The Instigator
Lee001
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,511 times Debate No: 74864
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (110)
Votes (3)

 

Lee001

Pro

Resolved: Welfare Should Be Abolished.

This debate will go to Kasmic.

I am very honored and pleasured to debate him!

Definitions:
Abolished: "To destroy completely."

Welfare:
"Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."

R1. Acceptance
R2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con
R3. Argument/Rebuttal's
R4. Conclusion

Sources: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...

https://search.yahoo.com...
kasmic

Con

Thanks for the debate Lee and GL

I accept!
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Pro

Thank you again for debating this topic with me.

My main argument will be that "Welfare Does More Harm Than Good"

Let's get straight to it!


Argument #1

Welfare gets taken advantage of.

It's quite obvious that women continue to have children to receive welfare checks. Sadly, these checks get taken advantage of by not using the money for what it's actual purpose is for. If we cut the system entirely, imagine how many women would stop having children. They wouldn't continue having children because then that means they wouldn't be receiving more money.

[1] What would happen to the poor if welfare were eliminated? Without the negative incentives created by the welfare state, fewer people would be poor. There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty. Studies suggest that women do make rational decisions about whether to have children, and thus a reduction in welfare benefits would reduce the likelihood of their becoming pregnant or having children out of wedlock.

Another problem is that these receivers continuously apply for food stamps, though they don't actually need them. Allot of fraud goes on as well with people applying and selling food stamps to those who aren't on welfare. On February 15,2015 Brushton, New York, 30 people were arrested for eligibly selling food stamps.

[2]NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cards in a manner that was against the law.

All allegedly bought alcohol, received cash, and bought other items food stamp recipients are not allowed to buy using a food stamp card, known as the Electronic Benefits Card (EBT). Police charged all defendants with second degree criminal use of a public benefit card, petit larceny, and misuse of food stamps. Though most were released with an appearance ticket, one defendant was held for parole violations, reports WPTZ.

Not only was the system being taken advantage of once more, but imaging how easily kids would be able to get alcohol as well.

[3] This type of fraud, called trafficking according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, happens by exchanging food stamps for cash. Trafficking food stamps happens at an extreme “street exchange rate,” which can range anywhere from $.25 to $.50 per dollar, according to WSPA. This means that for every $1 in EBT benefits sold, the recipient gets $.50 to $.75 in cash.

According to Addicting Info, the stigma about this type of welfare abuse or food stamp fraud is that it is unusually high because it is so easy to do.

Resolution: Instead of providing food stamps, charities could help out tremendously. Many charities are willing to help the needy in any way they can. For instance, there are organizations that cook and provide food to the needy. Why don't we replace providing food stamps, and do it in a much safer way. All food stamp receiving families should be introduced to SNAP. [3] SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program integrity.

So, not only will they be receiving food, they can also learn about how to make healthy choices and presume a healthy lifestyle. This is also a benefit for children growing up who had never been taught about healthy food decisions.

Argument #2

[4] It is less efficient than private charity. Private, local charity is true charity: it is voluntary, and it is not subject to the bureaucratic filtering process. I have never heard the government or any of its programs praised for efficiency, except by the government and those who head the programs!

There are many willing charities that are eager to help the needy in any way possible. Why not let them?

[5] If you need help with paying your rent or bills, including your electric or heating bills, you can look into the following local and national charities and non-profit organizations. A number of other services may be provided by a charity, including free food, housing, basic needs such as clothing, and much more. Various programs and services are offered by charities, as noted below.

Unfortunately the resources available from these organizations tends to be limited, and only a certain number of people can be assisted. This is mostly due to the high demand placed on the charities. Much of the aid is focused on people who are most at risk. This can include senior citizens, families with very young children, and the disabled. Even if a charity or non-profit can’t meet your needs, ask them for referrals. Or maybe they have a waiting list that you can sign up for.

Just because this is limited doesn't mean it's a bad thing. They will help those who are in most need and are assuredly unable to sustain a proper lifestyle. Many of these systems wouldn't be taken advantage of because people are actually helping you out. They don't just give you money and say "Here you go, your monthly check, do whatever you please with it" Nope. These organizations are making sure you use this money wisely and effectively.

Some of these organizations include: [4]

Community Action Organizations are local public and/or non-profit groups that provide various types of assistance to those in need. They can help with heating and utility bills, provide job training, rent payments, and various other services.

