The Instigator
Yeshua
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Risen
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Welfare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,364 times Debate No: 34873
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

Yeshua

Con

I don't agree with giving free money by government means. Charity should be by choice not by force. Yes I do sympathize those who are in need and in my life I have put in the effort to help another in their trouble and I have notice I am not the only one so instead of system of good intention that is imperfect and deceptive in many ways, allow the people to show their goodness and to show that there is no need for the government welfare
Risen

Pro

These days, the price of basic necessities is getting higher because of the economic recession. According to the National Poverty Center, "In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty."(1) The only food that the poor can afford to buy is McDonald's, and is that building a better society? We need to support the poor so they don't have to life such a hard life. You say that you think charity should be the sole giver, but there are so many charities for so many different things. How do you expect charities to give to the poor alone. They need government assistance. Say a mother had a child and the father left. How would she be able to support herself without welfare?

If welfare was not in place there would be even further economic disparity in the United States. In my hometown, you could see some extremely rich suburbs but if you go to the "hood" you just see a bunch of old dilapidated houses and closed down stores. That is where most of the crime happens. Why? Because you have uneducated poor people who have no way of getting real income except breaking into houses and selling the items at pawn shops. That's how people turn into career criminals and make money. Uneducated people might even have to start selling drugs to make their money and as we all know, that can turn a whole society upside-down.

The bottom line is if we don't have welfare, the poor won't have a way to support themselves. I do believe that we can wean people off of welfare using other methods, but if welfare is cut off, severe repercussions will happen. I do understand that people might not want to pay for other's expenses, but, if we did not pay, my house would get broken into in the next five minutes. Pay the taxes, give the welfare, steer clear of the consequences.

(1) http://www.npc.umich.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Yeshua

Con

Yes I do agree that there is a noticeable amount of poverty in our country but its mainly because our government is controlling more of our wealth spending more than they take which causes the value of our dollar to go down instead of advocating to decrease poverty by redistribution of wealth there should be efforts to reforming the way we spend money.

Right now the United States has no money to spend and we are 16 trillion dollars in debt and still adding to it. This itself is a huge cause of the lack of wealth not only to the ones who depend on welfare but to us because the value of our dollar goes down while wages remain the same. It is even in our history that in Germany post world war 1 when Germany owed a lot of restitution they responded by printing a lot of money which made their currency worthless to where their life savings couldn't buy a single egg. I'm not trying to digress from the subject but merely educating you one of the real reasons of poverty and welfare is not the solution.

In addition, I don 't believe high crime rate is even a good reason in your argument. To me you are saying to appease the wrongdoers. You also make it sound like there is no alternative for a person to make a living other than stealing and you also underestimate the the ability of willing charity. There has been cases of people becoming rich off of willing charity and what do the people who receive such generosity? They make it a living leeching off the backs of the people without shame and that's the attitude you create for those on welfare. Entitlement for money they did not earn becomes accepted and they become dependent when they should use it to make something of themselves but they do not. If this was not the case even though I don't agree with force charity I would look the other way and be happy. Unfortunately people on welfare that I have met and have heard of do not think of finding way to be independent. They think its ok to be a burden on the state which I have a hard time embracing in society. But blessings to those who don't take advantage of the state those are the people I gladly support.
Risen

Pro

What you are advocating is welfare reform not the abolisment of welfare overall, please stick to your original argument. When you speak about Germany, you are comparing apples to oranges because Germany was nearly obliterated in World War One. As I am aware the United States is not undergoing that kind of hardship at this moment. Therefore, your argument is invalid. You say we are devaluing our currency and that is making us poor? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The reason a lot of people are poor is because their whole family was poor before they were born. There can be many different reasons such as a family member having a mental disability then having kids, or people can immigrate from different countries and they have very little money to spend.

