The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 84215
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




a person with no means of getting food should be able to go grow corn. society stops them, basically at gun point, with property laws. if they are going to do that, they should make up for it by giving them food.


Thank you for starting this debate. The resolution reads "food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us".

No definitions were bestowed, so I will provide some.

Food Stamps: Government benefits provided to eligible low-income people for buying food, issued in the form of an electronic benefit transfer card. Food stamps were formerly issued in the form of paper stamps or coupons.

I will be arguing that food stamps do more harm, than good. I look foward to your argument.

Debate Round No. 1


i gave basic philsophical reasoning. that was my argument. what's yours?


Thank you. I will include rebuttals in the final round.
Food stamps fall under the category of "Welfare". I will be arguing the Wlfare, including stamps is a bad idea.
I have made this argument before on my Lee001 account.

Thank you again for debating this topic with me.

My main argument will be that "Welfare Does More Harm Than Good"

Let's get straight to it!

Argument #1

Welfare gets taken advantage of.

It's quite obvious that women continue to have children to receive welfare checks. Sadly, these checks get taken advantage of by not using the money for what it's actual purpose is for. If we cut the system entirely, imagine how many women would stop having children. They wouldn't continue having children because then that means they wouldn't be receiving more money.

[1] What would happen to the poor if welfare were eliminated? Without the negative incentives created by the welfare state, fewer people would be poor. There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty. Studies suggest that women do make rational decisions about whether to have children, and thus a reduction in welfare benefits would reduce the likelihood of their becoming pregnant or having children out of wedlock.

Another problem is that these receivers continuously apply for food stamps, though they don't actually need them. Allot of fraud goes on as well with people applying and selling food stamps to those who aren't on welfare. On February 15,2015 Brushton, New York, 30 people were arrested for eligibly selling food stamps.

[2]NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using theirfood stamp cardsin a manner that was against the law.

All allegedly bought alcohol, received cash, and bought other items food stamp recipients are not allowed to buy using a food stamp card, known as the Electronic Benefits Card (EBT). Police charged all defendants with second degree criminal use of a public benefit card, petit larceny, and misuse of food stamps. Though most were released with an appearance ticket, one defendant was held for parole violations, reports WPTZ.

Not only was the system being taken advantage of once more, but imaging how easily kids would be able to get alcohol as well.

[3] This type of fraud,called trafficking according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, happens by exchanging food stamps for cash. Traffickingfood stamps happens at an extreme “street exchange rate,” which can range anywhere from $.25 to $.50 per dollar, according to WSPA. This means that for every $1 in EBT benefits sold, the recipient gets $.50 to $.75 in cash.

According toAddicting Info, the stigma about this type ofwelfare abuseor food stamp fraud is that it is unusually high because it is so easy to do.

Resolution: Instead of providing food stamps, charities could help out tremendously. Many charities are willing to help the needy in any way they can. For instance, there are organizations that cook and provide food to the needy. Why don't we replace providing food stamps, and do it in a much safer way. All food stamp receiving families should be introduced to SNAP. [3] SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program integrity.

So, not only will they be receiving food, they can also learn about how to make healthy choices and presume a healthy lifestyle. This is also a benefit for children growing up who had never been taught about healthy food decisions.

Argument #2

[4] It is less efficient than private charity. Private, local charity is true charity: it is voluntary, and it is not subject to the bureaucratic filtering process. I have never heard the government or any of its programs praised for efficiency, except by the government and those who head the programs!

There are many willing charities that are eager to help the needy in any way possible. Why not let them?

[5] If you need help with paying your rent or bills, including your electric or heating bills, you can look into the following local and national charities and non-profit organizations. A number of other services may be provided by a charity, including free food, housing, basic needs such as clothing, and much more. Various programs and services are offered by charities, as noted below.

Unfortunately the resources available from these organizations tends to be limited, and only a certain number of people can be assisted. This is mostly due to the high demand placed on the charities. Much of the aid is focused on people who are most at risk. This can include senior citizens, families with very young children, and the disabled. Even if a charity or non-profit can’t meet your needs, ask them for referrals. Or maybe they have a waiting list that you can sign up for.

Just because this is limited doesn't mean it's a bad thing. They will help those who are in most need and are assuredly unable to sustain a proper lifestyle. Many of these systems wouldn't be taken advantage of because people are actually helping you out. They don't just give you money and say "Here you go, your monthly check, do whatever you please with it" Nope. These organizations are making sure you use this money wisely and effectively.

Some of these organizations include: [4]

Community Action Organizations are local public and/or non-profit groups that provide various types of assistance to those in need. They can help with heating and utility bills, provide job training, rent payments, and various other services.

Episcopal Church - This is a national organization, but the services run by each local parish vary. The charity supports the vulnerable and families living in poverty. Volunteers can provide basic needs such as personal hygiene items, clothing, hot meals, or food. Some of the parishes of this charity may also have more extensive support, even involving health clinics held by volunteers or loans to use for car repairs. Continue with services from Episcopal Church.

Non-profit credit counseling agencies operate in many cities and counties. These organizations will usually charge clients a small fee for their services. However, if your income is low enough, then the debt reduction and other financial services may be offered for free, as a charity type service. Find a listing of free or low cost non-profit credit counseling agencies.

Note that these people are actually willing and happy to help those in need.







Debate Round No. 2


it gets abused and used when not needed, they get abused and sold on the black market. i dont deny it sometimes. but a few bad apples isn't enough to throw out the baby with the bath water. how else will we ensure food for people when it seems to be their right? you dont do much to say it's not a right, you just focus on the abuses. charties are the wrong focus for getting people fed. when it's a "right", the government should be involved. in gneral, there might be room for charity when someone is just down on their luck... but when there's a systemic problem and "rights" involved. your solution is misplaced.

also, you say women have more kids to get more welfare. maybe in olden days, but this isn't applicable here. as it sits here, your point is ridiculous. women dont have babies to get more food stamps, or very rarely. even welfare in general in terms of cash assistance where your point might make more sense, there's not much perverse incentive.... that is, in most states you get a set amount of cash regardless of how many kids you have so why have more? plus it's for a limited time, so you will be stuck caring for them the rest of the time.
this whole point is ridiculous it wasn't even worth dignifiying with a response but i guess i threw you a bone.


Thank you Pro for this debate.

I'm going to keep my conclusion short and simple.

Pro does not argue off of a factual standpoint, but she argues off off her emotion. The only "soure" she uses is "I think" whilst I have used many factual statements to prove my claim.

Pro also agrees the the welfare system gets taken advantage of, thus agrees with my alternative plan.

Again, sorry for keeping this so short, but this pretty much sums it up.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sam7411 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear winner is Con - she used verifiable and proven facts, reliable sources and charts, had better conduct and Pro's grammar/conduct was typical of a child.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Shockingly, dairygirl didn't perform too well in this debate. The biggest problem with pro's argument is that they can all be addressed by the "dude" argument ("That's just like, your opinion, man"). They don't stem from any real-world data, which is mandatory for a debate based on a empirical claim like this one -- although the original resolution is unclear, con gave a paraphrased resolution that was not challenged by pro, so I'll consider it a reasonable interpretation. I'm also awarding con sourcing points for obvious reasons.