Episcopal Church - This is a national organization, but the services run by each local parish vary. The charity supports the vulnerable and families living in poverty. Volunteers can provide basic needs such as personal hygiene items, clothing, hot meals, or food. Some of the parishes of this charity may also have more extensive support, even involving health clinics held by volunteers or loans to use for car repairs. Continue with services from Episcopal Church.

Non-profit credit counseling agencies operate in many cities and counties. These organizations will usually charge clients a small fee for their services. However, if your income is low enough, then the debt reduction and other financial services may be offered for free, as a charity type service. Find a listing of free or low cost non-profit credit counseling agencies.

Note that these people are actually willing and happy to help those in need.

Sources:

[1] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org...

[2] http://www.inquisitr.com...

[3] http://www.fns.usda.gov...

[4] http://chalcedon.edu...

[5] http://www.needhelppayingbills.com...










kasmic

Con

A. Clarifying the issue:

The definition that Pro has provided for welfare is not just limited to government welfare. It is also not limited to financial. Essentially Pro is claiming that aid of any kind provided from anyone to anyone in any type of need should be abolished.

Burden of proof is on pro to affirm the resolve that “Welfare should be abolished.”

B. Case

1. Abolishing welfare as defined is untenable.

There is no feasible way to stop all people everywhere from provided all kinds of help to others. To even attempt to accomplish resolve would be to sacrifice Principles most societies accept. People should be free to offer welfare to whomever, however, and whenever they so desire. Freedom would have to be restricted. Property would have to be done away with. Welfare as defined in round one includes someone providing food, shelter, encouragement, and money. It sounds almost as if the resolution is suggesting we “abolish” families. Such an action is untenable.

C. Rebuttals:

1. “Welfare gets taken advantage of”

Pro claims that “It’s quite obvious that women continue to have children to receive welfare checks.”

I’ll be honest this claim surprised me. While there may be some women out there somewhere that has had children in hopes of receiving welfare it is ludicrous to claim that the sole reason women have children is to receive welfare. Even the studied pro cited is not as bold only claiming that “There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty.” The studied suggests that the desired result is likely, this is hardly convincing. Also it is important to note that this studied suggests that we “replace welfare with private charity.” This is important because as Welfare was defined in round 1 would be inclusive of “private charity.” Thus this source is opposed to the resolution.

Pro presents a solution to government welfare… “Instead of providing food stamps, charities could help out tremendously.” Essentially this “resolution” pro presents is to replace government welfare with a different type of welfare. This resolution is in conflict with the resolution at the beginning of the debate which implies that all welfare (all types) be abolished.

2. “It is less efficient than private charity”

This argument like the last is an argument for a different type of welfare rather than support to abolish welfare.

Concluding rebuttal:

Most of Pro’s arguments support welfare, just not one type. Government welfare is not the only kind of welfare. When pro concludes her round two saying “These people are actually willing and happy to help those in need,” She is endorsing the concept of welfare. Thus there is no support for the resolution.

Pro has resolved that Welfare should be abolished. Such a feat is untenable. Her arguments support welfare as defined. "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government (though not exclusively), to people in need." The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Pro

Maybe Con didn't read my definition on Welfare.

Just to be safe, the definition reads "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."

Note, that In R2, I stuck to the financial side of Welfare. I never went on to other types of welfare. But as you can see and read, my argument is strictly based upon the fact that "Welfare Gets Taken Advantage Of" I had provided the judges, and readers many examples, and proof that it does in fact get taken advantage of.

Rebuttal #1

1.Abolishing welfare as defined is untenable."


In this argument, Con seems to agree, that *everyone* no matter what the case, should receive welfare.

He concedes this by stating that "To even attempt to accomplish resolve would be to sacrifice Principles most societies accept. People should be free to offer welfare to whomever, however, and whenever they so desire"

The problem I have here is that welfare is provided by tax payers. So if you pay taxes, your taxes are used to support the needy. Therefore, with you saying " People should be free to offer welfare to whomever, however, and whenever they so desire" Basically, U.S citizens are *already* paying taxes that then goes to a portion of welfare.

Con the goes on to accuse me saying " It sounds almost as if the resolution is suggesting we “abolish” families. Such an action is untenable."

I'd like to know, when did I ever seem to make this accusation? I clearly stated that there are many better ways to help out families in need, and not even at that, but to help children whom are growing up in poverty and to at least give them a chance.

