The Instigator
Sarah123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tttcomrader
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The means testing of social security benefits.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
tttcomrader
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 55009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Sarah123

Pro

The means testing of social security benefits.
The motion to be debated is " In the current economic climate paying social security benefit to those who not need it is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford. It is far better to target this support to low income families who need it most" (for / against the motion)
tttcomrader

Con

I accept this debate.

I argue against the motion of "In the current economic climate paying social security benefit to those who not need it is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford. It is far better to target this support to low income families who need it most."

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and am looking forward to my opponent's opening statement!
Debate Round No. 1
Sarah123

Pro

Sarah123 forfeited this round.
tttcomrader

Con

Since my opponent is not really participating in this debate, I'm just going to state two simple argument points:

1. Not granting social security benefits to all can decrease popular support for the program:

If not everyone are receiving the benefits, it is much likely for voters to turn against the program as it is part of human nature; no one should get it for as long as I am not receiving it. In order to keep the program funded, every working Americans need to pay for it.

2. Difficulty in assessing who "need" the benefits:

With a pension of $25,000 a year, you may just be fine living in one of the Southern states; but it is near impossible to live in L.A. or NYC. Social security benefits will not allow you to live grant, but it would at least supplement your income as to close down the gap a little bit. In either case the individual will be above poverty line, meaning he/she will not receive any social security benefit as what PRO argues for.
Debate Round No. 2
Sarah123

Pro

Sarah123 forfeited this round.
tttcomrader

Con

Extend all arguments. Please vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 3 years ago
baus
Sarah123tttcomraderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF with full-stop/period being missed out at end of Pro's R1 as well as forward slash spacing. No sources were used.