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

Welfare discourages hardwork

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,982 times Debate No: 46492
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




First round is acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


Socrates was right when he said, definition aids to better argument and understanding.
Welfare: according to oxford advanced learnmers dictionary edition 8,it defined welfare as money that government pays regularly to people who are poor,unemployed,sick e.t.c and according to free online dictionary, it defined it as practical or financial help that is provided, often by governmment, for people that need it.
Hardwork: putting effort on job or something. Based on this definition, my premise is stated thus: since most of this money goes to the poor, sick, unemployed, children e.t.c, and this are problems which the government need to solve, then welfare will even encourage hardwork. Do we know that if one is been compensated or given quota for the work done, that it will encourage the person? Now for the unemployed, they are starving. The government ought to provide industries and other social amenities that will help them and since this is not available in some country like Nigeria,Ghana,ethiopia,e.t.c then this welfare will even support the poor.
A brilliant young woman in u.s.a was asked to support her argument in favour of social welfare, she named the most reliable source ever imagined:the look in a mother's face when she cannot feed her children. Can you look that hungry child in the eyes? See the blood on his feet from working barefoot in the cotton fields. Or do you ask his baby sister with her belly swollen from hunger if she cares about her daddy's work ethics? This is a practical example of what am saying. Most of this welfare goes to the poor,children and unemployed.the president of America barack obama stated on that welfare even encourage hardwork. Having given this argument, I await my opponent's reply.


Jumping straight into this, but the first thing I want to declare is that some people can be on welfare and deserve it. That however does not change the fact that it can drastically be misused.

Welfare pays just as much or more than minimum wage in some states

"A combination of food stamps, temporary cash grants, WIC, and housing assistance is worth a pre-tax value more than $30,000 in 16 states. "[1]

The average Per Captia income in the USA in 2013 $42,693 [2] .

The average income per household varies from 39k - 55k yearly depending on the states[3]

So if we look at the fact that this is a household budges, that means two people make around 50k yearly. Half of this is 25k, and that is already less than what a welfare recipient can receive.

This is not the case in every scenario but on average welfare pays just as much as minimum wage.

Logically this goes to show that it could discourage hard work. If you make just as much not working as you could doing a full time job, what motivation is there.

Studies support that welfare discourages work.

Here are some studies that support this

"One thing that economists know—and the data show—is that when the net benefits to working are lower, people are less likely to find work. For instance, increasing the number of weeks that a worker receives unemployment insurance is commonly done whenever there is a recession, although 99 weeks is well beyond what was done in previous recessions. What we observe when benefits last 26 weeks, as is normally the case, is that a fair proportion of people find jobs the first month or two, a trickle of others find jobs in months three through six, and then most of the rest become employed in month seven, when benefits expire. When we extend benefits to nine months we see the same pattern, except that the magical month when the bulk of the unemployed rejoin the work force becomes month ten. Or if we extend it to 52 weeks then it becomes month thirteen. Most people would rather not work if they can afford not to, it turns out, and I include myself among that number."[4]

" Low-income families often receive benefits from multiple welfare
and tax programs, such as assistance with food, housing, and day care
costs, help with medical costs, or cash payments to supplement earnings
from work. While these programs often support and encourage employment,
program ``phase-out rules'--especially when combined across multiple
programs--mean certain households may not be significantly better off
if they earn more from work. Economists have studied the interaction between earnings and
benefits under various programs by focusing on what are called
" implicit marginal tax rates,' which refers to the portion of an
additional dollar of earnings effectively lost due to rising taxes and
benefit reductions. Due to implicit marginal tax rates that can
approach or even exceed 100 percent when individuals receive benefits
from multiple programs, it is possible that some individuals will be
little better off financially--and in some cases even worse off--if
their earnings increase. [5]


This is a syllogism but it explains itself

[P1] If you receive a significant amount of tax benefits , along with a decent amount of money from welfare and other low income programs there is no need to work because you are already doing well.
[P2] Recently the eligibility requirements have decreased for these programs, and the amount of time along with number of benefits have increased
[P3} If you have more benefits from a low income program like welfare and Wic and can support your family better with that program, there is no need to get a job and actually contribute to the economy because you will be making less or just as much as you are already making.
[P4} Because there is no incentive for people to work because of the benefits and money they are receiving, welfare discourages hard work.

The resolution is not upheld. Welfare does discourage work, and especially hard work.

