The Instigator
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
aeneas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 9/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,266 times Debate No: 5557
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

beem0r

Con

I am CON in this debate, I will be arguing that the topic above is false.
I have no case to make this round, since I am CON.

:: DEFINITIONS ::
D1: USFG
-The USFG is the United States Federal Government

D2: Should
-Ought. This simply means that it is the correct course of action. This is not a moral issue, it is an economic and social issue.

D3: Ensure the welfare
-To ensure someone's welfare will mean to make sure that person can afford basic necessities - a healthy diet and a place to live. If the person is having trouble affording these things, the government should make sure that person can get by.

D4: Families living in poverty
-I am talking about people living at or below the official US Census Bureau's poverty line, which is different depending on where you live and how many people are in a family. An obvious note - this refers specifically to families in America.

::ADDITIONAL COMMENTS::
If my opponent has a problem with these definitions, he or she can feel free to offer new ones in R1, which I will either accept or show to be inferior to my definitions.
I ask that my opponent begins his arguments in R1, and forfeits the final round, so that we both have 3 rounds to argue. Otherwise, my opponent is free to forfeit next round and let me start, but it makes much more sense for PRO to argue first on this topic.

Thank you.
aeneas

Pro

First off, I noticed that you are debating the same issue from two different perspectives in two different debates. I will not look at the other before I have finished this. I look forward to seeing how you perform both and if i can tell which side you believe is the stronger case.

I accept all the definitions, but the line between morality and social concerns is vague if you accept that moral acts produce the best possible outcome for as many people as possible.

The first point I would like to make is that the poor do not create themselves. By this I mean that the economic system is set up in a hierarchical way that requires a large number of people working for less pay in order to support those who have more specialized and better paid job. For example, for every 5 or so people working in a Mcdonalds at a certain time there will be 1 manager. It would be bad for business if 5 managers overlooked 1 laborer. This pattern extends throughout the marketplace with the owner or CEO occupying the best paid and most exclusive position. This structure shows that most people will be included in the bottom levels of the economic scale by necessity.

Secondly, In this structure it is natural for those with the administrative power to use it to benefit their interests even at the expense of the low level workers. Part of this is just sound administrative planning. If a company uses all of its profits and capital to increase the pay and benefits of the worker, then there will be no capital to invest into the expansion and preservation of the firm. But another side of this drive leads to the lessening of the low level worker's ability to provide for himself or a family. This is where government comes in. It provides the organization and influence that allows the workers to join unions, get a minimum wage, and have some say in the way their lives will go. The government can do this by enacting legislation either to give money to those who cannot support themselves such as in social security and welfare, or to actively limit the actions of firms such as in minimum wage laws or child labor.

From an economic standpoint the reason that it is beneficial for a government to do this is that merit is the basis for control of a company and those of a lower class have less chance of realizing potential merit. A hungry child will not perform well in school if the child has to worry about whether or not food will be served that night. The child will be even less likely to succeed if the child is dead from starvation or easily curable diseases due to the fact that medicine costs too much. In this way, the economy is harmed by not having the greatest range of choice when choosing those to promote.
Debate Round No. 1
beem0r

Con

I apologize for my hasty reply, but I am short on time.

My first objection to welfare type systems is that it slows down the process of natural selection, if not eliminates it outright. If the welfare of the poor is truly ensured, people aren't going to be dying of the natural causes they should be dying from. Now I know that sounds ruthless, but ruthlessness allows us to do what's best no matter what. Not only are people not going to be dying from these natural causes, but poor people who would otherwise be completely unable to support children are now able to, since their children's welfare is also ensured.

Now you might be thinking there is nothing wrong with poor families having more kids. But there is a great deal wrong with it.
First off, like I said, this is detrimental to the natural selection that would otherwise be constantly making humans better and better over time. Poor people are the failures of the world, and this is in large part due to being less genetically capable on average. As an example, poor people are generally less intelligent than the middle and upper classes on average. Allowing them to continue having children they would otherwise not be able to provide for is to stop the gene pool from growing more intelligent on average.

Another negative effect of allowing the poor to have more children is the nagative impact. We know that people consume, on average, the same amount they produce. This is a mathematical necessity - what one man produces must be consumed by another. However, there are some individuals who produce more than they consume and some who consume more than they produce. Now the poor, given that the USFG is ensuring their welfare, tend to be the group that is taking more than they give. Letting them die out naturally would save us from having so many leeches in the world.

On to some points my opponent made:

My opponent's first point is that the poor do not create themselves. Here I will simply ask why this should grant the poor access to additional monetary support from the Government? True, our society may be built on the requirement of having many low-end workers, but the poor are stuck there because they just weren't good enough. This is no reason to reward them.

My opponent points out that those with more power tend to step on the low level workers, presumably unfairly. For this, I ask for some examples.

And lastly, my opponent makes a point about the economic effects of welfare systems. However, I have already brought this up. Welfare recipients are the leech that takes more than it contributes - the economy is better off without them.

I am sorry I could not expand on these points to the extent I usually do, but understand that I have 2 minutes remaining.
aeneas

Pro

aeneas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
beem0r

Con

My opponent forfeited last round. My points from last round still stand.
aeneas

Pro

aeneas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
beem0r

Con

Re-read my argument from last round.
aeneas

Pro

aeneas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
To my opponent: I'll give you ~2 days to make 1 comment worth of points and I will count it as your R2.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
That's gotta be the closest I've ever come to forfeiting without actually doing it. Whew.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
No big ;]
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Yeah, missed that. sry
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
From my R1: "I ask that my opponent begins his arguments in R1, and forfeits the final round, so that we both have 3 rounds to argue"

I wanted a 3 round debate, but I didn't want to post an argument in the first round. So I just made it a 4-round debate that's the equivalent of a 3 round debate with every round being utilized for arguments.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
The point still stands that you have wasted a valuable opportunity to post on a content-free post.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
That's true. My opponent's stance is also one that needs to be backed up. I told my opponent that either one of us could start [either me in R2 or him in R1]. It's arbitrary which person starts, and I had my reasons to not post my argument up in R1. Though, like I said in R1, it makes more sense for PRO to start on this, since CON seems like a default position.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Why don't you have to make an opening argument? You're making a statement that needs to be backed up.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
No, I wouldn't be pissed.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
cuz wouldn't that make you think of new arguments, and use them sparingly?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
beem0raeneasTied
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 
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
beem0raeneasTied
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