The Instigator
ANSmith
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

Welfare should not be long-term

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,958 times Debate No: 5326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

ANSmith

Pro

By "long-term" I am referring to indefinitely, or a period of time longer than 3-6 months. Now, I understand that some people on welfare have a good reason to be on it (i.e. they were laid off, fired, or some other personal financial tragedy), and welfare is there to pick them up until they can find a job. However, this debate is NOT aimed at those select few. This debate is aimed towards the ones on welfare who are not trying to find jobs, and have no intention of doing so. Those that milk the government for what it is worth because they know we will take care of them.

While the idea of welfare is noble; helping those without a job until they find one, it has unfortunately become ridiculous. Now granted, the number of americans of welfare reached an all-time low in 2000, and that's great! But again, this is my resolution:

From the day someone is put on welfare, they have 3-6 months to find a job before they are taken off welfare.

And here is why. Every year, part of our taxes go to pay for those on welfare, about 6.8% to be exact, so if you make $25,000 a year, then $1700 goes to welfare recipients. Not to mention the other taxes that are taken out. And while I'm all for helping those in need, i do not condone helping those who refuse to help themselves.

My opponent needs to make a valid and convincing argument that welfare is needed to support those who refuse to get a job, and have no intention of doing so. Not that welfare should be long-term for those who are trying to find a job and just need a boost for a bit.
Danielle

Con

Clearly my opponent is misinformed about welfare. In actuality, if someone applies for welfare, they do not automatically receive it as a temporary pick-me-up. Instead, they must go through (often rigorous) programs specified to locate problems regarding WHY this individual does not have a job, and those programs work diligently to assist that individual and get them back to work as soon as possible. While these agencies - such as FEGS or WeCARE - have noble mission statements regarding helping the individuals, the reality is that the government pays them to weed through the BS'ers and eliminate as many people from the welfare program as possible.

In that case, the only people who apply for welfare and continue to receive it have cited medical reasons (including mental and personality disorders) as to why they cannot work. Once this happens, they meet with a wellness case manager to discuss their issues, and based on a comprehensive assessment, are given a customized plan that they are told will meet their needs. This translates to them having to see whatever doctors necessary (chosen by the case managers) that must validate their claims. For instance, if one claims that they cannot work because of an injury, a specific doctor must examine the individual and verify that this is in fact the case. If not, the doctor will inform the case manager, and the individual will immediately stop receiving any type of welfare payment.

If a real condition is noted, the doctor will verify the patient's problem and send them back to the case manager. At this time, the manager will adjust the individual's plan to ensure that they are in fact seeking treatment for their problem. This is done under the premise that eventually the individual will get better and be able to return to work (i.e. stop receiving welfare). Additionally, if at any time the individual misses 3 of their appointments - either with any of the doctors or the case managers - they will stop receiving welfare. This is to ensure that these people are taking the condtions of their welfare seriously, and are headed on a path that will ultimately remove them from the welfare system.

I happen to know (I have 2 family members in the business) that most welfare claims are legit. While there are the few bad seeds, many recipients are veterans from Iraq - who due to their service are no longer able to work for either physical or mental issues - or people who are truly ill, pregnant (to the point where they cannot work, say if their being pregnant affects their health to the point where working would harm either them or the baby), etc. In fact, using the example of pregnancy alone, that would require 9 months on welfare, whereas my opponent argues for a maximum of 6.

Just to be clear, I would like to remind readers that my goal in this debate is "to make a valid and convincing argument that welfare is needed to support those who refuse to get a job, and have no intention of doing so" as specified by the Pro. My argument has been that people who receive welfare for more than 6 months do so only because they have been deemed ineligible to work by accomplished doctors in various fields (doctors who specialize in the areas of the alleged issues). Because of these problematic circumstances, many of these individuals both refuse to get a job and have no intention of doing so. Thus, I negate.
Debate Round No. 1
ANSmith

Pro

let me restate what this debate is about, and the topic of the argument. I am aiming this solely at people who do not have a legitimate reason to be on welfare, they are on welfare simply because they don't have a job and have no intention of doing so, not because of health reasons or pregnancy, but because they are lazy. My opponent is "beating around the bush" by arguing cases where people DO have a legit reason to stay on welfare, and some don't get a job because they can't.

My opponent states: "In fact, using the example of pregnancy alone, that would require 9 months on welfare, whereas my opponent argues for a maximum of 6."

--again, pregnancy falls into this category of when welfare is needed. I am not talking about these cases. This is not the topic of this debate.

