The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
ComradeJon1
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed.

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: 2/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,307 times Debate No: 2533
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (18)

 

HandsOff

Pro

Welfare is funded by money stolen from its rightful owners and given to those the government deems worthy. This is charity funded against the will of the individuals who is forced to pay for it. Thievery is wrong and immoral,and should be outlawed, regardless of what the thief does with the stolen funds.
ComradeJon1

Con

You can call it "forced charity" but literally, its the government taking care of its people. When those less fortunate dont recieve enoguh via charity, the government must help, and this is the best way they can. What do you suggest as an alternative?
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

"When those less fortunate dont recieve enoguh via charity, the government must help"

It is you who believes the government "must" help, but you want to use my money and the money of your fellow Americans to provide that help. Why should a soft spot in your heart cost me or anyone else money?

I know a lot of broke people, and very seldom does it have to do with misfortune. If you can't make it in this country, you may be one of the least resourceful people on the planet. But let's say I am broke due to misfortune. Do I have the right to expect a charity to take care of me or for the goverment to pick up where the charity left off. Absolutely not. Charity is noble, just like helping the old lady nextdoor take out her trash cans. It feels good. But does that mean it should be required by law? Absolutely not. The fact that charity is voluntary is the reason it does feel so good. And replacing it with inefficient government-imposed charity just leaves that much less in our pockets to support good charities and feel good about it.
ComradeJon1

Con

So i suppose poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up? Your argument is based on a ridiculous proposition: that everyone can earn money at will. they cant. They really cant. In this, or any country, you can see that high rates of unemployment, poor economic stability or outsourcing are prevelant in many cases. this makes one man = one job, impossbile. there are extenuating circumstances and your friends that are too lazy to work are only a fraction of the unemployed community. And its not my soft spot, its common logic. Part of being american, being a capitalist, being democratic is being willing to help your neighbor when he is in need
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

"poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up"

Go down to the welfare office and tell me what percentage of "poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work" are in those lines. It would be nice if these truly needy people were the majority of those receiving welfare. But you know that's not true. Before our great welfare state existed, lazy people did have to "suck it up." But truly needy people did not. It's easy to spot a truly needy person, and private charities have always been around to do that. And I'm sure there was a day when people could afford to give more to those private charities (because their paychecks weren't being confiscated). Before FDR started the ball rolling toward turning the U.S. into a socialist republic, people helped people. It wasn't government, just people helping people (private charity).

Since private charities are and were run mostly by volunteers, most of the money donated was spent on those in need. Private charities keep costs lower because they are largley staffed by volunteers. They also experience less fraud because (unlike government welfare), they are able to discrimate between the people who need help and those who are able-bodied and just plain lazy.

Long before government decided its job was to save people rather than help them be free, it was PEOPLE who helped other people in need. That same good will that resides inside each liberal, resides inside all of us. We just disagree on the delivery method. You think charity should be forced. We think it should be voluntary. We want to express our generosity through genuine charity. It's commom knowledge that private charity is way more efficient than welfare, and therefore better for the donor and the recipient. Most of all, it just plain feels better. Welfare cheats the truly needy, rewards laziness, turns otherwise willing givers into victims of theft, and bastardizes the whole concept of giving.
ComradeJon1

Con

1) want evidence? the congressional demographics commission states that 87% of welfare recipients belong to families with children under 16.

2) if charities solved this problem, id agree, but there is absolutley no way you can prove this. reason?: charities contribute about 1.2% of what welfare does (Newsweek, Jan 08)

3) charity money is also often corrupted. I agree there should be reform to our welfare system to make sure the money goes to needy people, but repealing doesnt solve this issue.

4) help people be free? pretty sure we are free. and PEOPLE dont adequetly help other people. thats what makes welfare necessary.

To conclude, thank you for your time, good debate and good luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
There are some reasons (benefits to) slavery as well, but they cannot come into play when defending whether it is right or wrong.

Ah, we have a disagrement. How about something to this affect: Welfare is the government-legislated morality and is therefore wrong, regardless of its effects. I'll be pro. You can be con.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Mm... but there are other reasons besides morality for welfare. I know I seem nitpicky but it's hard to debate when questions get too specific
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Miserlou,
Let's agree the welfare is moral. We probably also agree that, in general, morality should not legislated. So how about this. You can be pro: Morality should be legislated in the one special case concerning welfare.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Okay, we can argue whether the government imposing welfare is moral. It's just that the way you worded it the first time "confiscating money from your neighbors" seemed loaded because who would agree with that?
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
I thought that you were joking...i was more or less explaining to anybody else that stumbles across these comments
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Miserlou,
Welfare in concept is moral. Having the government impose morality is what is wrong. Do you think the religious right should be able to impose their morality on the rest of us, and use government to enforce it? I think we're narrowing our debate topic down here.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Bones,
I was being fecitious, I'm also a hard core libertarian, and believe we are perceived as heartless. Like the results of most government policies, libertarianism is counterintutive.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
But your analogy is wrong; the government is not my neighbor and the neighbor is not my government. We can argue whether welfare is moral or not.
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
Libertarians have the biggest hearts, because they want everyone to be responsible for themselves. We need to be responsible for helping the poor, not the government. Religion and people will help each other if we let them.
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
I dont know if I agree 100% with Pro but he brings good points and I think he won this debate.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 Handout 9 years ago
Handout
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 coolman 9 years ago
coolman
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 liber-t 9 years ago
liber-t
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 jbg 9 years ago
jbg
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 bones 9 years ago
bones
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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