You say that, " I don 't believe high crime rate is even a good reason in your argument. To me you are saying to appease the wrongdoers. You also make it sound like there is no alternative for a person to make a living other than stealing and you also underestimate the the ability of willing charity." How can a homeless man support himself? Can he go to McDonald's and get a job that easily? No he can't. In some cases, a person might HAVE a job, but they might need to get income another way and lack of quality education means he won't think about getting a second job, which would still be horrible, he would have to sell drugs. You say that "There has been cases of people becoming rich off of willing charity and what do the people who receive such generosity?" Really? Then put it in a source! If people get rich off charity I better really read the history behind what charities I give to because I don't want to make people rich I want to assist. Charities are private organizations that I do not trust to give to the correct people, and if a person gives to charity it can be for breast cancer awareness and not education for the poor. You say that, " They make it a living leeching off the backs of the people without shame and that's the attitude you create for those on welfare." That is one of the most hateful statements I've heard. Here's a statistic, if you make 1000 per month than you are not eligible for welfare. (1) That means welfare recipients are some of the poorest people around. Here is another statistic, the HWE or the hourly wage equivalent for welfare can range from $17.50 to $11.11. (1) That's not enough to support a family alone.

Overall, I think con doesn't want to pay taxes. Like I said if we cut welfare we can be in a lot of trouble that way. It is possible to wean people off of welfare so it does not become a huge expense, but the government can't seem to do that. And if we can't wean people off of welfare, abolishing the whole system would be suicide for our country.

(1) http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Yeshua

Con

No I don't want to pay taxes. Who does? The only function a government should display is to protect us from foreign and domestic threats such as funding the military, the police, the fireman and also regulations such as business and health. Those are the programs I am willing to pay for and nothing else. I do not want a system to control our finances.I do agree that cutting off welfare completely could pose a problem so gradual withdrawal is a good idea and I'm glad we both agree.

The homeless is an issue that I struggle with myself because there is no real solution to the problem. You will always have the poor but we should "willingly" try to help one another. When I speak of charity I don't necessarily mean private organizations but also people walking down the street and they see someone asking for help and they do so either giving money or food. People do want to help but they do not want give the impression that they are the only source of income. They want to help those who are genuinely in need. You say you have never heard of people getting rich off of charity but here are some links to provide evidence of the case.
http://www.getrichslowly.org...
http://query.nytimes.com...
So to restate the point charity is not just some private organization to go to, charity is you and me when we want to help another. I don't trust many private charities as well but I have more distrust in our current system. The fact that we are force to assist creates an even more distrust. Also, we are not assisting people in need we are maintaining the lifestyles who don't want to work for a living. Meanwhile you criticize me for making a hateful statement. Do I not have the right to despise the mindset of entitlement? Is it wrong for me to resent the lack of consideration they have for the tax payers. You make it sound like I hate people in poverty when I have already explained to you that I go out to help them by my "will". Why don't you do the same instead making others give. If you do then great focus on your own generosity not someone else's. If you say you do then you are contradicting yourself because you are defending a force social agenda which is welfare.

You say that a person can't live with 1000 dollars a month and that's balony because my monthly expenses reaches below that amount considering I had fed myself paid for my car insurance, gas and room for rent that most people can find now a days and this is in Southern California. It's all about being responsible not being entitled to a certain lifestyles. Plus you shouldn't be having a family if that is all you make. A person who makes minimum wage should not be getting married at all or have a family at least if they aren't able to support one in the first place.

Overall I am against welfare I'm not for any reform I just stated emotionally I would feel better if it went to the appropriate people but logically this type of social agenda is theft and who agrees with theft.? I do want to admit that I over exaggerated about the inflation but if you noticed from ten years ago silver use to be 3 dollars an oz and now it's 20 dollars an oz this increase in value is mainly caused by inflation though I will agree there are other factors this is one of them.
Risen

Pro

You say that, "The only function a government should display is to protect us from foreign and domestic threats such as funding the military, the police, the fireman and also regulations such as business and health." That is one of the craziest notions I have heard, who pays for the roads? Who would be willing to help you if you had a disaster and you lost your home. You need social assistance programs if you want to have a good country. How would some of us survive if we didn't have food stamps? If we didn't have social programs, the people who would be doomed would probably revolt and cause social unrest that that is not something we want to happen.

