The Instigator
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Mhykiel
Pro (for)
Losing
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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,881 times Debate No: 54425
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

Wylted

Con

I've noticed on my opponents Big issues he is pro welfare. I am con welfare and would like to debate the topic with him. Burden of Proof is fully shared and he is open to advocate for welfare in the United States in any way he chooses.

Structure

Round 1-Con acceptance- Pro opening argument

Round 2- Con opening argument- Pro rebuttals

Round 3- Con rebuttals - Pro counter rebuttals

Round 4- Con counter rebuttals - Pro closing statement no new arguments

Round 5- Con closing statements no new arguments- Pro will route "no round as agreed upon. Failure to do so shall result in a full forfeit.
Mhykiel

Pro

I accept. I intend to show that welfare program are beneficial to the greater good of a country. Even though I think some welfare programs should be regulated better with drug testing and other such stipulations. I intend to show a rational mind will except welfare programs as worth the expense.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Con

Welfare Makes People Dependent on the Government

The government has created a welfare system that makes it easier to collect a free monthly payment rather than work. http://reason.com...

Many rational people are going to choose welfare over a low paying job especially considering the ease of acquiring it. This is especially true for people who's only other option is a minimum wage type job. Why would I get a job flipping burgers when I can just as easily collect welfare and have a ton more leisure time.

Here is 10 states where such a mentality seems particularly attractive. http://www.statisticbrain.com...

State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii- $17.50
Alaska- $15.48
Massachusetts- $14.66
Connecticut- $14.23
Washington, D.C.- $13.99
New York- $13.13
New Jersey- $12.55
Rhode Island- $12.55
California- $11.59
Virginia- $11.11

I have to tell you I make about $12.00 an hour and don't live too far from some of these states. It's very tempting to move, quit work and give myself a little but if a raise. Welfare pays more than minimum wage in 35 states. http://www.cato.org...

I honestly have no clue why anybody decides to get these minimum wage crap jobs.

It doesn't matter if somebody is an honest hard working person, once they have replaced their income it's going to be very hard to get a job.

Welfare Discourages 2 Parent Households

Back in the 1960's president Johnson began his so called war on poverty. Which meant creating a bunch of new welfare programs and giving more money to the poor. Johnson's biggest concern in this war on poverty was helping black people overcome the economic gaps they were facing and disadvantages of not having as much inherited wealth.

Since welfare funding has dramatically went up, the out of wedlock birthdate has tripled among African Americans. The income equality gap hasn't really been affected at all. The black poverty rate is still 3 times as high as the white poverty rate.

Here is what the Cato institute has to say on the matter.

"Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare."

Kids that are born out of wedlock are more likely to commit crimes, drop out of high school, grow up poor etc.

All the info in this section was gathered from the following location. All numbers pulled from this article are well cited. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...

It violates the Role of Government

The role of the American government as stipulated by it's founding fore fathers and framers of it's constitution is to protect the freedoms of and secure the rights and property of individuals accordingly with natural law. The government's only purpose is just to be a collective force to secure these individual rights.

The implementation of a welfare program is a violation of the government's role. Instead of protecting private property, they are now confiscating private property and giving it to another group. All individuals should be treated equally in the eyes of the government, but in the case of implementing a welfare program it actually gives preferential treatment to the poor.

It Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System

By instituting Welfare, you cover up the failures of the current economic system. By remedying the symptoms of the current economic system, you prevent society from so clearly seeing it's failures. Although most people who use this argument are Marxists, it's still a valid point and the criticism can be used by any competing economic theory. Instead of covering up for this systems failings, let's fully expose them so we can have the incentive to fix the source of the problem.

Conclusion

I insist that my opponent follow the structure of the debate. I have kept my opening argument to less than 5,000 words so he can post his opening arguments and rebuttals in the same round. After that we can agree to only use 5,000 words per round or stick with 10,000. I leave that option up to my opponent.
Mhykiel

Pro

Thank you for debating this topic with me. I will start with some opening arguments, then I will address my opponent's arguments.

The constitution is a living document, to be interpreted by the judicial system. It gave the federal government duties for the welfare of the nation. This welfare meant well being. Historically the constitution was reinterpreted during the New Deal era to allow for social welfare programs. For the well being of a country, the government has a duty to make every citizen have the opportunity to contribute to the nation's success. If the citizen is not contributing then they are a hindrance.

