The government should make extra payments to unemployed sex maniacs
Debate Rounds (2)
Although I couldn't find any evidence of this gentleman's assertions when I checked the Internet and, admittedly, he had been drinking heavily, this isn't the sort of story someone would make up so I would ask you to join me in taking his word for it.
With this being the case, it occurred to me that this amounts to gross discrimination against unemployed sex maniacs (1).
I agree that bed-wetters shouldn't be expected to sleep on stinking, urine-soaked sheets every night and they deserve the extra cash, but neither should unemployed sex maniacs be expected to sleep on sheets encrusted in desiccated harry monk (2) and congealed fanny batter (3).
That's why, in the interests of hygiene, the government should dole out extra cash to unemployed sex maniacs.
I gladly accept this topic.
C1)Ok, so my opponent is stating that since people that wet their bed get extra mula, people that jizz in their bed should get extra money as well. If this were to happen, wouldn't every male just release their juices onto thier bed, instead of anywhere else? Wouldn't everyone do that just to get a little extra cash?
C2) Sperm donars would go out of business. Sperm donars wouldn't give up their precious love potion to doctors, they could just do it on thier bed and get paid to do that. Instead of just skeeting in a cup and having to go to a hospital and back and only do it once a week or so, they could do it daily, in the comfort of their own home, on their bed, and get paid.
C3) The government is not going to pay people to jizz on thier beds. In fact, shouldn't they be paying them NOT to excrete onto their bed in the intersest of heygene? Why would they pay them to flood their beds and make everyone around them more unconfortable? That makes no sense.
Im done. And thank god, I was almost out of different words for sperm.
C1. This debate is not gender-specific and payments would be made to both male and female unemployed sex maniacs. Furthermore, it is likely that the sex maniacs, given their cravings for sexual intercourse, would not be alone in bed, rather we are talking about a man and a woman engaging in amorous activities resulting in a combination of both gentleman's sauce and lady gravy being deposited on the sheets, and because a bed is the most usual place for couples to have sex, the unemployment benefit claimant could not be accused of abusing the welfare system in order to get extra cash.
C2. If a claimant was earning money by spilling his kids into a cup and then mailing the contents to a fertility clinic, he would be breaching his welfare conditions and if the benefit agency discovered his scam he may have money deducted from his benefits. Worse still, if a benefit inspector was to call unannounced at the unemployed sex maniac's house and found no sign of spoff-stained sheets or labia lathered-linen the claimant could face prosecution for fraud. You see, knocking one off the wrist to produce spunk for sale just isn't worth the risk for a sex-mad benefit claimant.
C3. My opponent is right, sleeping on sheets covered in either gentlemen's lust custard or ladies' tango butter, or both, is indeed "uncomfortable", especially when it's still wet, and forcing sex maniacs to do so by depriving them of extra money for washing machines is a violation of their human rights. Probably.
I thank my opponent for his good case and I agree, the government may look at this and think "wow, these two incredibly smart and intellectual debaters are on to something when they say we should pay sex maniacs for ejaculating into their beds". Yep, I can picture Santorum approving that. :)
C1) So, my opponent says that we should not just pay men to cream away at their beds, but allow lady to shower their graces as well. So, how is the government going to make sure that people get paid the proper amount for the amount of koolaid they release on their bed? And Im sure they will pay women less for their floodage than than men, further causing sexism and controversy in this world. How will the Government know if we've dealt our daily doses? And how much? It is simply too large of a feat to complete and keep a hold of, therefore this is not a good idea.
C2)If a claimant was earning money by spilling his kids into a cup and then mailing the contents to a fertility clinic, he would be breaching his welfare conditions and if the benefit agency discovered his scam he may have money deducted from his benefits.
WHICH WOULD PUT SPERM DONARS OUT OF BUSINESS! They wouldn't want to have a deduction of their bedsperm checks. Therefore, my opponent is agreeing with me that it will put sperm donars out of business. And, my opponent later in the C2 rebuttle says that inspectors will come to his house to inspect his sheets for crusty resedew. How would the inspector know how old it is? Men can cause the great flood several times a day, so how would the inspector know how old it is? Everyone in the world would have to wear a machine that showed how many times men and women spill the beans everyday just to get a small amount of cash. I bet the machines are incredibly uncomfortable, so no one would want it attached to their bowchickawowows.
C3)Then the goverment should just give everyone a washingmachine and avoid paying everyone cash everyday to inspect thier wangatangs and hey-nonny-nonnies.
In conclusion, It seems stupid to pay everyone cash for excreting onto their beds. People get $ as a reward for something they do to benefit someone or something. I see in no way how flash flooding your bed will benifit anyone, seeing as it will take more money to wash the sheets daily, and the Government will pay you to do it instead of GETTING US OUT OF DEBT FROM CHINA.
Plus, all of the greases will cause people to be able to literally break their crusty sheets in half. No one wants this.
VOTE FOR CON!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.