The Instigator
greatdebater_1
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons livin

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,471 times Debate No: 6972
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

greatdebater_1

Con

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States

Since I am neg, and aff holds the burden of evidence in CX/POLICY debate, I cannot post any arguments until my opponent does so.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

i think you are right and no decent person can argue against helping the poor really unless they are alcholics etc and dont want help and refuse to work them stuff them . but i know what you mean poor familys etc.

so since i cant argue against your point i will tell you the flaws in it.

the united states goverment simply cannot afford to help the majority of poor people in the U.S.A
the usa spends to much money on things like the military etc and leaves no money for these needs of the poor.
in these current economic times of spending billions coming on trillions to bail out american companys and banks they definitly have no money for it.
but lets for the sake of it say they found the money from somwhere and were willing to help heres whats wrong with your idea.
the country has millions of people in need of these services and even if it had the money it doesnt have the manpower because to get round all these people often enough to help them would require i would say one million + social workers which i doubt is possible .
the other flaw in your idea is lets face it , social work helps sure but there has to better ways to help them , spend the money improving their education or even tax cuts for the poor .
i think that its a good idea but the billions of dollars required could be spent improving their lifes in many other ways than just giving them social workers etc .
Debate Round No. 1
greatdebater_1

Con

I was actually hoping for a policy debate with stocks issues and the rest...

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States

My opponent stated, "the united states government simply cannot afford to help the majority of poor people in the U.S.A the usa spends to much money on things like the military etc and leaves no money for these needs of the poor"
-However, our government's moral obligation is to protect the people which it governs over. By invading another country, they cannot do that. Therefore, they should just downsize the military to set aside the appropriate funds.

"in these current economic times of spending billions coming on trillions to bail out American company's and banks they definitely have no money for it"
- they can afford it they just don't want to set aside the appropriate funds

*The fact of the matter is that the people of this nation are the future. If they are not warranted the necessary elements to succeed, the US has no future.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

I would like to point out again my opened is right in what he says that the government do have a moral obligation to protect the people etc etc .
I would also like to point a harsh truth about America and several other first world countries , this may come as no surprise but honestly the government could not care less what happens to you , as shocking as it sounds it suits a government to have the vast majority of its people living at or below the poverty line for many reasons such as if that person , is not as well educated then he or she is less likely to question the governments actions , also with people living in poverty and not as well educated means they will take up jobs that help the country's economy and military mainly.
I understand the poor should be given help and I accept you are right I am just telling you it will never happen as a government prefers having poorer people.
Debate Round No. 2
greatdebater_1

Con

My opponent stated that America and other first-world countries don't care about what happens to their citizens. However, if they didn't care why have so many of the [England, France and Canada] implemented systems of universal health care? In addition, why does the US have a welfare system if they do not care? What legitimate reason can you give for a government preferring to have poorer people? If a government preferred poor people, why do they bother with free schooling, public libraries, and so on...??

My opponent has given illogical contentions so I feel that I have won this debate.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

i thought we were having a decent debate till you went and done that and said " i win " .

let me tell you what i mean when i say the goverment couldnt care about you unless you are rich .

of course the goverment " care " thats why they introuduce these systems for crying out loud . i mean they dont care because like i said it suits them for you to be poor and uneducated , but they know one thing if it doesnt look like they are doing a decent job the people wont re-elect them.

the goverment dont give a crap about you my friend nor do they care for me or any other middle or working class people. Sure they help you but only because they have to. Imagine a factory , the boss wants to pay them as low as he can but the workers wont work for low wages and bad conditions they want to feel like they are important and cared for otherwise they will not work and they factory will go bust , picture the factory as a country now.

as this is the end thats all i have to say except for one thing , if you ever say " i win " again in a debate the other person will not take you seriously nor will the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KiraxxHero 7 years ago
KiraxxHero
Agreed. The negative appeared to be debating as the affirmative and vice versa. Where are the stock issues? All of the arguments sucked and were easily answered. What was the case?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
This was a terrible debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
greatdebater_1rangersfootballclubTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
greatdebater_1rangersfootballclubTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70