Welfare is for the impoverished. There are abuses of this system, as will pointed out in latter rounds. buta call for reform is not a call to abolish social welfare programs. The impoverished are those that do not have the means to afford basic living expenses. This can be extended to those that are living pay-check to pay-check and without welfare, would be unable to sustain living expenses. This accounts for one third of the nation.

I will argue this round that the lives that are impoverished, left unaided, are a greater hazard to the nation.

What factors make helping the poor beneficial to the entire nation?

1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market drops.

Welfare's history begins around the time of the depression.[1] In a global market (different than the kind our fore fathers had), when people were let off from work with no disposable income, the rest of the local market would quickly follow. In many cases this market could have been kept alive long enough to make it through crisis. Money is no good to the nation if it sits unused. It is the transfer of money for goods that drives an economy. Even in short recessions as of 2010, the US has suffered more then higher welfare spending peer nations.[2] Becuase a third of the nation already struggling was unable to subsist till better times.

2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growth

Economic growth has been shown to trickle down from top to bottom so that even the lowest fifth of society advances. However this has shown to be a poor measure. In that if everyone gains 1% growth there is really no advancement. The reverse however is that poverty is a road block to economic success that holds every one back.[3] If the poor are givent he means to better education, health, and reform they will be able to contribute to society and eventually aquire work and create a cycle of economic growth.[4] This is a clear situation in which investing in the American people, will return the investment in increased economic growth.[5] When the economic inequality between a countries population was reduced by just 10% the length of time for the economic gain was an increase of 50%![6] Due to a global economy and trade many countries may share in a good spell of wealth but those with lowered poverty were able to ride these good spells out for 50% longer.

[1]http://www.ssa.gov...
[2]http://www.epi.org...
[3]http://ejournal.narotama.ac.id...
[4]http://www.irp.wisc.edu...
[5]http://www.ukcpr.org...
[6]http://www.imf.org...

3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and Disease

An increase in crime means an increase in spending for prisons and law enforcement. Crime can strike anyone and cause irreplaceable damage or loss of life. The impoverished are a disease vector. Contagions do not stop spreading because someone makes 20 dollars an hour. It effects everyone. Given that the poverty line can be between 1 fifth and 1 third. We can safely say that coming into contact with 10 strangers is enough to rise cross contamination.

No one refutes since 1968 Crime increases with a direct correlation to the increase of impoverished people.[7][8] Communicable diseases that we have medical treatments for stay prevalent in the poor ready to spread. Some of these diseases are chronic, costing quality of life and medical expenses.[9] Those above the poverty line are not immune to these diseases. Leishmaniasis becomes a threat to women and children, costing more harm to society than necessary.[10]

[7]http://mtbi.asu.edu...
[8]http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...
[9]http://www.who.int...
[10]http://www.cell.com...

4. Child Support

My opponent states that welfare has lead to increasing divorce rates. Where is the evidence for this? Most people cite "irreconcilable differences" and "adultery" as reasons for their divorce. Divorce is a terrible event that has a negative social and economic impact in most cases. This is not to say that divorces are unfounded. Just that their impact should be examined and properly attended to. One of the welfare plans, Child Support, was created with the goal of saving federal money, from the increase of single parent homes. "Congress began the child support program to reimburse benefits paid by the government’s welfare programs"[11] Custodial parents were being left to care for children with out aid from the other parent. So the Child Support program gives these struggling parents a way to legally and in controlled manner get support from the other responsible party. There by saving the government money it would normally be paying to aid in the support of these children.

[11]http://www.acf.hhs.gov...

5. Welfare aids economic growth.

My opponent is under the impression that Welfare is a kind of free lunch kind. Let us investigate Free Lunch programs and Women, Infant, and Child (WIC).

The sad thing here is that out of those eligible, only 54% participate. Like most welfare programs those that really are in need of them do not partake. These programs mean children can concentrate on schooling and therefore rise above their current situations. This of course, only adds to the nation's strength instead of being a weakness or detriment as outlined in previous points.

