The Instigator
RNelsonNHS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rpetrarcanhs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Welfare

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 39020
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

RNelsonNHS

Pro

Reed Nelson
Mr. Joubert
Civics and Senior Project
16 October 2013
Welfare Debate 1
I will be arguing for the Democratic point of view of welfare. The Democrats view the policy of welfare as long-term. Welfare was created to help fund the individuals who lack the ability and resources to provide for themselves or their families. An example of welfare providing for a large group of individuals is the Freedman"s Bureau. Shortly after the Civil War ended the first Federal welfare agency, the Freedman"s Bureau, was created to pay for establishing schools for half a million freed slaves education (Tobin). The idea behind this was to educate them so the freed slaves could reach out of poverty. This was a good replacement to the old system because Americans used to depend on voluntary welfare from citizens. This was good for small amounts but not for large groups of people. Since then welfare has increased to help pay for housing, health care, unemployment, and more social issues under the department of welfare. In the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government became responsible to provide long-term help for anyone in need, and to give social insurance for retirement (Mauldin). This is an even more advanced form of welfare introduced which applies to large bodies of people as well as the social issues of an individual.
Works Cited
Mauldin, Marcus D. "welfare benefit rights." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. (2005). Facts on File. Web. 8 October 2013.
Tobin, Kathleen A. "welfare policy." American Government. (2013). ABC-CLIO. Web. 15 October 2013.
rpetrarcanhs

Con

This may been a more advanced form of welfare that was introduced at one time, but it is not working now, there are more people than ever on welfare in America. The U.S. government has been fight a war on poverty for many decades and is losing. In an article by Warren Kozak titled The Myth of Starving Americans, he explains why America is losing this war on poverty, " The U.S. government spends close to $1 Trillion a year on providing cash, food, house, medical care and services to poor and near poor people"with all of that money going out, why are the number of Americans on food stamps at a record high? (Kozak)". With all of the money the US spends on to fight poverty why is it that we have not seen a decrease in the poverty rate. Also in his article, Kozak included a report published last September by the Heritage Foundation, carried out by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield. "They found that, according to Census Bureau data for 2009 (the most recent year statistics are available), of the almost 50 million Americans classified as poor, 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money (Kozak)". One of the main problems that the welfare system is facing today in the US is that people are using welfare for the wrong reasons. Because this welfare system applies to large bodies of people, more and more people are going on welfare and staying on it. This why in the US the welfare system needs to changed for the better.
Debate Round No. 1
RNelsonNHS

Pro

Reed Nelson
Mr. Joubert
Civics and Senior Project
19 October 2013
Welfare Debate #2
In addition to the formation of long term welfare introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935, there is still discrepancy weather the amount of time as a resident can affect the amount of aid to an individual. There has been a group of Supreme Court cases where state residents of less than a year have argued for higher benefit rights. Some examples include, "In Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), the Court barred states from paying lower welfare benefits to families who have lived in the state for less than one year." And thirty years before this decision, "Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S 618 (1969), the Court found that the basing of aid on residency requirements violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Mauldin). This proves that the Federal government allowed the states to regulate welfare based on the residency of the people needing aid. Although in the 1999 case broke the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, while the 1969 case relied on the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Knowing that these individual acts of the state were declared unconstitutional can make one realize that the Federal government may need to more specific outlines or quotas for the states to follow under the subject of welfare. In conclusion this would make a more efficient system in allowing Federal Aid to help the many individuals in need.
rpetrarcanhs

Con

There is one point that I agree with that you made in your last argument and that was there does need to be more specific outlines and or quotas but from the state level. As a nation, what we need to do is put more effort into reforming our welfare program. If not we will continue to see welfare population in America grow, in an article from Mark Regan called "Welfare Reform", "Many states governors and program administrators and policy experts say that there are fundamental flaws in the AFDC program. The solutions have to come from the state level if we want to see actual results" (Regan). All of the experts that have dealt with the welfare system know and understand that states in the U.S. needs to have more power when it comes to Welfare. There have been situations where there have been decrease of welfare users in states. In the same article, Regan explains what the AFDC did to accomplish this. "An AFDC program occurred in 1988 with the passage of the Family Support Act which then opened up job opportunities for many. For the first time states were required to increase a percentage of able bodied adults" (Regan). The one and only goal of welfare is help Americans who have lost their job to help them along until they are able to find a new job. Welfare"s purpose was never for long term purposes and is why the Family Support Act was a great example of that states are capable to make an improvement when it comes to welfare if they are given the power. In conclusion, The Family Support Act even if for a little while did show the Welfare system can be improved if states had more power.

