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

Welfare policies should be stricter.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 12/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,769 times Debate No: 14145
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




I believe welfare policies have become far, far, FAR too lenient.

Look back, oh, 50 years to 1950/60-something. My grandmother worked briefly as a social worker. Her job was simple- someone signs up for welfare. They say something like this-

"Hi, I'm John Doe. My wife is Jane Doe. We both took minimal education. We still had a nice job, though, and we could easily afford our kids, Frank, James, Mary, Molly, Bob, Bubba and Stanley Doe. Then I got laid off and couldn't take care of the kids."

The story continues like this for a while. My grandmother goes in. She looks around. Checks their story. Kindly asks the kids their names. Looks at their funds. Searches through records to check their story. If everything matches up, she says something like, "Here's 60 bucks (around 600 today) and 40 bucks worth of food stamps redeemable at any government center."

Now fast forward to the 1980s. As per my experience.

A friend of mine tells me-

"Hey man, we're, like, totally out of cash."
"****. Now what?"
"I know how to trick the guys at the welfare department."
"Awesome! Let's go."

I sat outside the department building and waited for the official to inspect our house. But he never came. The only thing that left the building was the aforementioned friend, with 500 dollars in hand.

"Dude! Nice trick!"
"It's no trick. Just walk in there, tell them you have kids, make up names for all of them, and chances are there's someone in the records with that name. They never bother with the details. Then they hand you cash."

I tried it. I came out with 500.

Shouldn't the government restrict these things to the truly unfortunate or helpless? Why haven't they?


Thank you for allowing this debate.

Con will be arguing that all state welfare should not exist. Pro has allowed these terms via comment. Since pro did not make an argument in round one, Con will only use this round as the accepting and stance round. Con will begin his arguments in the remaining rounds.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting, Tidin.

I believe welfare has become too lenient. While the policies themselves are in effect, they are hardly enforced. Eventually welfare will collapse this economy. Why?

Too many people use welfare as their source of income. As a demographic, it is well known that the largest users are African-American couples of any age.

Don't brand me as a racist here. I am simply reporting the facts.

See, the point of welfare is that part of our taxes go to supporting these people. Perhaps when you donate, a small percent of your money goes to supporting cripples. This is good- it allows unfortunate people to regain a small portion of the life they had. But a larger percentage of that cash you dump in goes to people that claim they had no education and can't hold down a job, or even fake injuries because they don't want to work. Eventually this will raise tax rates. Then more people will want to be on welfare because it's easier. Then tax rates rise. The problem feeds on itself.

The Godhand


Thanks for having me. I do not see how this debate will pan out since we seem to swing the same direction, but I land at a much greater distance.


I would like to start by saying that the state welfare is a, what I like to call, a band-aid for their own programs. The need for the "band-aid" is caused by government interventions e.g. minimum wage laws, government industries, trade barriers, occupation licensing, etc.

State welfare, in a nutshell, is the taking of one's wealth, involuntarily through taxation, and distributing it to those who absolutely need it e.g. the disabled, mentally handicapped, etc. The system has perverted itself into that of helping those who don't absolutely need it e.g. corporate bailouts, etc. The unintended consequence of state welfare instills dependency to the state rather than the means to get people back on their feet [1]

Private welfare, in a nutshell, I do not have to be coerced to give a portion of my wealth or suffer the consequences if I choose not to. Private charity is on a voluntary basis out of good faith. It is much more efficient than state welfare.


Most of the money in our private system goes to the poor. Roughly 4-5 percent of the private sector welfare (charity) goes to the cost of upkeep and the rest goes to the poor. [2] Whereas, in the public sector, if the poor where given the money instead of goods and services, then they would get roughly 90 thousand a year (recipients/cost). It is clear this is not the case, since they don't have even close to that.

=De facto Bankrupt=

Social Secirity; 134 billion annually in the negative [2]
Medicare; Went broke in 2007 [3]

You get the picture...

=Negative Rights/Positive Rights=

A negative right is the right to oblige inaction i.e. the right to be left alone, be free of violence, etc.
A positive right is to permit or oblige action i.e. the right to food, clothes, positive experiences, etc. [4]

Contrasting these rights:
Negative rights are time universal e.g. a Neanderthal had the same rights as we do today. Positive rights are time dimensional e.g. a Neanderthal had the same right to welfare as we do today.

Game Theory-
If I have more negative rights, then you don't necessarily have less negative rights. If I have more positive rights, then I have less of them.

Negative rights have the luxury of voluntarily giving the poor person $20. Whereas, positive rights, if you give a poor person $20, it is no longer charity, it is a right.