"Increasing the use of SNAP, child nutrition and WIC programs not only directly addresses the hunger and food hardship facing many people living in rural America, but just as importantly provides good jobs in their communities and helps strengthen the educational outcomes so critical to long-term economic opportunity"[12]

These programs have been measured to directly increase the economic strengths of rural America. [13] If these programs were not in effect many more problems would arise from unhealthy, ill educated adults. Such as the crime and disease cited earlier. [14]


[12]http://frac.org...
[13]http://www.google.com...
[14]http://futureofchildren.org...

Rebuttals

My opponent has stated in the first round that I am open to advocate for welfare in the United States in any way he chooses. That Con is to be against any welfare. This is not a debate whether welfare should be reformed or not. It is if welfare should be implemented at all.

Con's C1R2: Welfare Makes People Dependent on the Government.

He cites states where welfare pays more than minimum wage. I think this is an argument for reform not that welfare should be abolished.

Given time I can not address all states. At the top of the list is Hawaii. 26% of Hawaii is tourist and tip driven economy. When Tourist season is over with many people are let go, till it starts again. I suspect one reason the welfare is so high is because it is representative of people making tips in addition with minimum wage. The cost of living in Hawaii is higher because nearly everything is shipped in. So food, like milk and raw materials all cost more to aquire in Hawaii. All these factors at least make the case for Hawaii more understandable.


C2R2: Welfare Discourages 2 Parent Households.

Honestly. I see no chain of logic to support this. I assert that welfare plans like Child Support are in reaction to the declining 2 parent households. Not a cause.

C3R2: It violates the Role of Government.

Most of this was addressed before. The role of government for the well being of the nation includes: guarding against the health, economic, and crime arising from poverty. And to aid the next generation (children) into becoming contributing members.

My opponent says, "All individuals should be treated equally in the eyes of the government, but in the case of implementing a welfare program it actually gives preferential treatment to the poor." But this is not the state of affairs. The rich and corporations collect more money from government than the impoverished.

Millionaires collect unemployment checks because they elect not work. [15] They get grants to keep up their properties and more, all through welfare programs.[16] I consider this a call for reform, but it does establish the error in my opponents assertion.

[15]http://thehill.com...
[16]http://www.coburn.senate.gov...
http://nypost.com...

C4R2 It Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System.

I have shown evidence to the contrary.
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

Introduction

I'm limiting my rebuttals to 5,000 characters for fairness and we'll move on to 10,000 characters. Starting with my opponent's turn.

1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market drops.

In this section my opponent actually plays right into one of my contentions. Welfare is being used as a means to compensate for a failing economic system. Instead of trying to compensate for a failing economic system we should implement a superior economic system (what type of system is beyond the scope of this debate). Besides being a tool, used to prop up a failing economic system. It gets much worse.

Putting a family on welfare actually makes them extremely dependent on it. It also encourages 1 parent households and discourages 2 parent families. As my argument showed. Kids that come from single parent homes (particularly single parent poor homes), are more likely to be poor, drop out of school, and commit violent crimes.

It's nice that we're trying to help people out, but as the saying goes. "The road to hell, is paved with good intentions". Creating a welfare state actually does poor people and by extension society a great disservice.

2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growth

My opponent's argument here is nullified by the fact that, I've shown that welfare programs don't eliminate poverty. They in fact encourage poverty. They create conditions that are conducive to escalating poverty rates. Welfare hasn't been shown to affect the rate of poverty at all. http://www.cato.org...

Throwing money at the problem is no way to solve it. This is the problem with government, they think money solves everything. Kids are doing poorly in school "throw money at it". We want a more powerful military "throw money at it".

Instead of trying to fix poverty by "throwing money at it", let's look at the root causes of poverty and fix that. Root causes would include things like education level, economic system, broken homes, and IQ. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

These are things not solved by a welfare program of any sort and as my arguments have shown. Welfare actually contributes to many of these root causes.

3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and Disease

My opponent has proven with the title of each section that he is arguing against poverty. I think he believes me to be arguing in favor of poverty. This isn't a pro poverty vs anti poverty debate. You probably won't ever find that debate on DDO. Obviously we're both against poverty.

The evidence I've provided shows that welfare increases the amount of single family homes. I've given numbers to show that an increase in single family homes is an increase in poverty and crime. If my opponent is against poverty or crime, than by extension he should be against welfare. Seeing as how welfare contributes to some of the underlying causes of poverty and crime.

