The Instigator
msaka33
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ProNoob
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Welfare recipients should undergo the same background checks that gun owners do

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 1 vote the winner is...
ProNoob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 30082
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

msaka33

Pro

If law-abiding, tax-paying citizens should have their privacy violated and have a dozen background checks on them by the government for simply owning a gun that they have never used against the public, then I think the same should go for welfare recipients, including the frauds who abuse the system and make the working class pay more out of their pockets
ProNoob

Con

What someone can do with welfare income and what someone can do with a gun are so different and thus require far different regulations.

It would be a waste of time worrying about the vast minority of people who live off welfare which quite frankly allows only the most basic lifestyle possible and thus is so cruel a method to motivate people to get rich that they might as well not bother being frauds if they can avoid such a low wage.

With a gun, however, that person can go around killing people left right and center if they have proven themselves insane before. These people with a gun are far more dangerous than the former with welfare.
Debate Round No. 1
msaka33

Pro

Just look at it from a different perspective of dangerous, welfare frauds play a big factor in this crumbling economy, more than gun owners, 10% of the country isn't a vast minority, but wouldn't you not say it is a waste of time worrying about the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding, respected members of their community? Why is it so bad to want to motivate the poor to do well and to get a job? Economic competition is what made this country great
ProNoob

Con

Currently, only 1.7% are truly on Welfare. http://wiki.answers.com...

The reason that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding, respect member of their community is because they were all background-checked in order to permit them getting it.

"Why is it so bad to want to motivate the poor to do well and to get a job?"

It's not bad at all. The motivation is the fact that being poor leave virtually $0 for luxury of any kind. However we must pay them the bare minimum for food shelter and water so that their children can survive.

"Economic competition is what made this country great."

Evidence? I think this is complete nonsense quite frankly. USA isn't even that great a country anyway. It's just as good as China and Germany for example.
Debate Round No. 2
msaka33

Pro

Okay my bad, I wasn't clear enough, 10% of the population is on some sort of government support, which is pretty much what I am talking about, I just used welfare as a general issue

"However we must pay them the bare minimum for food shelter and water so that their children can survive."

I agree with you on that sir, but have you seen some of these welfare recipients? A lot of these people are well-abled people who didn't try in high school, didn't try to get into college, but they still get benefits. I don't have a problem with helping the poor class, I have a problem with helping the lazy class

"Evidence?"

Look at the 1980's and 90's, Reagan did a magnificent job with the economy, he was the broad definition of capitalism.
Look at our public education system for example, it works the same way, competition doesn't even exist in our schools, the teachers are getting paid more and more, while the IQ of our students are decreasing less and less, I went to a Catholic school during my grammar years and went to a public high school, I saw a huge difference, when you enforce competition, you give people an incentive to want to try harder and strive to do the best you can, in public schools, literally everyone in my class made the honor roll, same thing goes with business, you try to do better and make the most money you work for, not 1 person does 99% of the work and the other does 1% but they split the money 50-50, look at Cuba, a country bought and sold for on socialism, is that what we should look forward to?
ProNoob

Con

My opponent has dropped all of the contentions I rebutted in round one and two.


The first contention of mine they conceded to is that "What someone can do with welfare income and what someone can do with a gun are so different and thus require far different regulations."

This sentence alone rebutted the entire resolution and yet went totally unaddressed in round three.

The attempted rebuttal was that " welfare frauds play a big factor in this crumbling economy, more than gun owners, 10% of the country isn't a vast minority, but wouldn't you not say it is a waste of time worrying about the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding, respected members of their community?"

To this, I replied "Currently, only 1.7% are truly on Welfare. http://wiki.answers.com...

The reason that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding, respect member of their community is becausethey were all background-checked in order to permit them getting it."

Pro failed to reply and this counts as a dropped argument.


The second issue I raised, that went uncontested in round three, was that "It would be a waste of time worrying about the vast minority of people who live off welfare which quite frankly allows only the most basic lifestyle possible and thus is so cruel a method to motivate people to get rich that they might as well not bother being frauds if they can avoid such a low wage."

Then when my opponent asked "Why is it so bad to want to motivate the poor to do well and to get a job?" I replied "It's not bad at all. The motivation is the fact that being poor leave virtually $0 for luxury of any kind. However we must pay them the bare minimum for food shelter and water so that their children can survive." To which my opponent replied "I agree with you on that sir"

Yet another dropped argument.

My opponent then goes on an emotionally fuelled rant regarding the IQ of students decreases less and less and regarding his/her own experience of going to a Catholic school. This was all to prove "America's greatness" and how it was based on "Capitalism". However this didn't explain why the government should waste its police force's subsidies on background checks of welfare takers (which would actually take quite a lot of police time and effort) when the welfare itself was such a low income that it would motivate people to work.

Thanks for the debate, pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by msaka33 4 years ago
msaka33
When I say Reagan and the 1990's, I meant his policies carried over into the 90's with Bush and Clinton
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
My teacher lived in China for eight years. Told me there was a factory fire, but no body knew about it for five hours because of the smog. China is just awful. It's getting better, though, by embracing the reality that communism is a broken system that produces broken countries with broken people.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I can get behind this idea much more readily than I can the idea of drug testing welfare applicants and recipients. That goes for workers and job applicants as well.
Posted by ProNoob 4 years ago
ProNoob
Same to you Dylan.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
"It's just as good as China "

You are quite misinformed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
msaka33ProNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all arguments. I still stand by what I said in the comments, but Con clearly wins this debate.