Rebuttal #2

“Welfare gets taken advantage of”

Note that Con only rebut's my argument that women continue to have children for welfare. Con drops my "Food Stamp" argument. He simply does not agree with my resolution to the Food Stamp argument, he leaves all accusations and proof as to how it gets taken advantage of, thus ignoring this problem. This makes my claim valid.

Now moving onto the pregnancy issue.

Con states that "Even the studied pro cited is not as bold only claiming that “There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty.” The studied suggests that the desired result is likely, this is hardly convincing."

He doesn't explain to me as to *how* it is not convincing, yet there is proof.

Con then goes to say that " Also it is important to note that this studied suggests that we “replace welfare with private charity.” This is important because as Welfare was defined in round 1 would be inclusive of “private charity.” Thus this source is opposed to the resolution."

In case you were unaware, A Resolution is [1] the act or process of resolving: Therefore, I had shown you as to why welfare is not a good idea, and how it gets taken advantage of so easily. Then I came up with a resolution to the problem, that would not only just allow charity workers to help, but to help families in need in a more positive healthy way.

I have a big problem with Con's "Conclusion" He states that;

"Most of Pro’s arguments support welfare, just not one type. Government welfare is not the only kind of welfare. When pro concludes her round two saying “These people are actually willing and happy to help those in need,” She is endorsing the concept of welfare. Thus there is no support for the resolution."

I have a problem with " When pro concludes her round two saying “These people are actually willing and happy to help those in need,” She is endorsing the concept of welfare. Thus there is no support for the resolution."

I basically argued that charities, instead of the government could help these people in need. Also, how did I not give any support to my claim, yet I gave a list of organizations that are completely willing to help anyone in need.

Please note, that the structure of the debate was not followed by Con. I stated that R2 was Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con. He should have came up with his own argument, instead he just rebutted my points. By the way Arguments mean more than one, meaning you should have provided your argument in this round.

Sources:
kasmic

Con

Pro says Note, that In R2, I stuck to the financial side of Welfare. I never went on to other types of welfare. But as you can see and read, my argument is strictly based upon the fact that "Welfare Gets Taken Advantage Of" I had provided the judges, and readers many examples, and proof that it does in fact get taken advantage of.”

Fair enough. Parents provide “welfare” to their children via food, clothing, shelter etc. Pro wants to “abolish” or “destroy” completely this welfare simply because it is taken advantage of. If pro had her way parents would no longer provide these types of welfare to their children. Note for her to argue that welfare should be distributed differently or from non-government sources is not sufficient to fill her burden. This is due to the full definition she provided for welfare. So her argument is to “abolish” any kind of welfare that is given. Imagine the number of infants and children that would die under such an arrangement. Therefore, we should not abolish these types of welfare. Such an argument would be to argue families should not exist. Fathers and/or Mothers should not provide for their children in any way. Ergo the resolution is negated.

Pro says that I “seem to agree, that *everyone* no matter what the case, should receive welfare.” This is not the at all what I argued. I argued that there is no tenable way to prevent all types of welfare, thus it cannot be abolished. It is impossible. Also due to the broad definition provided almost everything can be deemed welfare. So no, I am not argueing that everyone no matter the case should receive, rather that it is empirically obvious that everyone does.

Pro wants me to explain why the study concluding that something may be “likely” is not convincing. The study does not give any kind of barometer or estimate as to how much an impact. Will there be one less kid, or one million. Rather they just say it is “likely.” Or in other words they speculate without any data to support that conclusion.

Pro says
I basically argued that charities, instead of the government could help these people in need. Also, how did I not give any support to my claim, yet I gave a list of organizations that are completely willing to help anyone in need.”

What it seems pro is not getting from my argument is that charities would fit under the definition provided for “welfare.” Charities offer “Financial or other aid provided to people in need.” Thus, by the definition that pro provided, charities are welfare. So for pro to promote charities to replace government welfare is only to argue that a type of welfare should be replaced by another type, but still a type, of welfare.

Pro says “Please note, that the structure of the debate was not followed by Con. I stated that R2 was Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con. He should have came up with his own argument, instead he just rebutted my points. By the way Arguments mean more than one, meaning you should have provided your argument in this round.”

Here is the round one….

R1. Acceptance

R2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con

R3. Argument/Rebuttal's

R4. Conclusion

I did provide an argument. I argued that abolishing welfare is untenable… then I rebutted. Thus I followed the rules outlined in round one.