Debate Round No. 2


It is unfortunate that there is such a growing stigma attached to this debate. First and foremost, let me start by reboutals.
1.WELFARE PAYS JUST AS MUCH OR MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE. The minimum wage which my opponent is giving as example, can never be compared to the minimum wage amount. Take for instance, in Nigeria, every worker receives 20k per month plus his/her salary if summed up, a level 16worker who recieves over 100k per month, will be paid extra 20k as minimum wage making it to be over 120 thousand naira where as the unemployment issue in that country is nothing to write home about, whereas the poor are gnashing there teeths, whereas the children are begging in the
Source has shown that nigeria's Gdp(gross doomestic product)which is been calculated every year has drained due to the minimum wage issue as stated by the former governor of central bank of Nigeria, sanusi lamido sanusi on 7th april 2013. Imagine a situation, whereby the unemployed are compensated, either with social welfare like building of industries where they will work and paying little amount of money that will encourage them, don't you think that it will make them to be serious in their work? If one who earns ""7 a month with 4kids is been given compensation or well taken care of so as to take care of the little folks at home, don't you think the person will be serious because of the quota he earns?..
Studies support that welfare discourages work.
Thats a faulty premise and thats a fallacy. stated that welfare encourages hardwork. It won't in any way discourage hardwork. Now, there is different between tax payment,low income and welfare. It seems like my opponent do not understand my premise which I earlier stated. My argument is based on this, since welfare encourage hardwork as stated by sources, then it should be encouraged the more. My logic is based on this,we have social welfare, and other forms of welfarer that encourage people. This money is based and paid to unemployed,poor and sick. The case of unemployment is caused by the government because they didn't do their job instead they loot and embezzle public fund. So had it been the government solved this problems, the 77.7unemployment rate which is been found in Nigeria, 81.7unemployment rate in Ghana will not have been there.
In conclusion, welfare encourages hardwork because most of this goes to the children and the less privilege who are lagging behind in terms of financial bouyant. And when one is encouraged on what he/she is doing, the person will find more reason to do more.take for instance, dickson was an investigating journalist who fought through the looks and cranny part of his country and found out that the American soldiers there came not just to protect them, but to milk there oil. Later on, he was rewarded and this even made him to be more active and exposed corrupt leaders. Having giving this, I urge you to oppose this motion.,, and



Minimum Wage

I am gong to dismiss this entire rebuttal. My adversary is taking another countries payout system and comparing it with america. This is not the same and cannot be compared in any relative way. At least within the context of this debate. This point is invalid and null. We are discussing Americas welfare program, not another countries system. Comparing the two are almost impossible.

Studies show that welfare discourages hard work

My adversary claims some source says it could encourage work. This is not cited or even relevant. He is just making assumptions at this point without providing any evidence to support his case. I have shown how studies support this contention. This is shown by the amount of benefits someone receives from programs like welfare and WIC, compared to the actual money they could make on a minimum wage job. The government has made it easier to receive benefits like welfare, unemployment, and WIC and also have extended the length these programs last for. In comparison to actually having to work this is a great option for people that are on the programs. They could even work under the table to get extra money while drawing money from the government. Some people even use these programs to sell food stamps and what not to put extra cash in there pocket. The current way this is set up does discourage hard work. There use to be check ups for stuff like this based on people searching for jobs while drawing unemployment or current finical situations in which the people receiving these was regulated and watched more thoroughly. Under the current administration these precautions have been removed and it takes away the incentive for someone to actually find a job. The incentive use to be find a job in (x) time or we will possibly cut your benefits. This was a little motivation for people to look for work in unemployment cases. It is similar to welfare with the lack of regulation that is now apart of the system. It pulls out incentive.

One study even shows this

"No one likes the current welfare system. Governors complain that federal law is overly prescriptive and are willing to take less federal money in return for more flexibility. The public believes that welfare is anti-work and anti-family although polls show that the public wants welfare reformed in ways that do not penalize children. Welfare recipients find dealing with the system degrading and demoralizing; most would prefer to work1. Experts note that welfare has done little to stem the growth of poverty among children. In all but two states, welfare benefits (including food stamps) are insufficient to move a family above the poverty line2.

In short, the current indictment against the welfare system has four particulars:

It does not provide sufficient state flexibility.
It does not encourage work.
It is responsible for the breakdown of the family, especially for a rising tide of out-of-wedlock births.
It has done little to reduce poverty, especially among children."[1]


Pro has not met his BOP. He has not shown how welfare promotes hard work. I have shown the accessibility and the amount of benefits someone can receive from welfare and other programs , can far outweigh that of a minimum wage job which takes away the incentive to work.

Pro has not upheld his side of the BOP, while I have left his case in shambles.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Mikal did you forget in the end that you were in fact the "Pro"
Posted by Gencsta 3 years ago
Really? Its almost an indisputable fact that welfare discourages work.
I'm curious to what the Con has to say, but this should be much easier for the pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were backed by Sources also better formatting makes Pro's case interesting and better convincing. In Conclusion Pro met his "BOP" and Con failed to fulfil his part of "BOP".
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A sourced study from Pro proving welfare decreases hard work outweighs an unsourced and non-specific claim that elephantjournal proves people on welfare work harder.