Regan, Mark. "Welfare Reform." Encyclopedia of Public Administration. (2003): 1. Facts on File. Web. October 8, 2013
Debate Round No. 2
RNelsonNHS

Pro

Reed Nelson
Mr. Joubert
Civics and Senior Project
16 October 2013
Welfare Debate 1
I will be arguing for the Democratic point of view of welfare. The Democrats view the policy of welfare as long-term. Welfare was created to help fund the individuals who lack the ability and resources to provide for themselves or their families. An example of welfare providing for a large group of individuals is the Freedman"s Bureau. Shortly after the Civil War ended the first Federal welfare agency, the Freedman"s Bureau, was created to pay for establishing schools for half a million freed slaves education (Tobin). The idea behind this was to educate them so the freed slaves could reach out of poverty. This was a good replacement to the old system because Americans used to depend on voluntary welfare from citizens. This was good for small amounts but not for large groups of people. Since then welfare has increased to help pay for housing, health care, unemployment, and more social issues under the department of welfare. In the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government became responsible to provide long-term help for anyone in need, and to give social insurance for retirement (Mauldin). This is an even more advanced form of welfare introduced which applies to large bodies of people as well as the social issues of an individual.
Works Cited
Mauldin, Marcus D. "welfare benefit rights." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. (2005). Facts on File. Web. 8 October 2013.
Tobin, Kathleen A. "welfare policy." American Government. (2013). ABC-CLIO. Web. 15 October 2013.
rpetrarcanhs

Con

Welfare was created to help individuals who were not able to provide for themselves or their families but only for a short time. It was established to get people working again, but now people are more dependent on our welfare system even though it has advanced over the decades. If people that are on welfare and are getting more from the government then they can get from a job they will not want to work. In an article called Why Get Off Welfare? by Michael Tanner, he explain how people on welfare are able to get more when on welfare than from a job. "Most reports on welfare focus on only a single program, the cash benefit program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. This focus leaves the misimpression that welfare benefits are quite low, providing a bare, subsistence-level income. In reality, the federal government funds 126 separate programs for low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals" (Tanner). There are so many welfare programs that are funded by the government because there is it need to apply to a large body of people, it is easy for people that are already on a welfare program sign on to another to get more money. What our welfare system needs is to reformed. From an article called The Spiraling State of Welfare Spending, Ed Feulner explain a reform that took place in 1996 that showed a great decrease in the number of people on welfare. "Unsustainable debt is bad news, but we have to remember that this isn't simply about dollars and cents. It's about people. After the 1996 reform, the number of welfare recipients in the primary welfare program (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) dropped by 50 percent as more people got jobs and learned to take care of themselves. Earnings and employment rose. Child poverty went down" (Feulner). With the right type of reformation of the nation"s welfare system, it is possible to effectively reduce the number of people on welfare, The only way that has shown results is that if we shorten the length people were given welfare.

Tanner, Michael D. "Why Get off Welfare?." Los Angeles Times. 22 Aug 2013: p. A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Oct 2013.
Feulner, Ed. "The Spiraling State of Welfare Spending." Heritage Foundation. 25 Oct 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Oct 2013.
Debate Round No. 3
RNelsonNHS

Pro

Reed Nelson
Mr. Joubert
Civics and Senior Project
17 October 2013
Welfare Debate #4
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 had been a substantial reform of welfare which has helped the government to spend less on welfare. It was created to lower welfare participation, for involvement in the labor market, and increase earnings, income, poverty and family formation. One of the issues that occurred was the overwhelming amount of people depending on welfare, but this study reveals that: "Between
1993 and 1998, all 50 states and the District of Columbia experienced double digit percent reductions in welfare participation, and in most states the declines were unprecedented (Blank 4). This proves that welfare had created a system that allowed people to become reliant among welfare. Although once the reform was made, it created opportunities for people to rejoin the work force after leaving welfare, which increased employment rates dramatically. In arguing about the thought of staying on welfare, the opportunities of money for a family is much less what can be provided from a steady income job. Blank also reveals that: "studies explicitly compare post-welfare income with the income they would have received if remaining on aid. The scant evidence available in a few states (based on individuals. assessments of their family income situation) suggests that between one-half and two-thirds report higher incomes post welfare." This means that welfare must only be needed by people of low income households or for people with in unemployment. It also implies that the government is now applying the right amount of money to the individuals who need it, otherwise there would be close to the same amount of people still on welfare.