Welfare increases the number of single family homes. Children coming from single family homes are more likely to be poor, uneducated and criminals.

4. Child Support

"My opponent states that welfare has lead to increasing divorce rates. Where is the evidence for this?"


I've never stated that. My argument is being misinterpreted, possibly intentionally so. I've stated that welfare leads to an increase in single family homes. I've gathered the information from a widely available study done by The Cato Institute. The reasons for the affect on single parent households, is because women consider the loss of some of the benefits, when getting into relationships and considering marriage. The term "live in boyfriend", just doesn't do as much as "husband" to keep a man sticking around.

5. Welfare aids economic growth.

" Like most welfare programs those that really are in need of them do not partake. These programs mean children can concentrate on schooling and therefore rise above their current situations."


Not true. The data I've shown has proven that people that partake in the welfare program are more likely to actually drop out of school. So welfare actually hurts a child's chance at receiving a quality education.

Many of my opponents arguments in this section revolve around WIC. However an official WIC information page gives specifically states that WIC isn't a welfare program. So any argument my opponent uses about WIC simply doesn't apply.

"Many people incorrectly view WIC as a welfare program because participants must be members of a low-income family. In fact, over 50 percent of the women and children on WIC in California are members of a family where one or both parents work outside the home."

http://www.cdph.ca.gov...

Conclusion

I'm out of space because I want to limit my rebuttals to 5,000 words. My opponent should use up to 10,000 words on his turn, if he chooses so.
Mhykiel

Pro

1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market drops

My opponent makes assertions but offers nothing in the way of evidence or studies. I have shown 2 references. There are more. My opponent is summing his argument up as welfare is a way of hiding economic failings.

But this does not match with the argument on the evidence I have showed.

What is shown is that the countries with more spending on welfare enjoyed longer periods of sustained economic growth. Even if this growth was shared between similar countries with similar economics such as Japan and US.

2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growth

My opponent continues to cite the Cato institute. I have offered 6 sources from universities and government establish that poverty hurts everyone. Most people on welfare are on it for less than 2 years. So they are not dependent on welfare nor make it a way of life.

Welfare is to address temporary poverty. My opponent says to fix poverty we should focus on other things like education, certainly but that is not what this debate is about.

Plus it has been shown that increasing IQ does not eliminate poverty [1].

3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and Disease

The title of the first 3 points is directly related to Welfare. Welfare in its pure intention is too help the poor subsist and live. So explaining why we, as a nation, should invest in doing so is important to outline.

Yet again a quote from the Cato institute. And no link to verify or review this quote. Is the Cato institute the only source of information for my opponents case? Surely a national view with billions at state must have other studies from other places supporting my opponent?

4. Child Support

Fine, my opponent asserts welfare leads to more single parent homes... Where is the evidence for this?

5. Welfare aids economic growth.

It is pretty sad when 2 parent homes with both parents working need help to feed their kids. Thank goodness there is a welfare program to insure they are not starving.


Conclusion: My opponent has not adequately addressed the details of the arguments I have put forward.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Con

"My opponent has stated in the first round that I am open to advocate for welfare in the United States in any way he (Pro) chooses. That Con is to be against any welfare. This is not a debate whether welfare should be reformed or not. It is if welfare should be implemented at all."

This is a shared BOP debate. My opponent is obligated to defend his pro welfare stance, as much as I'm obligated to defend my anti-welfare stance. Since Pro hasn't specified what type of welfare system he is advocating for it can only be assumed he's referring to the current welfare system.

Pro has yet to mention a single reform he is advocating for and is stuck with the welfare system intact as it is in the United States. It's not enough to dismiss every one of my contentions as being evidence we need reform. He must show why it is better to have the current system than not.

Welfare Makes People Dependent on the Government.

"He cites states where welfare pays more than minimum wage. I think this is an argument for reform not that welfare should be abolished. "


By choosing not to mention any reform you'd want implemented you are stuck defending the status quo. The rest of my opponent's rebuttals here, involve justifying Hawaii's high welfare payout. None of those arguments do anything to destroy my argument that welfare forces people into a state of dependency. These higher than minimum wage payouts aren't good for getting people on their feet. It's only good at keeping the needy, needy.

