannot be denied. However, the number of the poor is entirely up to us. It is my contention that the only thing stopping us from lessening that number is the conspiracy between big government, and big business... especially in the charitable sectors.

1. I don't know exactly how much; however, considering last years budget, the number of people on the street, and the current cost of living: probably billions, if not more.
2. The tax breaks encourage people to give directly to people who need it.
5.I wish I could, but there isn't enough space. I'll certainly try my best.
5.5. Exactly my point: using the government to change the government can work.
6. I'm sorry to hear you had to endure that kind of thing


but you arnt, as a believer looking after them. your saying that its the govt job to do that.

and ok, show me where in the bible it says we can use the government to administer charity as a replacement for church charity. you cant.

but in the example of jobe it shows how hardship and suffuring brings him closer to god... and you call that evil? our reason for being created IS to have a relationship with the lord. therefor anything that helps this i would say is a greater good beyont your understanding. also, jesus endured lots of suffering, so are you saying jesus was sinnful? that's obsurd!
simmple put, the bible tellsus that we as human beings have a sinnfull nature. enough said. and also, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what im saying and of what zizek is saying. the point is is that without suffering, one cannot ever have a chance to fullful there desire for a greater level of happyness.

and because jobe had sufferd all that, he just apreciated all of what god gave him just that much more
I~look, god is all powerfull. im sure if god saw prophit for us in taking away all suffering, he would have accomplished that long ago
II~ 1. it would encorage people, but has no garenty... pluss people are greedy, we are driven all by self motivation wich by deffinition is greed.
2. in the bible it says "all fall short of the glory of god". all,! so if a baby is born? not accountable, but is still short of gods glory. all are sinnfull.
III~ 1. systems are monitored but still fall subject to abuse...
2. i was saying that what u had said was the exception.
IV~ um its not leagal now, but they do it illegaly.... how is this fixing that? it isnt
V~ extend my argument about how people are inatly greedy here.
VI~ but over time like a sponge the govt will soak the power back up
VII~ there is no inate desire, but there is a superficial desire. sins are desirable, and we all have a superficial desire to endulge ourselves in sins. but to be a christian by deffinition is to not walk the way of the world. to not endulge in our own desires but that of gods, witch by far is the hardest road. therefor to be a christian is to endure suffering.
VIII~yet without the help of this majical tax reduction your debating me online? ok
IX~ but then corupt polititions would just make waste of more of the revenue.
1. govt allready deficit spends into the trillions, you realy think there going to stop now? i doubt it.
2. but as i have proved, even if this point is true, you never actualy explained how this does this. you just said that i does.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Veridas 7 years ago
Way to miss the point, guitargod.
Posted by angelsofhope2008 7 years ago
I got the thing posted... thought it was posted yesterday, but it was just waiting as a draft... so, it's posted.
Posted by guitargod 7 years ago
oh, ok :) its fine, take you time.
Posted by angelsofhope2008 7 years ago
Yeah, it'll take a little time... I'm doing schoolwork, and Valentine's Day got me thinking... which, as you've seen, is never good! I'll be posting soon...
Posted by guitargod 7 years ago
? are you going to post?
Posted by guitargod 7 years ago
hey Veridas, lay off, its a debate, ofcorse ull dissagree with someone, its inevitable. no need to get all horny and crap about it.... but sirriously, dont be a doush... no one likes a doush.... even if your right, its never a good idea to act like that.... your only proving your own insecurity and self-reliance issues by doing so. its one thing to disagree and verbalize it, thats ok. its another to disagree and harras another about it, thats just uncalled for and doushy... only a doush would say "Say it with me now! Yooooooooooooou're a c*nt!". lay off.
Posted by Veridas 7 years ago
So your debate is pretty much a "all our problems would be solved if we didn't have to pay tax!" whinge.

Here's a heads-up, corporations abuse everything that is not immediately beneficial to them, and if they can't abuse it then they MAKE it beneficial to them. Allowing one individual to go tax-free raises the question "why not others?"

Except you've shot yourself in the foot. Not only, apparantely, do you not realise that if you earn less than a designated amount per year that you do not pay tax, but you do not realise that this system is in place for the exact reasons you (started to) describe. Safeguarding the poor and vulnerable.

However, not only do you seem to think that tax is apparantely responsible for everything going wrong, but you also seem to believe that your system WON'T be abused by the very people you base it on, namely the executives and directors of corporations. The only reason the current tax exempt status for individual isn't abused by them is because it would require them to give up so much money that it's easier just to use offshore tax havens.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
Sorry if I sound brash, I do actually like this debate. I just have a way of being blunt with words.

Other than that, I hope to see you around the site more often.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
First of all, I'd like to see a person go absolutly profit free. I'm sorry did you not get that? Let me rephrase, all money in, must be then funneled out in the form of money, products, or services without a single cent left over, that means no savings, nothing spent on self save food, clothes, and shelter. Sure it's possible, but i've never seen anybody EVER live up to that, nor do I expect to any time soon.
Furthermore, I am not against them getting exemptions, but I am against them getting exemptions that are based on their sociological or economic circumstances. Things like grant money to people for being of a certain race, or income level. I want any privately wealthy person to be able to acomplish the same criterion that qualify them for exemptions that a poor person can.

In short, I would take Con if....
1. I had more time
2. the resolution also stated that these exemptions wouldn't be available for those who don't meet the stated criterion
3. i didn't agree with the resolution as it currently stands

You need to either...
1. narrow down the resolution to a more specific idea (i.e. - Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless... as opposed to what?)
2. make your argument more generalized
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were similar, spelling and grammar were constantly problematic for Con.