The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Unemployed teenagers must accept any legitimate job offer or lose their entitlement to welfare

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,208 times Debate No: 30054
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




When jobless Christine Hirmer (name changed), 19, from Augsburg, near Munich in Germany, received a letter from the government department of employment offering her the chance of a full-time job she "was horrified" and said she would "need a few days to recover from the shock". [1]

Being German, the problem was not so much that she was too lazy to take the job, but rather that she thought that working as a receptionist for the prospective employer concerned would be beneath her. However, I contend that she should be in no position to take this elitist attitute while hard-working German taxpayers are funding her living expenses.

Furthermore, the brothel which had the job vacancy: the Colosseum Privater FKK Sauna Club; is one of the largest establishments of its kind in Augsburg and, if Christine had worked hard and was reliable, she might one day have been welcoming sweating fat clients to one of the up-market whorehouses in Bavaria's capital city of Munich, or even greeting international punters to one of the world-famous knocking-shops on Hamburg's Reeperbahn. And who know's where she could have gone from there?

This is a missed opportunity for which the German taxpayer is expected to pay, which is patently unfair. Of course, being a receptionist is not as well-paid or as glamorous as being an actual prostitute, but everybody has to start their career somewhere, and someone has to answer the door and show clients through to the madam, so why not her?

In conclusion, I believe that young jobless people receiving government handouts should not be allowed to turn down perfectly good job offers just so that they can continue to doss about at the taxpayers' expense, and that's why I assert that unemployed teenagers must accept any legitimate job offer or lose their welfare entitlement.

Thank you.



Everyone should be entitled to have a job which they are at least competent at, if not very good at. The reason for this that if they are not good at it they will instead have taken up a job space which an extremely competent adult could instead have taken and thus the company's efficiency in that sector/department will inevitably go down overall. There is no sense forcing the teen to do a job she is bad at and would never enjoy because as we know, humans are both emotional and rational creatures and if she absolutely hates the job she'll never do it as well as a lover of it. In essence, unemployed teenagers should instead be forced to accept the first job for which they would be the best option for not the first job for which they are offered but would be total crap at (and know it).

While the issue regarding the fairness on taxpayer's money is well-founded it's not as well founded as the fact that taxpayers will also want to know that their money went to funding efficient workers. It's far worse to go to an understaffed brothel than a brothel with receptionists who are rude as hell and barely even do their job, meaning there are essentially zero efficient staff.

Teenagers who are clearly refusing to accept a job would actually accept it just to get fired. This would then be the perfect excuse for claiming unemployment benefits yet again. And whilst they were doing the job they both hated and were crap at, they actually could have been searching for a job they wouldn't have reacted so volatile too and inevitably have furthered the economy far better with their time and effort than with the system proposed.

It is now time for me to conclude that whilst taxpayers don't want to fund laziness they also don't want to fund inefficient job vacancy theft which will inevitably begin occurring on a large scale if accepting the first job offer is compulsory.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent argued that teenagers would accept a job just to get fired. Ironically, my opponent accepted this debate and now his account is closed!

Therefore, in the interests of fairness, this will now be a one-round debate.

Thank you.


UniversalEmulator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
hmm, a mentally ill receptionist at a brothel...? cure to immorality? :}
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
Bladerunner - exactly; if a mental illness renders someone debilitated, it would factor into the case. Let's not assume that it doesn't.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
This debate is not specific to any country but, I suppose, that teenagers with mental or other debilating health issues could not be reasonably expected to accept any job offered them.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
Why would the "mentally ill" part factor in, unless it renders the person unsuitable for the job in question?

Also: while I generally agree with the position here, Pro, I think you should put an exemption in for a job that one doesn't want, but that others in identical welfare straits as you might want. For example, were I a jobless woman in Germany, I'd want to be a receptionist at a brothel! The job would get filled, and the net result to the welfare system would be the same.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
This topic is actually very relevant to my situation, so I have a question: does your resolution include mentally ill teenagers, and does it apply to non-German governments?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
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: PRO successfully demonstrated that when one exists as a strain on society, because of the imperative to be employed, the morally offended prospective employee had a duty to take the job offered out of social responsibility to pay taxes. CON offered speculative arguments that were insufficient to counter PRO. Good debate.