Let's imagine for a minute that my opponent's reform argument works here. He gives several reasons why Hawaii has such high payouts. I can only assume the reform he is advocating for would be to lower the welfare payouts to minimum wage. However, based on my opponent's own arguments. Minimum wage welfare payouts would put people below a living wage. The only reform he should be advocating for given the information in his argument is an increase in the minimum wage.

This debate isn't about minimum wage, though.

Welfare Discourages 2 Parent Households.

"Honestly. I see no chain of logic to support this. I assert that welfare plans like Child Support are in reaction to the declining 2 parent households. Not a cause."


There is a chain of logic. This chain of logic is being glossed over and ignored by my opponent. Before I get into that chain of logic I'd like to point out that Child Support isn't a welfare program as my opponent asserts. I believe Pro is attempting to make his case stronger by including programs into his argument that simply aren't considered welfare.

Just to help my opponent understand what is and isn't welfare let me quote a reputable site on welfare info, ironically named welfareinfo.org.

"Welfare programs are state regulated programs for those who live under the minimum accepted level means as determined by each state government. Welfare benefits can fall under multiple different program umbrellas, all of which require certain elements of eligibility to acquire and maintain payments. These programs are cash assistance (TANF), the child support program, child care, energy or utility assistance, food assistance, medical assistance, and vocational rehabilitation services."

Here is another quote, so everybody can know what the mean when they say "child support program".

"The child support program will provide families with state regulated child care placement assistance that will enable parents/caretakers the time available for working and job training opportunities. The child support program can supplement partial child care fees or provide 100% fee assistance."

Now that that's out of the way. Here is the chain of logic on the decline of 2 parent households. Quotes from the Cato institute.

" There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. "

"Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent."

"The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada"s social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women.""

"by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy."


http://www.cato.org...

I'd appreciate if the judges and my opponent would read the article that I've cited for those quotes.

It violates the Role of Government.

"Most of this was addressed before. The role of government for the well being of the nation includes: guarding against the health, economic, and crime arising from poverty. And to aid the next generation (children) into becoming contributing members. "


This was unaddressed at all. Again, my opponent attempts to counter a few points I make in this section, but fails to recognize or address the overarching theme of what my argument is. I directly stated what the role of government is and why. He never addresses those things.

"The role of the American government as stipulated by it's founding fore fathers and framers of it's constitution is to protect the freedoms of and secure the rights and property of individuals accordingly with natural law. The government's only purpose is just to be a collective force to secure these individual rights."(my words)

My opponent completely ignores my argument about the proper role of government and why it's the proper role. He could have provided arguments about the proper role of government, but instead he completely ignores mine and doesn't bring forth his own theory on the proper role, and why it's the proper role.

It Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System.

"I have shown evidence to the contrary."


This is a baseless claim. Evidence to the contrary has not been shown. My argument is that the current economic system sux, because it needs to be compensated for by a welfare program. If we had a great economic system, welfare would be unneccesary. My opponent does nothing to counter this argument, and it should be counted as a dropped argument by him.

1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market drops

"My opponent makes assertions but offers nothing in the way of evidence or studies. I have shown 2 references. There are more. My opponent is summing his argument up as welfare is a way of hiding economic failings."


Let me address those 2 sources. The first one is a document from 1953 that pro cites as a source for when welfare began. http://www.ssa.gov...

It wasn't even necessary to cite any source for the "year welfare began". It's not even pertinent to the debate.

The 2nd source for this section shows the spending rate of the United States is less than that of other countries on welfare during recessions. That citation is a huge amount of reading to do, but I did. The studies only show a short term benefit of welfare spending, it does nothing to show any longterm gains or losses.

I've shown a lot of the negative longterm harms from haing a welfare program and my opponent has done nothing to refute my arguments about how the welfare program actually perpetuates the root causes of poverty.

2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growth

My opponent does nothing to counter my arguments, that welfare contributes to the factors that cause poverty. He pretty much completely ignores my argument he does make a few points which I'll get to.

"My opponent says to fix poverty we should focus on other things like education, certainly but that is not what this debate is about."