Blank, Rebecca M.. What has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure. National Bureau of Economic Research. Mar. 2000. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
rpetrarcanhs

Con

There is no way that the government is applying the right amount of money to every individual that need is and the proof is the cost of welfare for our government is at a record high. Welfare was not created as a career choice, generations of welfare families now exist, the name "temporary assistance for needy families" pretty much says what the programs intention was, but there has been nothing temporary about the system at this point. "There is a growing majority of people who seem to think that they are entitled to these services for nothing, and that they exist solely to provide them with the means to survive without having to work, all while still claiming more and more children, which is turn will lead to more generations of future welfare dependents" (Feulner).
The fact that welfare agencies are seeing the increase of generations of families relying on welfare over the past decade shows that the welfare system in America is very flawed. In the same article Feulner explain how to the millions of people that do need welfare for the right reason suffer because the lack of money due to false claims of welfare. ""the people who truly needed, the more and more people that clog up the system making claims means that their is less money going around and not every welfare claim is 100% accurate or deserving. Yet the people who are actually disabled now have to scrap by on less than they could have gotten had only 50% of the actual people receiving been honest and stopped putting themselves into the system on false claims, or creating their own disabilities or welfare qualifying situations intentionally"(Fuelner). The welfare system in America is in need for a reform. The government claims that they are giving every individual the right amount of money they need when they apply for welfare but this is not true. The growing cost of welfare is costing the U.S. billions and is not helping the people that truly need it and is why it is time we rethink long-term welfare.
Feulner, Ed. "The Spiraling State of Welfare Spending." Heritage Foundation. 25 Oct 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Oct 2013
Debate Round No. 4
RNelsonNHS

Pro

Reed Nelson
Mr. Joubert
Civics and Senior Project
28 October 2013
Welfare Debate #5
The United States welfare is not consisted of generations of families depending on welfare and assuming such based on opinion does not allow a strong point. My opponent provided, "There is a growing majority of people who seem to think that they are entitled to these services for nothing, and that they exist solely to provide them with the means to survive without having to work all while still claiming more and more children, which is turn will lead to more generations of future welfare dependents" (Feulner). This is a good opinionated statement but it does not include any statistics or proof of this trend being reality. Although one point that is true about the effects of welfare reform in The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is, "By the time PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, the caseload had fallen to 4.3 million. Passage of the national reform legislation was followed by a further dramatic plunge in caseloads By June 2005, the caseload had fallen to 1.89 million, less than half the level at the time PRWORA was enacted" (Rector). These statistics show that welfare dependency has drastically reduced since the act of 1996 and continues to deplete. Another result of the welfare reform is, "Although opponents of reform predicted it would increase child poverty, some 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995" (Rector). This proves that not only the reform had an impact on the welfare dependency but also the amount of child poverty. Therefore the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 did what it had planned to improve in the welfare system and is still used for any further welfare improvement.
Rector, Robert. The Impact of Welfare Reform. N.P. 19 July 2006. Web. 28 October 2013
rpetrarcanhs

Con

Although the reform had an impact on the welfare dependency and the amount of child poverty, why have we not seen a decrease in our spending for welfare? Not only has welfare reached a record high than it has ever been but it is costing the US almost a 15 trillion dollars each year and shows how good our welfare system might be, it"s not. ""News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1% of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet, this year the Federal government will spend more than $668,000,000,000 on at least 126 programs to fight poverty, and that does not include welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284,000,000,000 to that figure. In total, the U.S. spends nearly one trillion dollars every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three" (Tanner). Today the poverty rate has risen and is proof that the US long-term welfare system is not working the way it should be. Not only that but the US has reformed the welfare system many times over the decades but in reality has made no long lasting improvement to our poverty level in the US. "Welfare spending increased significantly under Pres. George W Bush and has exploded under Pres. Barack Obama In fact, since Obama took office, Federal welfare spending has increased more than $193,000,000,000 per year. Even with this government largesse, more than 46,000,000 Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly 15 trillion dollars in total welfare spending since Pres. Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem neither has reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to reevaluate our approach" (Tanner). Even though the welfare system has gone through many reforms it shows that we as a nation have made no improvements. With all of these reforms to make our welfare system better we are paying more money than ever. It is times that as a country we need to rethink and reform long-term welfare.
Tanner, Michael. "The 15 Trillion Dollar War on Poverty Is a Failure." USA Today (Farmingdale). Sep 2012: 10. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 30 Oct 2013.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I apologize for the typos, btw. I did say I wasn't Captain No-Typo...
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD Preamble:

I very rarely cast cancelled-out votes. Seems hardly worth the bother to make an RFD (reason for decision), if there are no points awarded to justify.

However, I read this one all the way through and, as it seems to be part of a class project, I thought I may as well explain why nobody got points.