You also say that, "People do want to help but they do not want give the impression that they are the only source of income. They want to help those who are genuinely in need. You say you have never heard of people getting rich off of charity but here are some links to provide evidence of the case." Your first link does say that there are beggars with a number of tactics in San Francisco and Portland but it does not say anything about getting rich. And your second link is VERY misleading because if you look at the date it's from 1905.

You say that, ". Meanwhile you criticize me for making a hateful statement. Do I not have the right to despise the mindset of entitlement?" First off lets see the definition of despise "To regard with contempt, distaste, disgust, or disdain; scorn; loathe."(1) You have the right to despise that mindset of entitlement but how do you know that mindset exists in large numbers? Have you ever been poor or worked closely with the poor. I've worked at soup kitchens and the patrons are extremely happy to see the food and eat it, no matter how bad it tastes! After that statement you say, "You make it sound like I hate people in poverty when I have already explained to you that I go out to help them by my 'will'." That sounds like two contradicting statements to me.

You say that, "You say that a person can't live with 1000 dollars a month and that's balony because my monthly expenses reaches below that amount considering I had fed myself paid for my car insurance, gas and room for rent that most people can find now a days and this is in Southern California." First off its spelled baloney, second the money is the income before any expenses. Lets do some math to debunk your statement! Ok I'm going to assume that you make ten dollars an hour and you have an eight hour work day and that you only work on weekdays. 10x8=80 80x20(workdays per month) 80x20= $1600. Maybe you make 8 dollars an hour which is seventy five cents above minimum wage: 8x8=64 64x20 $1280. Your statement would be false unless you are relieving welfare and living a better life with those on welfare. Lets try minimum wage just for reference. 7.25 x 8=58 58 x 20= 1160. You are only eligible for welfare if you are working part time at McDonald's. Therefore your statement is false.

I am pro welfare. Maybe not the current state of welfare, but I have no problem being forced to give to the poor because I have money and I have money to give. Why should one human prosper while another suffers? You say that, " I would feel better if it went to the appropriate people but logically this type of social agenda is theft and who agrees with theft.?" Well maybe it's not theft lets do more logic. The government lets you live here, the government does not make you do forced hard labor, the government does a pretty good job compared to other governments, and you get to elect your officials instead of having a dictator. It's sort of a contract between you and the government that says "You are allowed to live and vote here only if you pay our taxes."

(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Yeshua

Con

Who created the government? The people. Who funds the government? The people. Who are the people? You and I. What was the purpose of government? To maintain order without oppression not to be the owner of our lives. It is a system to follow our decisions not the decider of whether I have the natural right to live here. Since we live in a nation with various beliefs and ideology it is impossible to agree what's ultimately best for all of us. Welfare is such a controversial subject that it should not be a federal decision but a state decision. So that your views will not oppress me and my views will not oppress you.
So you can live in a state that forces you to pay into welfare since you have no problem with being forced to give while I live in a state that doesn't. It's a win win scenario.

You say why should one human prosper while another suffers. LOOK MAN READ THIS!!!! YOU DON'T NEED WELFARE TO PREVENT ONE FROM SUFFERING I KEEP ON TELLING YOU.HELPING SOCIETY COMES FROM YOU AND ME A "WILLING" HEART. DID THE GOVERNMENT TELL YOU TO WORK IN THAT SOUP KITCHEN? NO IT WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE WILLING!!!! YOU ARE WHAT MAKES PEOPLE LESS DEPENDENT ON FORCED CHARITY.