If I come up with a better way to address poverty than welfare, than it is certainly a valid argument. It's unfair to dismiss my alternative ways of addressing the problems welfare intends to as "not what this debate is about". The sentence my opponent provides actually concedes that my recommendations are a good alternative, with the word "certainly".

"Plus it has been shown that increasing IQ does not eliminate poverty"

I'll provide a quote from my opponent's source on this info, but please read the section entitled controversy for more criticism of this study.

"Arthur Jensen has suggested that the Milwaukee Project did not produce permanent intelligence gains, but that the IQ gains it showed were due to an indirect form of "teaching to the test"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and Disease

I'm running out of space, so I'll keep the rest short. My opponents doesn't address my argument here. He merely resorts to using a genetic fallacy.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Now here is the source he was criticizing about my argument leaving out. http://www.cato.org...

4. Child Support

I've already addressed his points here

5. Welfare aids economic growth.

My opponent in this section ignores my rebuttals and uses the logical fallacy argument from emotion. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Mhykiel

Pro

Welfare is a means based government program. The goals of which are to help low - none income households. This is why so much time was spent talking about intervening and directly improving the education and health of those living in poverty. My first few points directly go to why America should provide such aid to the impoverished.

One point to make is that low income is now becoming nearly one third of Americas population. These are families living paycheck to paycheck. When economic recessions hit it will take longer for a trickle down economy to recover. Disease among such a large portion of the population effect everyone, rich and poor.

Child Support

Child support is a part of welfare. As I cited earlier congress implemented the program to save welfare dollars. Welfare encompasses child welfare, which under it's tenets have foster care, protective services, and the day care operations my opponent cites. I was merely using a program that is means based. Custodial parents of low income can seek legal advice and help to file for child support. Along with means based is the program my opponent cites. That program is to give parents and single parents the opportunity to return to work.

Another program under the welfare system is Medicaid. And when you research what is effected most by being married or not, even attested to by my opponent's sources, is Medicaid benefits. Medicaid was never meant to be a universal health care plan. A plan under Obama that has yet to see how it will effect such cultures.

People don;t have babies so they can get money to care for those babies. Children cost more time, energy, and money than someone will ever get out of free medical visits. The math does not add up.

Just because someone is not getting married does not mean they are not in a relationship. One the sources my opponent cites are small sample cases. Hardly enough to make a statistical analysis of the population. The cause is see that low income parents who have medical aid for their children, are hesitate to married even other low income partners because the children can lose doctor visits. This is not have babies and government will give you enough money to pay rent and buy a new car.

It does not violate the Role of Government.

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."

The general welfare clause in the constitution has been used to legitimize such expenditures and fee based programs. As recent as 1982 in South Dakota vs Dole. The government with held 5% federal highway spending to a state if it did not maintain a minimum drinking age of 21. The vote 7-2 upheld the "general welfare" clause to mean the government has a responsibility to enact regulations and programs that benefit the greater America.

An increase duration in economic gains, an increase in economic growth, a decrease in crime, a decrease in disease, an increase in rural American economy, and an increase in children finishing school are effects of the government welfare spending.

It Does NOT Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System.

The whole first round I argued from the point of how welfare spending in relation to peer countries shows an increase in economic growth and durations. This is the evidence I presented to show that welfare does not perpetuate a failing system. No economic system is 100%. Especially not in this global world. By having a portion of the economy unable to spend money and barely making living expenses is a disaster. The lack of welfare and temporary assistance like unemployment was a contributing factor in why the great depression was so hard felt. Trickle down economics is a lame horse in global markets. The wealthy spend their money on the cheapest sectors and these sectors stay in poverty. The money does not return to the us economy from the bottom up. Again the US is a service orientated economy, the best thing for such an economy is to have a bigger market of customers. A population that can afford those services will drive economic success. The way we as a nation get there is by providing means tested programs to make sure the next generation is healthy and educated to work and live.

Sources: I cited the source to give readers a historical background. Hence why it followed a sentence sating how at one time we did not have welfare, great depression, then welfare. And how these programs were valuable and still valuable to keeping a collapse from being as likely.