Again, this is not what this debate is arguing. While my opponent makes VERY valid points by surfacing cases in which the individual has to stay on welfare (ie pregnancy, health condition, mental illness, disability, etc.) and "has no intention of getting a job", this was not my intention with this debate. When I stated "and having no intention to getting a job" I am referring to those who have no legitimate reason for welfare, besides the fact they are unemployed and they refuse to get a job (and I think we all know at least one case of this where we live).

Let me rephrase then what my opponent must prove, as she feels that she has already proven this when she, in fact, has not. In order to win this debate, my opponent must be able to prove that welfare is needed to support individuals who have NO LEGITIMATE REASON for being on welfare besides the fact that they are unemployed, refuse to get a job (or start looking for one), and have no intention of doing so.

Again, if the topic of this debate was "welfare is not necessary" my opponent would have won hands down; however this is not the topic of this debate. I encourage my opponent to think about what I am debating, come back and give me a valid argument to why welfare would be necessary for those that have no reason to be on it in the first place.
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately for Pro, she cannot in R2 change or specify what the topic of debate is about (especially to lean so heavily in her favor!). Debaters argue based off of the resolution. In this case, the resolution is pretty clear: Welfare should not be long term. Pro has the burden of affirming this, while I, the Con, have the burden of negation. If at any point the Pro wanted to elaborate on the resolution, doing so must have been done in R1. In fact, Pro did make sure to clarify Con's burden when she concluded her round with, "My opponent needs to make a valid and convincing argument that welfare is needed to support those who refuse to get a job, and have no intention of doing so."

Under these terms and conditions, I accepted this debate challenge. I then stated my argument which supported my conclusion, "Because of these problematic circumstances, many of these individuals both refuse to get a job and have no intention of doing so." Even Pro agrees that my argument was very convincing (it should be -- it's all true!). However simply because I have negated the resolution in one fell swoop - even under the specific guidelines set forth by the Pro during R1 - does not mean that the Pro can tack on additional burdens in later rounds. That's just non-sensical, and in debate terms, ABUSIVE.

Pro writes, "If the topic of this debate was 'welfare is not necessary' my opponent would have won hands down; however this is not the topic of this debate." Similarly, if the topic of this debate was "Welfare is needed to support individuals who have NO LEGITIMATE REASON for being on welfare, besides the fact that they are unemployed, refuse to get a job (or start looking for one), and have no intention of doing so," then my opponent would have won this debate. Why? Because that would be a nearly impossible debate to argue as Con!!! Not only is that burden completely and utterly favorable to one position (Pro), it also disregards the current welfare system which has nothing to do with a 3 - 6 month maximum, but rather deals with individuals on a case by case basis to determine why they are on welfare in the first place and what can be done to get them off welfare as soon as possible.

In conclusion, thus far I have won this debate:
A) Based on the resolution - chosen by Pro
B) Under the original specified burdens for Con
C) Based on my superior knowledge of the system

I wish my opponent luck in R3 at continuing this debate based on the original goals.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
ANSmith

Pro

ANSmith forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

In this debate, I have established how most welfare recipients are actually in dire need of long-term government assistance. While there are a few bad seeds (as with every group in the world), many welfare recipients are legitimately unable to work due to physical, mental, emotional or social handicaps, or a combination of all four. These disorders are not distinguished by bleeding heart liberals, but rather competent and experienced doctors who receive absolutely no benefit to passing people along through the system. In fact, since the government is so inclined to remove people from the welfare program, it would probably behoove the doctors to deny a patient the right to receive government assistance unless it was undeniably necessary.

For this reason, you must agree with me (as I believe Pro has) that long-term welfare is in fact justified. I am somewhat disturbed by Pro's presumed notions regarding how welfare works, though I believe this incorrect assumption is widespread in this country and hence the disdain for such a program. In fact, the government does everything in its power to deny a citizen the right to 'free money' from the tax payers (they'd rather pocket it themselves, obviously :P). Furthermore, the money that one does receive from the program is incredibly low -- hardly enough to get by. In fact, many recipients receive free transportation passes just to arrive at their scheduled appointments with their case managers (because most of them do not have cars and cannot afford the public transportation fare).

In reality, it takes a lot for a welfare recipient to actually receive aid, and especially on a continuing basis. I believe that if more people did their research on how the system works - or at the very least did not judge the program without knowing anything about it - this country would be better at making informed decisions, instead of letting their ignorance run rampant on sites like this...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jettrack 3 years ago
Jettrack
The thing is welfare and ei are two different things a pregnant woman would apply for ei not welfare
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by advidiun 8 years ago
advidiun
ANSmithDanielleTied
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 JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
ANSmithDanielleTied
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 the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
ANSmithDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
ANSmithDanielleTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
ANSmithDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
ANSmithDanielleTied
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:07