The Instigator
Lee001
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheRealArnold
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 79020
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Lee001

Pro

Resolved: Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Definitions:

Abolished: "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)."

Welfare:
"A government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves."

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

Sources;

Abolish (https://www.google.com...)

Welfare ( https://www.google.com...)
TheRealArnold

Con

Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?
Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person
in the USA if missing two paychecks could be homeless. Without welfare their would be a lot more homeless people and alot more empty houses, to put it short homeless people don't do well in job interviews. Maybe your argument is favorable to the tax paying citizens? The average tax payer in the US pays $13,000 dollars anually in tax, 1,820 of that goes to welfare. This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with
a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate. For example it happens 74 time a day in mexico and 91 times a day in Brazil, and if you make people desperate it will happen in the US aswell.
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Pro

Thank you for proving to us that you didn't read the rules. Round 1 is acceptance from Con.

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......

TheRealArnold

Con

What would happen to the poor if welfare was eliminated? What would happen is a small percentage of them would find employment with no medicare and most likely not making enough to support a family. We are also living in a technilogical revolution which is making it so machines can do alot of factory work that has employed people for generation, other job such as ones provided by GM motors, the biggest USA employer in untill the 1980s, have outsauced dew to globalisation.

NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cards in a manner that was against the law.
Well how canwe judge what the poor, desperate, mentally and phyically sick spend what little money they are given on? And to take the byass of a NY Police officer as fact without shedding light on the disabled and starving familys that feed themselfs with food stamps in NY everyday.

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. Charity's are not as affective as the federal govourment and cannot be relied upon to support yourself and a family and take away small digneties which i believe everyone is entitled to but espesially the children and pentioners and the disabled who deserve it.
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Pro

I'm really unsure where to begin in this round because Con stated his argument in R1. So I will begin by refuting his argument now, then by defending my argument.
Con states "Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?"
Here, con agrees that abolishing of welfare would do some people good. He did not negate my topic, but agreed to it. Con then says it would harm many, yet he doesn't provide any proof for such a statement. Con says "Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?"Taxpayers. They wont need to pay for people who misuse it, or don't put it in use for what its actually provided for.
Con states "Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person
in the USA if missing two pay checks could be homeless." It's obvious for any family. If they have one less income, it's possible for anyone to become homeless. Not only those who depend on welfare.
Con goes on to say that 'This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with
a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate." Con believes that welfare is provided for criminals because they steal from the rich. Does this mean we still provide them with money?
Defending my case;

"What would happen to the poor if welfare was eliminated? What would happen is a small percentage of them would find employment with no Medicare and most likely not making enough to support a family. We are also living in a technilogical revolution which is making it so machines can do allot of factory work that has employed people for generation, other job such as ones provided by GM motors, the biggest USA employer in until the 1980s, have outsauced dew to globalisation. "

It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree.
Arguing that machines have taken away jobs from employers is false. this has been going on for many years. Your rebuttal is invalid.
"NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cardsin a manner that was against the law.
Well how canwe judge what the poor, desperate, mentally and phyically sick spend what little money they are given on?"

Con argues that these people who have stolen and committed illegal crimes are okay. They should suffer no consequences, and the actions they commuted are okay. He merely states that these people have a reason (which is okay) to commit these illegal crimes.

Con says ". Charity's are not as affective as the federal government and cannot be relied upon to support yourself and a family and take away small digneties which i believe everyone is entitled to but espesially the children and pentioners and the disabled who deserve it."
Yet, he doesn't prove to us *how* its not effective. After all, every little bit counts.
TheRealArnold

Con

some good points, I have really enjoyed this back and forth.

Pro says:
It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree.

Afew things wrong with this are, not everyone gets into universcity, its expensive and you can be dennied your aplication. The idea that their will be more jobs with a degree is not true anymore, their are many people with degrees working in wallmarts and other awful jobs, 45% of college students can't even find a job in their first year after college anymore. Not everyone should go to universcity, the only people who should go are the above average inteligence and people who wish to study a particular field, the idea that getting a degree will instantly get you a job is foolish and lazy unimaginative thinking. Also as technology gets better their will be less and less jobs, their is a machine that has been built that prefores the most dangerous and complex surgeries, when its cheaper than a sergion and they loose their jobs what for them?

It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree.

Yes i would have to agree with the fact that outsaucing has been going on for years but it happens alot more now than it did in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, proof of that is china has the largest economy because it has alot of all the american jobs. So for example say you had 10 jobs and their were 10 people doing these jobs, one job each. and three jobs go to china to make cars. then one of the three who lost his job gets a job selling those cars, you still have two people without jobs. No amount of eduacation will create more jobs and not everyone has it in them to be an "entrepreneur", this is expecting to much and to little at the same time.

This is my favourate

Con argues that these people who have stolen and committed illegal crimes are okay. They should suffer no consequences, and the actions they commuted are okay. He merely states that these people have a reason (which is okay) to commit these illegal crimes.