Sorry to yell like that but I felt it was necessary. Anyways your 4th paragraph confused me as you said you were going to debunk my statement with math. Overall you just stated that people even making minimum wage full time make over a 1000 a month while my point was that you can still survive on a 1000 dollar a month income without welfare and even if they didn't make enough to survive my point is assistance is societies willingness meanwhile you shouldn't have a family at all if that is all you can make.

I want to thank you for acknowledging my right to despise the mindset of entitlement. How do I know the mindset of entitlement is found in large numbers?
http://www.columbiatribune.com...
I also don't understand which two statement contradict each because I don't see any two statements that do. I will briefly say I hate the mindset not the poor.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk... this link will provide cases that beggars making a good living just off the people let alone the government.
You say who will pay for the roads. In this case this matter doesn't matter to me much either from a capitalistic development or from funding by government doesn't matter to me as long as its not redistribution of wealth. Honestly considering the technology it would be better to fund roads through capitalistic means but I don't care. My hopes is that the role of government will be smaller and less needed. If I had a disaster happen to my home like Hurricane Katrina..... well you got me there that would just suck and social assistance program might be useful but again it's at the expense of the tax payers but I admit there is benefit in that sense however I would not want to burden another with my misfortunes unless they are "willing" to help.As for food stamps this role should go to trusted charities and a willing society like I stated before. To back trace a little bit in my argument, In a scenario like hurricane Katrina the military should cooperate with private charities. The military for order and the private charities for aid.

Meanwhile,If people are being fed one way or another there won't be a revolt unless they revolt because they think they are entitled to a certain lifestyle than yeah you will see a revolt. Overall it's need vs want in that perspective.
Risen

Pro

You say that the purpose of the government is, "To maintain order without oppression not to be the owner of our lives." If a government allows so many people to go hungry, to be homeless, to not get enough money to support a stable family (which I believe everyone is entitled to). Now, you are arguing with states rights here, my view is that no state should get rid of welfare altogether. There is one problem with that. Every state has poor people, so, how do you expect poor people to just leave? They can't afford to leave, and if they do, they will be poorer in the next state because they've spent their money on moving!

In your last argument you say, ". LOOK MAN READ THIS!!!! YOU DON'T NEED WELFARE TO PREVENT ONE FROM SUFFERING I KEEP ON TELLING YOU.HELPING SOCIETY COMES FROM YOU AND ME A "WILLING" HEART. DID THE GOVERNMENT TELL YOU TO WORK IN THAT SOUP KITCHEN? NO IT WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE WILLING!!!! YOU ARE WHAT MAKES PEOPLE LESS DEPENDENT ON FORCED CHARITY." First off lets call it welfare not forced charity. Second, I combined paying my taxes and doing charity so overall, the poor gets more. Do you think charity alone will pay enough? I doubt it.

I did debunk your statement. You said that, "You say that a person can't live with 1000 dollars a month and that's balony because my monthly expenses reaches below that amount considering I had fed myself paid for my car insurance, gas and room for rent that most people can find now a days and this is in Southern California." That statement was all over the place so I used math. Second, a one thousand dollar a month income is not eligible for welfare!

I have a problem with your two sources you listed. The first one is clearly an editorial and the second one is English. If you can find a good unbiased American article (that isn't from Fox News) that shows how that there is a large mindset of entitlement maybe that would help your case.

You say, "If I had a disaster happen to my home like Hurricane Katrina..... well you got me there that would just suck and social assistance program might be useful but again it's at the expense of the tax payers but I admit there is benefit in that sense however I would not want to burden another with my misfortunes unless they are "willing" to help." You know what is almost like Hurricane Katrina for some families? Losing their jobs, their houses, and their children can be just as devastating as Hurricane Katrina. Yet, people don't know about these small disasters so we need welfare to rescue these families.
Debate Round No. 4
Yeshua

Con

Like I said you underestimate the power of willing charity even if people aren't willing it's still immoral to "steal" from people. Just because someone lost their jobs doesn't make me responsible to help them. You make it sound like if people don't have welfare they are going to die of starvation but if you haven't notice it's really hard to starve in America unless you are too lazy to eat even without welfare.

http://www.theatlantic.com...
Well your third paragraph about debunking my statement is still confusing me because all I'm saying is you don't need welfare if you make a thousand dollars a month because I'm able to spend less than a thousand to support myself and even if they make less or not enough to support themselves, aid doesn't have to come from the government .