"Let me address those 2 sources. The first one is a document from 1953 that pro cites as a source for when welfare began. http://www.ssa.gov...; - my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
Wylted

Con

Introduction

My opponent has made some new arguments in his final round. I will address these arguments before moving onto analysis of the debate and some additional commentary. I'd also like to take this time to remind my opponent that he should write ---No round as agreed upon--- in his final round. Anything written other than or beyond that should be considered a forfeit by the judges.
New Arguments

"People don;t have babies so they can get money to care for those babies. Children cost more time, energy, and money than someone will ever get out of free medical visits. The math does not add up."

I've included quotes in the previous round that show that I'm clearly not making that argument. This is a straw man that is intended to make my actual arguments look weaker. Here are the quotes I listed that he derived this strawman argument from.

" There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. "

"Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent."

"The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada"s social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women.""

"by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy."


http://www.cato.org...


As you can clearly see, I've never argued that women get pregnant to collect welfare.


"Just because someone is not getting married does not mean they are not in a relationship. One the sources my opponent cites are small sample cases. Hardly enough to make a statistical analysis of the population. The cause is see that low income parents who have medical aid for their children, are hesitate to married even other low income partners because the children can lose doctor visits. This is not have babies and government will give you enough money to pay rent and buy a new car."

This is another attempt to strawman my arguments. I'm not arguing that people collect welfare, because it's some sort of get rich scheme. I'm not sure what source my opponent is referring to either. There has been atleast 5 studies on this specific issued covered by me or the sources I've linked to. At this point, I think it's been established that a direct correlation can be made between welfare and unwed mothers.

"The general welfare clause in the constitution has been used to legitimize such expenditures and fee based programs. As recent as 1982 in South Dakota vs Dole. The government with held 5% federal highway spending to a state if it did not maintain a minimum drinking age of 21. The vote 7-2 upheld the "general welfare" clause to mean the government has a responsibility to enact regulations and programs that benefit the greater America."

I think it's a little late in the debate to bring up supreme court rulings on constitutional law. I don't have the time or space neccesary to respond to this argument. I'll ask that the voter's comletely disregard this new argument as it violates the agreed structure of this debate. On a personal note. I dont think the framers of the constitution had in mind social welfare programs when they included the "general welfare" clause.

Final Analysis


My opponent actually did very little to argue in favor of welfare. What he did was argue against poverty. The problem is everybody is against poverty. This isn't a debate about poverty. We all hate it. We all want to live in a world without it. The debate is about welfare. Here is a summary of each of me and my opponents sections.

Welfare Makes People Dependent on the Government

My previous round's points are all dropped.

Welfare Discourages 2 Parent Households.

My opponent's rebuttals include turning my arguments into straw men and making points that have already been addressed. At this point it should be a well established fact that welfare indeed discourages 2 parent households.

It violates the Role of Government.


My opponent never attacks my argument concerning what the role of government is. He offers an argument concerning constitutional law later on, but I don't really have enough time to get into any arguments I have concerning activist judges, how constitutional law has no bearing on what the actual proper role of government is etc.


It Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System


My opponent doesn't offer any valid responses for this either. If an economic system is working properly a welfare program wouldn't need to be implemented. Instead of offering the failed economic system life support, we should shoot it in the head.

Pro's Arguments


His arguments can be summed up as --Poverty is Bad--. He's brought up numerous stats to show why poverty is bad. The problem is he has ignored my arguments concerning how welfare is a contributor to the underlying causes of poverty.

The other argument besides "poverty bad", was about how welfare aids economic growth. However I've exposed his stats to show that the boost in the economy is only temporary and that the actual longterm affects of welfare is actually detrimental to the economy.

Pro has ignored all of the rebuttals I've mentioned in my previous round.

Conclusion


Vote Con.



Mhykiel

Pro

no round as agreed upon
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Message airmax for voting privilages
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Sorry Garret. I won't set the ELO restrictions that high again.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Round 2:

Pointing out that welfare promotes out-of-wedlock births helped Con's case immensely, since I strongly believe in traditional marriage. Con tries to argue that rational people may choose welfare over a job, but shoots himself in the foot by letting us know he actually prefers to work over getting welfare. This anecdote backfired on him. However, I agree with him that welfare is an example of government abusing its power, and Con ended this round with a powerful statement: effectively, that welfare is a mask for a faulty economy.