To this i put that this is a moral question. I would not say that trading food stamps for real money and vice versa is a crime, it is an act of desperation. Foodstamps can not perchase any of the following: Toilet paper, Laundry, Toothpaste, Soap, Diapers (or as we call them nappies on this side of the pond), Tampons and Pads, Deodrent, Hair Care Products, Cleaning products and Lotions for Skin Iritations. How can you be expected to find work atall without these essentials, myabe bending the occasion rule that doesn't harm anyone isn't such a bad thing after all? If you were on food stamps could you live without these things? What if you were disabled and had no chance of ever having a job? The world would be alot more dangerous if all the blind people had to hunt for their food wouldnt it, because they would, no human is ever going to die without a fight its against all instinct.
Debate Round No. 3
Lee001

Pro

This round calls for conclusions.

I have shared the voters with reasons why Welfare should be abolished, and how we should replace it. Con fails to negate my argument. For the most Part, Con agrees with most of the points I was making.

Con fails to prove to us that the system doesn't get taken advantage of. Instead, he agreed that it does get taken advantage of and that "The poor steal from the rich". Con simply agrees that the system gets taken advantage of.

Con doesn't provide any reliable sources or facts to prove *any* of his points. Instead, all of his arguments are based merely on his opinion.

And Pro, I have sucesfully shown how the system gets taken advantage of, why, and how we can solve and replace it!

Sorry for keeping this so short, but that really summarizes the debate.

Thanks to Con for debating this with me!

Vote Pro! :)
TheRealArnold

Con

Con fails to prove to us that the system doesn't get taken advantage of. Instead, he agreed that it does get taken advantage of and that "The poor steal from the rich". Con simply agrees that the system gets taken advantage of.

You take my quotes out of context, in this arguement it is for you as the instigator to show me facts a figuers that prove your right as the burden of proof is on you and you have failed to do so. althought as a realist i did agree with you on very cirtane matters you have only said that charities that are privatly owned and have no gaurenteed funding will sort out the problem while showing me no sistics on how offten they succeed or fail. If poor people steal from the ritch they obviously dont do a very good job. my arguemnet is for such a small amount of money welfare does help alot of elderly disabled and children, your arguement is that the welfare system is taken advantage of and people should all go to univercity to get better jobs, yet you didnt show me proof that this would help anything, you dismissed my outsaucing and techinlogical agreement that we need welfare more than ever now because of outsaucing and machines that do the working class jobs, and the fact that their are less jobs now than ever, this you can not denny. My argument is that if you take away peoples welfare they will most cirtanly turn to crime as their arent enough jobs for the people on welfare to do.

This si my first debate on this site so thank you very much Pro it has been fun.
Vote con!!!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Sarra 1 year ago
Sarra
As a small business owner that deals with people who have food stamps and welfare, some people do take advantage of the situation and for these people there should be some sort of accountability or method of reporting them, but most people do not take advantage as they are seriously injured and in need (at least in North Carolina).
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Who did you agree with before the debate?Tied
Who did you agree with after the debate?Tied
Who had better conduct?Tied
Who had better spelling and grammar?Tied
Who made more convincing arguments?Pro
Who used the most reliable sources?Pro

Debate was cordial and grammar was no big issue, therefore points are tied. Argument goes in favor of Pro since she explained the impact both economically and socially of welfare. The fact that Pro was the only one who used sources and had much large, more detailed arguments helps tilt the points to her favor. Much of Con's rounds were used in stating what she did not explain, which I cannot classify as a rebuttal. In order to have an argument, you have to not only state your own, but go against the points made by the opposite side, which Con did not do. Pro was also the only one who used sources, including graphs.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
So, yes, welfare should be abolished; charities are better.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
The system is abused as well. The people on welfare apply for food stamps, and then sell them.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
They also get into drugs and crime... The sense of entitlement leads to a high crime rate.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I see this first-hand in Memphis every day. There are so many ghetto thugs with a sense of entitlement. They have 13 children and no job, yet they have 3 iPhones, Versace clothing, and big-screen TVs.... They live better than I do, and everyone in my family (except for my younger sister) has a job.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
robertacollier
I disagree. How will people trade their EBT cards for Colt 45 and lottery tickets?
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Much better!
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
I would use a different definition for welfare that clarifies what you mean....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sarra 1 year ago
Sarra
Lee001TheRealArnoldTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Prior beliefs: depends on whether we are discussing the entirety of welfare or ignoring corporate welfare. Con failed to only accept in R1, so conduct goes to Pro. Pro is the only person who sites sources. Based on the information provided, Pro?s case is stronger ? some people do take advantage of welfare and charities do help out with food and rent. These points were not significantly refuted by con.
Vote Placed by Kozu 1 year ago
Kozu
Lee001TheRealArnoldTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro since Con violated the R1 debate structure. I also award argument points to Pro since she's the only one that provided a source for any of her claims. I'm given several negative impacts of allowing food stamps such as out of wedlock births, wasted taxpayer dollars on those who don't need them, trading food stamps "under the table" for nefarious purposes. Con tries to explain the necessity of food stamps, as jobs are being replaced by machines, some people don't have the capacity to work. But without any kind of source for me to try and weigh it's impact, I'm not sure how I can grant Con these points. Pro also offers an alternative to food stamps, such as charities, which could cover a number of problems that food stamps face. Con disagree's with how effective that would be, but doesn't explain why it isn't as effective. Pro also gets source points, since she's relying on something other than herself.