The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

W-2 is better than AFDC.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/20/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,608 times Debate No: 3722
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

gahbage

Pro

First, some background information:

AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children is a welfare program established by the Social Security Act of 1935. It supports single mothers with children, people with disabilities, and people in poverty. This is where all of your welfare tax money goes to - the AFDC provides targeted families with a certain amount of financial support.

W-2: The "Wisconsin Works" program, designed by Tommy Thompson, has replaced the AFDC in Wisconsin. Instead of the main focus being welfare, it is more of an employment program. It provides welfare recipients with job training, transportation, child care and health care, thus decreasing the amount of money needed for welfare.

My argument (pro) is in support of W-2 over AFDC. I will support my case by stating points.

Point 1: According to ontheissues.org, Wisconsin has decreased the number of welfare-dependent families by 93% under W-2 (from 98,000 to 6,700). Through job skills training, former welfare recipients now have jobs that can support their basic needs without government assistance.

Point 2: In 1996, the AFDC spent $24 billion on welfare. Many of these families, because the welfare was all they needed, had no motivation for work, and thus leeched off the government and the taxpayers for support. Welfare also encourages families to have more children, as this boosts the bonus received.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

To say a thing is "better" presumes a standard, an ethical standard, based on the pursuit of the continuance of one's life and the facts of reality.

Reality dictates that secure continuance of our life requires that certain things don't happen to us- we aren't killed, we aren't prevented from using our mind to produce our material needs, and once we've produced those we're sure to enjoy the benefits. These are what is "right" for humans, the rights of life, liberty, and property. When we realize that there are other humans, with the same need, who will only be motivated to respect these rights if we respect theirs, we have come to a politial conclusion- we cannot initiate force against them, but if they start it we have to retaliate if they don't repent, that is, we have to eliminate the threat.

This means that taxes are evil, because they initiate force. Both W-2 and AFDC are taxpayer funded, therefore, both are evil, requiring that we eliminate their perpetrators if they fail to repent. Which one is "better?" Whichever one is easiest to eliminate. This means that programs like W-2, that get "more bang for your buck," are counterproductive- they encourage voters to keep the program around longer, which means human beings like us will be under the boot of taxation longer.
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

By "better", I mean an overall smarter and more efficient plan. That's what I plan to prove in this debate.

W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs, it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things, so they can learn to make more themselves. Of course, some people would still be on welfare, such as disabled people. Once W-2 is finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k).

Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs"

That's not relevant, since neither does welfare.

"it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things,"
At the cost of taxpayers being enslaved in the name of the program.

"so they can learn to make more themselves"

No, contradiction. If you required government aid that you did not pay for to begin doing a thing, it's continuation is not "making more yourself." It's inertia.

"finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k).
"

Fudged statistics. The relevant amount is not the specific money allocated to "welfare programs," it is the total unearned money stolen by way of taxation, both now and in the long-term. The short-term savings are proportionally negligible (Government tax revenue was 2.6 trillion in this country in 2007, we'll multiply your statistical difference by 50 to see the short term effects of complete adaptation of your plan, and come up with about 4.6 million, and thus with a .0002% difference in short term taxation).
The long term costs, of lengthening the number of times thefts on the scale of trillions of dollars are perpetrated, are massive compared to that.

"
Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government.
"
Just because something is currently a common practice and has an interest group behind it (bureaucrats, dictators, lobbyists, legislators, and the like) does not mean it is "inevitable." Burning dung was once a major cooking-energy provider for every human being. Now, however, we have better fuels. There are numerous potential funding mechanisms that are sufficient to displace taxes in a government reduced to it's legitimate functions of law enforcement, national defense, and dispute resolution (that is, police, military, and the courts). Such mechanisms include charges for registering a contract at the court (to make it legally enforceable,) charges for installing emergency phone lines, charges for registering property claims with the court, etc. People will, when offered the choice, choose to fund a legitimate government function, out of self-interest, but not an illegitimate one. The factory owner, for instance, is rational to fund a government for the act of preventing sabotage to his machinery- but rationally he would not pay for a subsidy to his competitor who produces an inferior product, and rationally that's bad for the consumer too.

In order to achieve liberty from taxation, then, it is necessary that such programs as "W-2" and "AFDC" be eliminated. Since AFDC is less efficient, it is easier to eliminate, i.e. it is easier to convince voters to stop supporting it. As such it is the lesser evil. Efficiency is only a virtue for producers of goods, it is a vice for producers of "bads." Hitler, for example, was far more efficient than Jack the Ripper- which is why we are more concerned with the evil of the former.
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

According to you, it's relevant; you brought it up in the first place: "This means that taxes are evil, because they initiate force. Both W-2 and AFDC are taxpayer funded, therefore, both are evil, requiring that we eliminate their perpetrators if they fail to repent."