Pro loses favor with me by calling the Constitution a "living document." This gives me the impression Pro thinks it's legitimate to "read into" the Constitution to enact whatever law one deems necessary. Pro's point 1 was unintelligible to me, and point 2 wasn't much better. I recommend Pro use spell-check in the future. By the end of point 3 Pro's god-awful spelling and grammar is irking me. I normally don't quibble about spelling mistakes but these are actually hindering my ability to comprehend what he's trying to say. I don't like Pro's treatment of divorce as if it were trivial. His rebuttal to Con's government abuse point was weak, and his claim that the rich actually get more welfare than the poor was his biggest (and really his only) point going for him in this round. Let's see if Pro can rebut it.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Round 3:

Con correctly points out that Pro is arguing from the wrong angle. Instead of supporting Welfare, it's more like Pro is attacking poverty. This isn't an effective strategy because neither debaters support poverty. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" was a well-used quote. But then, Con blunders. He says welfare encourages poverty but then contradicts himself in the very next sentence when he says welfare doesn't affect poverty at all. However, I can understand what Con is trying to say: he means that welfare doesn't reduce poverty. This is in contrast to some of Pro's typing mistakes, which often rendered his text nonsensical. So despite Con's blunder, this is the biggest point, and he backs it up through to the end of this round. Con caught Pro erecting a strawman on the divorce point: Pro asserts Con said welfare increases divorce, but what Con actually said was welfare reduces incentive to avoid out-of-wedlock births. Con ends the round with a bang: WIC isn't even welfare, so a large part of Pro's arguments are irrelevant to the debate!

For some odd reason, Pro raises the point that poverty hurts everyone. I don't see how this helps his case since so no one is arguing that poverty isn't hurtful. Pro challenges Con's claim that welfare leads to more single-parent homes by demanding evidence, but Con already provided the evidence in Round 2. Pro ends the round with an appeal to emotion. The debate is definitely in Con's favor at this point.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Round 4:

Con correctly points out how Pro's logic can turn any negative of the welfare system into a positive for it, since Pro dismisses every defect highlighted by Con as a reason for mere "reform" instead of seriously addressing it. Con's use of the word "ironically" to mean "coincidentally" bothers me, but hey, it's not a big deal. Con deals yet another massive blow to Pro's credibility when he points out Pro wrongly calls Child Support a "welfare" program when it actually isn't. Con references some powerful statistics which (unnecessarily) bolster his already winning position. Pro is going to lose "most reliable souces" points for his comical utilization of a reference for the date Welfare was first implemented. I'm interpreting this as a desperate grab for "most reliable sources" points, but this going to backfire on Pro. Con shows that Pro's utilization of some data to undermine Con's argument regarding education (as a means to reduce poverty) was unwarranted. I'm not sure I agree that Pro used the genetic fallacy, but Con did correctly identify his use of an appeal to emotion.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Pro re-asserts that Child Support is welfare, but without any explanation as to why the government doesn't consider it to be (or even acknowledgment of this fact), I'm going to have to ignore his opinion here. Remember the strawman Pro knocked down earlier about welfare encouraging divorce? Well, Pro is virtually resurrecting it by implying Con argued people have babies in order to get welfare. Con never argued this. What he actually said was the incentive to not have babies outside of marriage is reduced by welfare. Pro's dismissal of Con's study on the grounds it utilized small sample sizes is simply not warranted without Pro citing studies of his own to bolster his case. Pro tries to justify welfare as legitimate use of government power by citing judges, but since he hasn't given me reason to think the Constitution is a "living document" (besides his blind assertion) I can't take any of this argument seriously. From my perspective, Pro is simply citing cases of government abuse as precedent to support further government abuse. The way Pro ends this round leaves much to be desired so this round also goes to Con.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Round 5:

I think Con's "Finally Analysis" expresses my thoughts perfectly. Con made me laugh when he said, "Instead of offering the failed economic system life support, we should shoot it in the head."
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
whatever I'm posting it anyways.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Wylted are you ****** KIDDING ME? I just spent an hour writing up an RFD to find out I can't even ***** vote?

what the ******
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I should have put this in R1, but a notice to anyone showing up here. I set the ELO to minimum 3,000.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
WyltedMhykiel
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Voting on behalf of GarretKateDupre. His RFD is in the comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
WyltedMhykiel
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.