Debate Round No. 3
Lee001

Pro

The last round of this debate didn't call for rebuttal's. But there is one thing I need to clarify, that Con didn't seem to understand.

I would just like to clarify myself, one more time.

The definition is as follows; Welfare: "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."
Con says that "Parents provide “welfare” to their children via food, clothing, shelter etc. Pro wants to “abolish” or “destroy” completely this welfare simply because it is taken advantage of"

If you read the definition, you would read that welfare, being provided by the "government". This is what this whole debate is about. Welfare being provided by the government. There is a distinct difference between welfare, and the well-being of a human.


Conclusion

I have successfully proved and shown that Welfare, including checks and food stamps, given by the government and tax-payers, have been taken advantage of over multiple occasions. I have came up with a beneficial resolution to this problem. Let charities become more involved to help these needy families. Organizations such as S.N.A.P as mentioned in my previous round. This organization no only provides food for families, but they also help teach the families, including children how to make good food decisions that will benefit them later on in life.

Con actually didn't actually come up with any argrument like he said in the final round. He never game me, or the readers any reason as to *why* welfare *shouldn't* be abolished. He also never rebutted my food stamp, and fraud argument which was one of the main arguments in this debate.
Instead, it seems as if he had twisted my words to make them seem like something totally different.

As Pro, I have provided an argument that goes against welfare, how its a problem and how we ca resolve it. Therefore, vote PRO.





kasmic

Con

Thanks for the debate Lee

Summary of the Debate:

Pro resolves that “Welfare should be abolished.”

She defined welfare as follows;
"Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."

I noted that pro had the burden of prove, which she never contested. I also noted the broad scope that burden entailed.

“The definition that Pro has provided for welfare is not just limited to government welfare. It is also not limited to financial. Essentially Pro is claiming that aid of any kind provided from anyone to anyone in any type of need should be abolished.”

In this debate pro presented arguments against “government welfare.” This is only one type of welfare. In her conclusion she says that “
If you read the definition, you would read that welfare, being provided by the "government". This is what this whole debate is about. Welfare being provided by the government.” This is not so, I demonstrated this in my opening arguments and rebuttals to which pro never contested until the concluding round. The definition of welfare she provided is not just limited to government welfare.

Essentially the broad definition of welfare pro provided makes abolishing it untenable. It also shows that while welfare is especially associated with government welfare it is not exclusively so. Thus Pro fails to meet this burden of proof. Parents providing food and shelter to their children would fit under the title of “welfare” as prove defined it. So would charity. Thus here plans to replace government welfare are still welfare.

This debate is a no brainer. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
110 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I think kasmic won. I didn't like the resolution-sniping approach he took, and would have taken virtually any valid response from Lee to defeat his semantics play, but I just didn't see anything of the sort... the response bluesteel provided in his RFD would have worked perfectly, but I don't think it was right for him to vote off of that because Lee never made that response herself.

I would love to debate you on this, btw @Lee.
I won't pull any semantics.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Still interested in your feedback though...
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Yeah it is....sorry :p
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I tried voting on this, but looks like it's judge-only...
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Thanks for the feed back FCP
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
RFD: (1/2) I vote Pro.

My flow can be seen here: https://www.dropbox.com...

R2, Pro: Pro's case rested on 3 arguments: (a) that gov't welfare gets abused, (b) that SNAP is better than food stamps, and (c) that private welfare is preferable to gov't welfare.

R2, Con: Con argued (d) that welfare extended to all welfare per Pro's definition, (e) Pro has BOP, (a1) welfare was not the sole reason, (a2) the study was less than conclusive, and (c) private welfare is welfare and is thus, if private welfare is good, then (since it is welfare), Con wins. Con argued (f) it would be impossible to end all welfare because welfare extends even to family life and (g) a total ending of welfare would lead to a loss of freedom. Con dropped [b] and parts of [a]. Con functionally dropped [a], [b], and [c], except on a definitional level.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
RFD (2/2):

R3, Pro: Pro argued (d) that Pro only talked about financial welfare, (a) Con had dropped [a], (a2) that Con failed to explain why, (b) that Con had dropped [b], and that taxes in the squo mean [g] is irrelevant. Pro argued (h) that Con had merely rebutted, when the round was supposed to have new arguments. Pro dropped [e], [a1], and most of [f], and functionally dropped [d].

