The Instigator
PaoPao
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The House Would not Allow any Donation to the poor

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 2 votes the winner is...
PaoPao
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 63685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

PaoPao

Con

BOP in this debate consists ;
PRO :
1. Prove why the poor should not receive donation
2. Prove why we should not Donate to the poor
3. Prove why this motion worth being Debate for

CON :
1. Prove why the poor may receive donation
2. Prove why it's okay to donate to the poor
3. Prove why this motion worth being Debate for

The First Round is Acceptance
Ameliamk1

Pro

Having fatuously neglected to realize I was accepting the Pro side of this debate, I nevertheless accept this challenge and look forward to an interesting dialogue.
Debate Round No. 1
PaoPao

Con

As con, i would say that : This House Would still Allow Donation to the poor as in the current situation.
My purpose in this debate is to stick in today`s current situation to gain society stabillity.
Definition :
Donation : Voluntary material or non material, physical or non physical tat given to another person without any huesitation.
Society Stabillity : Ideals that shows that current society maybe is not the best condition, but is a good cindition to livevfor then by changing it.
Poor : man, public organizations, orphanage, workers, homeless, etc that in the condition in NEED.

Issue : A rules from some country. A country like Indonesia. The government create a rules to fine the people that do a donation to the poor on the street (homeless).
The government think that maybe if he do so, it would decrease the percentage of the homeless on the street. In fact, the rules have been exists for 2,5 years and still doesn't make any progress. the homeless are still there, and their quantity rising every month.
Some other cases, show that the government of some dictator country in on of nation in Asia continent. They punish people who donate foods to some Buddhist monk. Etc..

To gain this purposes, i would giving 3 Arguments.
1. Prove why the poor may receive donation
A. Characteristic of human
B. People in Need
2. Prove why it's okay to donate to the poor
3. Prove why this motion worth being Debate for

1A. The reason why the poor may receieve donation is not listed in any rules in this world. It just based on the basic natural characteristic of human, care. This natural characteristics would be differ in each person. But still, a small power of care or a work to do it would gain hapiness for both sides. If they have already happy, the do-ers probably would do another donation to another people other than the poor, maybe the need. So i think, it will gain this stabillity of the society.
1B. The person or organization that worth to get the donation are the one who was in need. The question is why we allow to give something to the need? Because it's optional to donate based on the donator's heart. No one's have any obligation to make them stop donating. Because it's the right for every people to do what they desire too, at some point, the right need to be protected by government because it's a good practical thing to do.

2. It's Okay to donate to the poor because donate does not make you poor. It's a good thing. It's your right. No one can oppose this thing even for a government. If Government do so, he already collide with the main law of human right, that every people have a right to express their own life in a good thing as the fartest limit.

3. It worth to being debate for because it's engage the poor and the problem in the society.
Ameliamk1

Pro

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PaoPao

Con

Hmm.. it's appear that i'm win without any debate occur,, it's appear to be not an interesting debate..
Ameliamk1

Pro

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by VelCrow 2 years ago
VelCrow
@mister_man

The title says "The House Would not Allow any Donation to the poor"

I believe the word "any" would mean strictly no donations regardless of reason.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
mister...... There can be government donations if they set up a volunteer fund. Then all you liberals who think that government is the way to go can empty YOUR pockets into that fund.After all, government never mishandles money.That should take care of those who YOU think deserve it.

That is the only right way to ever do charity. It is NEVER right to force money out of people to pay others bills.And it would not be wrong to look for motive in government. What would a politician get out of using other peoples money to give to people. VOTES. That is all a politician is looking for in the things they do.And bigger government.

That is why donations have to be local and personal. When you are close to the one needing help, you can better assess what that person needs. Not just write a blank check.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Can I say they cannot receive donation unless they at least attempt to better themselves? Or is it strictly no donations no matter what?
Posted by PaoPao 2 years ago
PaoPao
It's an Open Debate, you can bring any facts or issue that might help you get the solvency through your own goals. This term Any Donation can be anything. Just simply debate it like what you wanted to.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
There is nothing wrong with feeding the poor. But it is wrong to steal from your neighbor to do it. That is all welfare is. Theft.The very small percentage that actually would be the poor were very well fed by donations. The vast majority of those on welfare are just simply freeloaders. And that is what the democrats wanted. A dependent on government freeloader voter base.And that has happened beyond their wildest dreams.

Who would have thought 100 years ago that America would be half a nation of freeloaders.That great nation brought to its knees by irresponsibility.But that has brought all great systems down.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
can you clarify these things? if you do ill accept

1. do you mean humanitarian aid?? or militeray aid or? what kind or just aid/donations in general?

2. do you mean just donating like charities or like humantairain or foreign aid?

Just need a narrow meaning of this debate to know if I should debate it or not. If you mean charities then yeah no reason not to donate and I don't think anyone would accept debate. But if you mean other types of donations then yeah.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
PaoPaoAmeliamk1Tied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
PaoPaoAmeliamk1Tied
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: FF