The resolution was never really explicitly stated. The debate's title is simply "welfare". Pro gave the general position he was defending, but not really a specific MOTION to be considered. Con never really specified the position he was taking. I'm forced to interpret the motion as best I can and decide whether anyone fulfilled their burden with relation to it. This was definitely a contributing factor to nobody getting the "win" on arguments, but I'll go into more detail in the RFD.

This was noted as being part of a Civics and Senior Project. The type of debate it was supposed to be wasn't really mentioned, nor was it mentioned whether the intention was for it to get voters on DDO, or whether DDO votes would count at all towards the debaters's grades.

As to specific points awards (or, in this case, lack thereof), the following is my RFD (hopefully top to bottom for easy reading, though the system shows comments in order from newest to oldest, so I have to copy/paste in reverse order):
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/6:

I will address arguments last, as they are going to get the longest explanation.

Conduct was equal enough that points didn't seem justified.

I leaned more towards giving S&G to Pro. Con's formatting and syntax left something to be desired to me, and small errors with things like subject-verb agreement and issues with Con's quotation marks added up (though Pro had his own errors, too, just fewer). That's just me being a stickler, though. I likely wouldn't have awarded points (I try not to be too pedantic, particularly since it is not as though I'm Captain No-Typo)--then there's Pro's R3, which was clearly a post in error. It was a repost of R1, rather than the R3 arguments. I might have considered this a round forfeit, but that seemed unfair since it really did seem to just be a copying error. But a copying error would, to me, properly be scored under S&G and, since Con's S&G wasn't atrocious, it would be unfair to award points to Pro, so overall I just called it a wash.

Sourcing was overall equal. I would like to tell the debaters that it is often preferable to include links, since this is an online debate, for readers and voters to see the sources as much as possible for themselves, but considering I wager they were operating under the rules of the mysterious Mr. Joubert, I understand that they were almost certainly following his instructions. Perhaps it might be suggested for the future--but at the same time I'm not entirely sure he would care. Nonetheless, several sources here could have had official citation AND web link, for example Pro's very first source is available here: http://www.fofweb.com...
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/6:

And finally we have arguments.

Pro defended the notion of what he called the "Democratic point of view". I'm not sure what Con was defending, other than attacking welfare as a whole.

In R1, Pro gave an overview of the history of welfare as his opening case. Con's response was that welfare "...is not working now". He makes the claim that welfare recipients are at an all-time high. He also moves on to give statistics to show that the overwhelming majority of people are not going hungry. He doesn't really draw a connection to why this is a failing of the welfare system. On it's face, since he doesn't present context, it would seem that would indicate a welfare system which was working. His final contention in what I presume to be an opening argument is that "Because this welfare system applies to large bodies of people, more and more people are going on welfare and staying on it. This why in the US the welfare system needs to changed for the better."

Pro's R2 does not address these R1 points of Con. It moves on to advocate for a federal system based on the argument that welfare distribution has been declared in some circumstances unconstitutional when based on residency in any specific state. Con uses R2 to advocate for an overhaul of the welfare system on the state level. I found neither round's overall argument particularly compelling, though this may be due to the brevity of the arguments. Con's points were a bit stronger, in that Pro relied on Supreme Court cases to justify federal involvement, while Con argued for a distinct practical benefit and never contradicted the idea of protections specifically required by SCOTUS.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/6:

R3 was hampered by Pro's non-argument (the one I assume is a copy/paste error). Con took the opportunity of the "free round" to post his longest argument yet. It mostly focused on assertions that being on welfare is better than working to get off that lacked substance, and a point that a previous reform improved the system a great deal. He also asserts that the people in TANF dropped by 50%, but doesn't show us that these people didn't simply move to other welfare programs, or tell us what percentage or how many "more people got jobs and learned to take care of themselves", or in what manner "Earnings and employment rose [and] Child poverty went down". Con claims that "With the right type of reformation of the nation"s welfare system, it is possible to effectively reduce the number of people on welfare" but hasn't given us his core argument for what these reformations should be, and specifically why. Unfortunately, Con's argument that "reforms are needed" doesn't really give us anything to go on. What kind of reforms? The closest he comes to a suggestion is that the "...only way that has shown results is that if we shorten the length people were given welfare." But he doesn't analyze the TANF changes to show a direct causative, or even correlative, link to shortening the length of time that people were given welfare with improved outcomes. The argument as presented is almost tautological: The more people kicked off welfare, the less people on welfare. It doesn't analyze effects or benefits, it doesn't demonstrate what specific improvement to outcomes he's talking about. Was it all 50%? Was it 1% of the 50%? Con can't rely on his sources to make his argument for him--he has to present evidence, and use the sources as, well, the source of that evidence.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/6:

Pro returns with an actual post for R4. He makes an argument that "the government is now applying the right amount of money to the individuals who need it, otherwise there would be close to the same amount of people still on welfare". While this doesn't necessarily follow, it seems he's making the case that those previous reforms were successful, and that Con hasn't demonstrated a need for more reforms, which seems accurate. Con's R4 is a direct response to Pro's, but seems full of opinion. He says that "There is no way that the government is applying the right amount of money to every individual that need is and the proof is the cost of welfare for our government is at a record high." That's a nonsequitur...the proof does not get us to that conclusion, at least not without some kind of argument to go with it. He may as well argue that medicine is overprescribed (and, by implication, not working), because there's more medicine prescribed today than ever before. Arguments can be made in support of that notion--but they have to be made. The Feulner quote has no statistics or support other than that Feulner said it. People say lots of things...quoting someone's opinion doesn't make it fact. The generations point has no support, and the example statistics presume an unsupported zero-sum game. Con claims that "The government claims that they are giving every individual the right amount of money they need when they apply for welfare but this is not true." But he doesn't support it.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Ha! Committed my own copy/paste error.

CORRECT RFD 5/6 (ignore the comment immediately below this one and skip straight to 6/6):

Pro points these flaws out in R5, and made the case that the 1996 reforms were successful and continue to be successful. Con switches away from an argument about people, to an argument about hard costs in his closing, questioning "why have we not seen a decrease in our spending for welfare?" He also gets some math wrong, oepning with a "15 trillion dollars" figure, then showing his work and coming up with a 1 trillion dollar figure. Considering the numbers seem to come from his source, which is even titled "The 15 Trillion Dollar War on Poverty Is a Failure", there are some credibility issues here, either towards Con (for, perhaps, misinterpreting where hte 15 trillion came from) or his source (if it did, indeed, argue for a yearly figure that its own breakdown did not support whatsoever, coming up with a number that is 6 2/3% of the original 15 trillion). Con confuses reforms with spending amounts, failing to address whether the reforms worked. We do not know, from either debater, whether the numbers would be expected to be higher or lower without the reforms that have already occurred. Con seems to take it as a given that they aren't working, but needs to defend that. Con conceeded way back in R1 (and used it as part of his own argument) that people aren't starving, then in this final round repeats a claim from his source that "the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago". What are the numbers? Even the quote seems to acknowledge that there IS a difference, the original writer just seems to find it insufficient. But what is it? Con never says.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 5/6:

R3 was hampered by Pro's non-argument (the one I assume is a copy/paste error). Con took the opportunity of the "free round" to post his longest argument yet. It mostly focused on assertions that being on welfare is better than working to get off that lacked substance, and a point that a previous reform improved the system a great deal. He also asserts that the people in TANF dropped by 50%, but doesn't show us that these people didn't simply move to other welfare programs, or tell us what percentage or how many "more people got jobs and learned to take care of themselves", or in what manner "Earnings and employment rose [and] Child poverty went down". Con claims that "With the right type of reformation of the nation"s welfare system, it is possible to effectively reduce the number of people on welfare" but hasn't given us his core argument for what these reformations should be, and specifically why. Unfortunately, Con's argument that "reforms are needed" doesn't really give us anything to go on. What kind of reforms? The closest he comes to a suggestion is that the "...only way that has shown results is that if we shorten the length people were given welfare." But he doesn't analyze the TANF changes to show a direct causative, or even correlative, link to shortening the length of time that people were given welfare with improved outcomes. The argument as presented is almost tautological: The more people kicked off welfare, the less people on welfare. It doesn't analyze effects or benefits, it doesn't demonstrate what specific improvement to outcomes he's talking about. Was it all 50%? Was it 1% of the 50%? Con can't rely on his sources to make his argument for him--he has to present evidence, and use the sources as, well, the source of that evidence.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 6/6:

By not knowing what position was explicitly being defended here, I'm hampered in my decision for an arguments vote. Even with a presumption that Pro had BoP unless stated otherwise, I can't really say whether he upheld it--was he arguing for no reforms whatsoever? Was Con's case for significant welfare reductions, or for just 'any reform whatsoever'? I'm not sure. So the best I can parse is that Pro defended welfare as a good thing that is at least mostly working, and Con argued that there were still flaws. Neither side, then, made a case directly against the other--Pro's case did not seem to necessitate ignoring all possible flaws, and Con's case did not argue that welfare didn't work whatsoever.

So I could not award points on arguments.

As always, I'm happy to clarify anything in my RFD.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RNelsonNHSrpetrarcanhsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.