You say you don't believe charity is enough? Well how about you use the money that the government didn't take from you and give it to the unfortunate if you really feel that way. Don't make others do the same if they don't want to. It's not an obligation. Also I had already mention people are not going to starve without welfare
http://www.crown.org...
Anyways your first paragraph makes me too upset to even respond rationally so I'm just going to finish my argument right here.
Risen

Pro

I will conclude my argument in this very short sentence because I believe I have proved that con's argument is too unintelligent to spend the time to rebuke.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yeshua 3 years ago
Yeshua
The thing is with the French Revolution I would believe at that time 80 percent of the population were really impoverish 15 percent were middle class and the rest were aristocrats. The problem with the system they had favored the very few as opposed to our system where omitting social welfare we still have a decent wealthy middle class as long as there is fair play in the market. When France had a huge deficit they had to find a way to pay for it. Obviously the aristocrats didn't want to pay but rather influence the crown to tax the poor and middle class which caused the mass to be enraged which led to the revolution. The thing is the aristocrats were born with wealth not having to earn it and never sharing it as opposed to people today that are more caring these days We don't live in an arrogant aristocratic era so it is really unlikely that a French Revolution will occur if government welfare is nonexistent.
Posted by Yeshua 3 years ago
Yeshua
Lol! I like you CornCob
To be honest I don't know if the survivability of a nation depends on a large industrial population but for the sake to prove your point relating to my argument I will say sure.
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
I admit to leaving a lot un-said"
So let me backup so to speak.
Let"s use a database searching methodology; I will go back half way each time till we find agreement.
Would you agree that any nation wanting to survive long term must have a large "urban population" as well as some "heavy industry"? The implication I am trying to make is agrarian societies end up in some way annexed by more developed societies.
Without a large segment of the population living on top of one another (meaning densely populated areas) a society would not keep up with the others and would soon fall prey to an aggressive neighbor.
By the way, I hope you don't take this personal, I am not accusing you of being a bad person or cold hearted, much the opposite.
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
I take very seriously your statement that i am not trying to understand your point of view
i know from past experiences this is one of my many flaws...

i think your opinion is that private charity works best to help those in need, that government intervention in and of itself creates dependency while also inviting graft

did i miss something sir?
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
the French revolution would be an example of how private charity fails over the long term in urban settings...
give me a big picture example where it has worked over the long haul?
is that fair?
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
Fair enough Yeshua

admittedly it's my opinion but how can i give you better examples than
the obama phone or food stamps?
what exactly would qualify and i will try to go there with you?
how far do i have to break it down before we can discuss it?
and yes you are advocating a method that will lead to a french type revolution
Posted by Yeshua 3 years ago
Yeshua
If you think welfare is for the rich more than for the poor than you should oppose about it as well. And second you accuse me of ignoring of why government gives it away and yet you hardly elaborated how I'm ignoring and you fail to give me good examples. Overall you are just reiterating what my opponent presents to me. Your lack of considering what I'm really trying to say frustrates me.
Posted by Yeshua 3 years ago
Yeshua
Corncob I'd say you are over complicating things you assume too much about where I stand.
Let me simplify where I stand. I believe social care is in the role of society not the role of government. You ignore my true ideaology and marginalized it to where you make it sound like I'm going to cause a French Revolution.
Posted by Risen 3 years ago
Risen
Sure! I wouldn't really consider that advice ether that's just feedback
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
All i can say is "sorry, it wont happen again".
its going to be hard but i wont do it again.

is it ok to do it after the debate ends?
No votes have been placed for this debate.