Taxpayers are not "enslaved" any more than with the AFDC program. The only difference is with the job training from W-2, you won't be paying these taxes for nearly as long.

Okay, not making more themselves but making money themselves. Who cares? You should get my point.

I'm not talking about welfare money, I was talking about the number of recipients. And if the the number of recipients decreases, so does the amount you have to pay.

I haven't heard of any government that didn't have some form of taxation. So they might as well be inevitable, necessary. People fund the government anyway (i.e. lobbyists). Besides, this isn't the point of the debate.

"Since AFDC is less efficient..."

Well, you just conceded to my argument. I don't see why we need to finish this debate now.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
According to you, it's relevant; you brought it up in the first place: "This means that taxes are evil, because they initiate force. Both W-2 and AFDC are taxpayer funded, therefore, both are evil, requiring that we eliminate their perpetrators if they fail to repent."
"

Ignoratio elenchi. I was saying they initiated force against taxpayers, you were trying to make it sound like it was the welfare recipients who were the victims.

"
Taxpayers are not "enslaved" any more than with the AFDC program. The only difference is with the job training from W-2, you won't be paying these taxes for nearly as long.
"
People keep being born, which means, yes, in fact, you will be. Longer, since it's harder to get rid of the program.

"
Okay, not making more themselves but making money themselves. Who cares? You should get my point.
"

The objection was not to the "more," it was to the "Themselves." They are not doing it themselves if the government enslaved people to help it along.

"
I'm not talking about welfare money, I was talking about the number of recipients. And if the the number of recipients decreases, so does the amount you have to pay."

It's not the number of welfare recipients that matters, it's how long the program lasts. Because welfare is just one chunk of tax money, it has to be eliminated along with other things, and so speed is of the essence in dealing with it.

"
I haven't heard of any government that didn't have some form of taxation."

That's because they haven't tried it.

"So they might as well be inevitable, necessary."
Just because something "has always been the case" it's "inevitable" now? Used to be that it had "always been the case" that you had to do all farm work by hand or with horses. That didn't mean it was inevitable, now we've got tractors.

"eople fund the government anyway (i.e. lobbyists)."

Lobbyists fund the government? Ha! They fund politicians if that's what you mean. Different concepts entirely.

"Besides, this isn't the point of the debate"
It is a premise of my position, so yes, it is the point of the debate. If you can derive a conclusion about the resolution from the statement "Taxes should be abolished," which I have, the truth value of that statement is logically relevant.

"
Well, you just conceded to my argument. I don't see why we need to finish this debate now.
"
Don't make up straw men. The resolution is not just "W-2 is more efficient," it is "W-2 is better." My argument shows why "efficient" is not the same as "better" here, in fact it's the opposite. You are ignoring my argument, which means you have no evidence against it.

Since you have no argument against what I've said, only against what you wish I've said, it's clear you didn't think this through very well.

W-2 is very efficient, efficient at making sure the welfare state continues being a welfare state. That is not a good thing, the welfare state steals from the populace. My opponent has offered no arguments to this. As such, anyone disagreeing with me at this point should abstain from voting until they have posted a comment displaying precisely what their argument is, so I have a chance to address it. I came here for a logical debate, not a practice in tracking down an evader.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
And I should note, Pro had no rebuttal to my demonstration on that question.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
No, they are not. I just demonstrated they are not.
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
They're the same thing in this case.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Is anyone paying attention to the resolution, and the difference between the terms "better" and "more efficient?"
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
I know, plus he conceded anyway by saying W-2 is more efficient than AFDC.
I don't see how he even got one vote.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Don't be irrational LRN6. It does indeed matter that taxes are evil, as I showe. Pro showed W-2 costs less in the short term, not the long term.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
CON simply avoided the question at hand with a dumb semantics argument. CON was irresolutional. It doesn't matter that taxes are evil, and besides PRO showed that W-2 costs less, therefore it is less evil.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
This looks juicy. Like a nice, big steak.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Why doesn't someone challenge him for this one?
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Repete, having the "first hit" is not always having an advantage as we all know... just challenge him yourself :P
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by blondesrule502 8 years ago
blondesrule502
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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:03