=Racial Tragedy=

First, over 50% of the children born in the black family are illegitimate. Roughly, 26% of all black children are born to unwed teenage mothers. Second, trending per year, more black teenage girls drop out of high school to have a child than do graduate from college. Finally, more than 50% of black children are being raised in single parent households. Roughly 75% of all poor black children are in these families. [5]

The state welfare system baits every eligible black female over the age of 16. The system, knowing of this tragedy, tells them that if you have a baby right now, you will get your own subsidized apartment, your own medical care, food stamps, and regular income over the period of 20 years. It doesn't stop there, if you have another baby, the government increases everything proportionately. *Note* each state has their specific welfare legislation.

Question: How many black men would be able to match the offer the state grants?
Question: How many teenagers of any ethnicity are able to afford an apartment at age 16?

Those girls who choose to take this offer, by the state are not ignorant or have low morals. They are using a rational guide to improve their economic status. By being reliant on the state, black women are no longer looking for a husband, or in short, black families are not forming. [6]
The breaking up of the family is not exclusive to the black family. Every ethnic group has been affected by the welfare state. [7]


"You can have the ideal welfare state, just join a co-op that will contractually enforce all members to share the welfare payments of all other members. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. You can also have democratic elections in that co-op, just as you wish. I only ask you one thing, don't demand that I join this co-op. Is that something you can do?" - Unknown

"The last barrier to fiscal irresponsibility was removed in 1971 with the introduction of universal fiat currency. In the last 50 years, the US has not had a true surplus. Keynes' theory, which envisioned deficits in slow economies offset by surpluses otherwise, was co-opted by the political classes. In less than seventy-five years, all welfare states were insolvent." - Unknown

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." – Alexander Fraser Tytler, 18th century Historian and Jurist

I put this together quickly tonight and I am tired. Thanks again for accepting.

[1] (Ctrl F: Welfare Dependency)
Debate Round No. 2


thegodhand forfeited this round.


Report this debate for whatever, to get it removed, if you would like.
Debate Round No. 3


thegodhand forfeited this round.


Tidin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


thegodhand forfeited this round.


Tidin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tidin 5 years ago
What gives you the right to steal my money by force? You believe that the government has the right to demand what I've earned. If I don't pay, you believe the government has the right to show up at my home and take my freedom. If I resist, you believe the government has the right to use deadly force and take my life.

Admit that you believe that you have more of a right to what I have than I do, and you are willing to use violence to take it.
Posted by GORGIAS 5 years ago
It is funny to me how someone can complain about another citizen getting $300 a month, as if thats giving someone the good life, and then point the finger on some "and most of the people on welfare are black." and then... have the nerve to say "don't brand me as a racist." lol. shame on you.
Posted by GORGIAS 5 years ago
Welfare stimulates the economy, and on top of that its barely even a help this is not the 80's fool, if you ever had to go through the process you would know they make you re-apply every six months and the average person only gets $155 for food per month without any cash aid (around the same amount for a couple to eat at Pf Changs.) I know students between the ages of 18-30 years old making $1000/month working full-time paying $650/month on rent (the cheapest apt you can get in phoenix) before adding in utilities or cost of back and forth to work travel, most have been denied countless times before approval and some have given up. Do the math, our citizens need it, and every one should be eligible. Set the challenge so i can push you off your high horse. :)
Posted by nonentity 5 years ago
"Too many people use welfare as their source of income. As a demographic, it is well known that the largest users are African-American couples of any age.

Don't brand me as a racist here. I am simply reporting the facts."

What does this have to do with your argument though? LOL
Posted by Tidin 5 years ago
You can use my any of the material I used once you debate him :P
Posted by thegodhand 5 years ago
Fine. I'll repost the debate and gorgias can take it after this is done.
Posted by Tidin 5 years ago
Emotional investment in a subject can be bad. Obtaining state welfare or not has nothing to do with the validity of my argument. I don't have to take heroin to know what it does. Get off your moral high horse and come to reality.
Posted by GORGIAS 5 years ago
This Debate was b.s. Obviously two people who have never recieved welfare, or lived in the poverty of the u.s inner city. I would love to have this debate with either one of you.
Posted by Sky_ace25 5 years ago
"I believe welfare policies have become far, far, FAR too lenient. *They should be abolished before the United States establishes an even larger welfare state."

Fixed =].
Posted by darceem 5 years ago
It seems like the challenge is less "No it shouldn't me stricter" and more "Is it actually as easy to get welfare as people think it is/say it is". It is Florida though, and welfare can vary from state to state.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06