R3, Con: Con extended [d], argued (a2) argued that the study was just speculation, not an actual result, extended [f], and (h) argued that they had both argued and rebutted, meeting the round schedule. Con functionally dropped [a], [b], and [c], except on a definitional level, and dropped [e].

R4 contained no new arguments.

Ultimately, the entirety of Pro arguments amounted to definitional debate. I think it should be clear from Pro's opening speech that welfare specifically meant government welfare, even if her definition conflicted; winning off of technicalities is a way to have insubstantial and irrelevant debate. (What have we learned from this debate? That a totally non-altruistic society would be impossible? Great, that's groundbreaking) Further, Pro put more effort into debating -- gathering sources and writing arguments -- while Con merely kritiked the resolution. Pro thus was the better debater. I think Pro makes a very weak case, one that Con could easily have torn apart -- but didn't, except definitionally, not substantially.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I agree mostly with what Romanii is saying - which is, basically, that the economy cannot physically employ every single person, lest it overheat, which is why we'll always have some structural unemployment and the NAIRU is always positive - but I think an attempt to abolish welfare on the grounds of dependency is (a) disingenuous, because it simply isn't the case that people are "living off welfare" or that women are having more children (which cost a lot more than the marginal benefits they'll accrue) for the sake of attaining benefits, and (b) ignoring poverty as an endemic feature of capitalism, much of which is created and perpetuated by institutional forces - many of which GOP hopefuls to this day champion (cadillac welfare queens, anyone?).

For instance, the educational system in the U.S. is heavily skewed toward the top, and that's compounded by the fact that (a) GOP legislatures love to gut education spending or funnel it via vouchers which is de-facto defunding it and (b) the affluent are more able to afford college, and spend significantly more on counseling services, test prep, etc., and have opportunities available to them that others cannot access, so poverty begets poverty. There is no magic pill of social mobility whereby, if you work hard, you'll succeed. There simply is no equality of opportunity, and the basis for welfare is essentially the Rawlsian ethic - ignore the economics arguments for one moment, though there are literally zero credible arguments for abolishing welfare - that people have varying needs and dependencies, and thus society ought to adjust to pay them what they're due. That's not socialism: it's decency.

What's fascinating, though, is that if you were focusing on multinational corporations and oil magnates, I'd agree with you that there's *clearly* an unwarranted an unnecessary degree of corruption - or crony capitalism, if you'd prefer - that ought to be swiftly done away with. Alas, that wasn't the basis for your argume
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
How would they do that, though? Just trying to help people find jobs is useless because, like I said, the fundamental cause of poverty is that society simply doesn't have enough room for everyone to have stable employment. The government can't just produce adequately-paying jobs out of thin air -- redistributing resources (i.e. all forms of welfare) would seem to be the only feasible way the government has to help the poor.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Well maybe the government should stop just *giving* out money, and actually help these people get back on their feet.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Lee001kasmic
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: All of the debate rested upon the definition of welfare, which was contested. If Con is right, then Pro's case contradicts itself and she concedes to the resolution. If Pro is right, then Con's argument falls apart as it doesn't give any arguments for why government welfare should be maintained. Con pointed out that under this def., all aid to the poor and needy can be considered welfare as well, which means Pro was arguing *for* welfare. Pro recognized this and countered by saying that the definition stressed government welfare, but Con showed that other aid wasn't exclusive. Even though Con didn't provide much of an argument, Pro contradicted herself thus conceding to Con, and both seemed to assume that Pro held the BOP, which further disadvantages her side. I recognize that Pro meant to argue for government welfare only, but Con was arguably justified in kritiking the resolution. I simply cannot look past the def., because it is crucial to the debate outcome. Thus, I must vote Con.
Vote Placed by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
Lee001kasmic
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
Lee001kasmic
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This essentially turned into a semantics debate about the definition of welfare. Pro's definition of welfare being gov't assistance seems more plausible and in line with common understandings of "welfare." Con's definition was not very convincing because it devolved into absurdity, arguing that Pro had to argue that parents should allow their children to starve to death. Such a definition would render the topic unwinnable. Any definition that makes a topic unwinnable for one side is considered an absurd definition. Pro also has some leeway to carve out plans within any given topic space, so Pro had the right to propose abolition of specific government programs like food stamps (although Pro should note that SNAP is the current name of the food stamp program, which was renamed by the 1998 farm bill to "SNAP" -- but this didn't factor into my decision since Con never raised this argument). Ultimately, Pro proved food stamp abuse while Con provided no reasons gov't welfare was good.