The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

food stamps should be provided by the government

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 3 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 78371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

access to food is a basic right, as long as the person isn't just lazy.

please start round 1 with arguments
bballcrook21

Con

I have accepted the debate challenge.

Let me state that the argument I am presenting is that food stamps should not be provided by the United States government. I am assuming it is the U.S. government that we are referring to here.

In reality, food stamps already are provided by the government, distributed to the lazy and the uneducated who decide to have children even though they cannot take care of them. This all is supported by taxpayer dollars, of course.

I will await your opening argument and then I shall begin my own.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the main point, is that if people dont have food stamps, they will die. and, crime will go up exponentially in their plot not to die.

also, the USA is a land of immense wealth. if someone is born here, they should be entitled to a fair cut, at least a minimum.

imagine all the world was owned by one man, except a small plot of land where a few reside. in the real world of natural law, the people can branch off and plant food. but in man made law, artificially created laws, they cannot expand due to the man's artificial claim on the land, and perhaps his ability to use the land using modern technology. this is an outlandish scenario, but as a matter of scale is no different than allowing people to die without food stamps.

last, not all are lazy or stupid who get food stamps. there's some who are down on their luck, but then there's also systematic poverty, such as ghettos where jobs are very hard to come by and getting ahead is for an extreme few.
bballcrook21

Con

Food stamps, as well as all other forms of welfare, has always been a government plot to create dependency. Studies show that over 40% of food stamp recipients have been receiving food stamps for over 10 years, which goes to prove that people are ineffective at changing.

When you create dependency, that makes the dependent person unlikely to become independent. Creating a system which rewards work with currency, rather then creating a system that rewards stupidity, laziness, and an overall lack of the will to get an education or a job, will ultimately become a failed system.

The food stamp program is open to massive amounts of fraud. We have a system that tracks income and then pairs it with the amount of money that would cost to take care of yourself and your family. This system is open to large scale error as well as manipulation, as we can observe in many impoverished areas.

Many are on food stamps because they are out of work. One of the main causes of an inability to be employed is health issues, the biggest one being obesity. A financed meal plan enables people to buy large amounts of unhealthy food, which in turn makes them unable to work, which makes the eligible to receive food stamps.

One of the main issues with food stamps is that they are a large form of corporate welfare. Many argue that food stamps provide economic stimulus, but in fact, they do not. They not only create dependence for a large population, but they also create dependence for corporations. Food stamps is a direct way of transferring tax payer money straight to corporations, such as Walmart, which receives over $6 billion in welfare annually. [2]

The eligibility of receiving a subsidized food plan is also able to be manipulated. Instead of based on need, it is based on want. People who can afford food, but are still eligible, decide to apply. The people that are cheating the system are only taking advantage of the morbid stupidity of the government.

In a concluding sense, there should be no subsidies given to any group or any company that is paid for directly by tax dollars. Allow charities and churches to help the poor, because I cannot find any place in my heart as to why I should give up my income so someone whose life or death would provide no change in the nation.

We need to realize that human nature and nature itself is based on survival. At this point, the weak prey on the strong, since the weak are plentiful, and the strong do not have as many votes as the weak.

Sources:
[1]http://www.freedomworks.org...
[2]http://dailysignal.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

there is no plot to create dependency. that is an unfounded assertion by con. there is as far as is most apparent, a desire to feed people who would otherwise starve.

even if so many use food stamps for so long, that only shows that the inability to work is systematic such that it creates long dependency.

less than three percent of food stamps are fraudulent.

corporations wouldn't get food stamp money unless they were giving food to people. somebody has to. and, companies like walmart wouldn't have employees getting so much in food stamps, if they paid their employees better.

people might have money but that doesen't mean they can afford to eat. they have other expenses too. yet food is a number one requirement of life. if anything, food stamps should go to everyone, as everyone needs it, and they can comepte for all other wants and needs of life.

con doesnt' respond to my anaology of immense wealth, and hasn't admitted that it would be permissibel to him that so many die of starvation in such a rich nation.
bballcrook21

Con

You have made enormous claims with no evidence. I will refuse to believe any data unless I see it backed up by evidence.

Additionally, it is easy to talk of large systems where people are given what they need, but it is hard to figure out how you could apply that system.

You are wrong with your assertion of enormous wealth. We are a world economy, but we have immense debt, largely caused by uncontrolled government spending and borrowing. Obama has created over 6 trillion dollars of new debt, which in turn inflates our currency.

You state that everyone should get food stamps. Where will that money come from? We already spend hundreds of billions in subsidizing the lazy maggots in our population. We could not afford to give money to all 320 million people. Furthermore, your plan would eliminate competition, and would also eliminate any need for higher quality food. As prices cannot be adjusted, quality will not increase, and it will create a giant monopoly based upon food, which we cannot have in a true free market.

Very few die of starvation in this nation. Obesity is rampant in poorer communities, since cheap and affordable food is not filled with nutrients, but is rather filled with fat. This is basic economics. Unhealthy food is not exactly desirable, but it is in high supply, so it is cheap. Food that is healthy is desirable, which in turn drives up prices. Healthy food also requires more service, as it has to be grown seasonally, which also impacts supply. Growth hormones and pesticides cannot be used, which in turn means other, more cost-inefficient ways have to be used to create a product that is safe to consume.

Need I remind you, people who make less than $50,000 dollars annually do not have to participate and pay their fair share of taxes. That means that they get to keep most, if not all, of their income. If they cannot budget dozens of thousands of dollars correctly then that is their fault, and they will inevitably suffer the consequences.

On your remark about Walmart: If Walmart employees were useful and not easily replaceable, then their salaries would rise. A man with a Masters in economics could do the job of a cashier, but a cashier could not do the job of a man with a Masters in economics. That makes that educated man more desirable, more useful, and harder to replace, which in turn means that their salaries will rise so they do not leave and find work elsewhere.

If people cared enough about themselves to get an education, which you can do under any circumstances, then we would be fine. There is over $130,000,000 of government funded and privately funded scholarships that are wasted each year. Work hard, work smart, and you will be successful. (When I say work hard, I do not mean working hard as a cashier, I mean working hard as an engineer, or software developer, etc. - a job that takes skill and a brain).

Sources:
[1]http://frac.org...
[2]http://www.institutefornaturalhealing.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
bballcrook21
You state that I have unfounded assertions yet you created one yourself and you have no reinstated it with factual evidence.

It is used to create dependency. If the ruling party gives you money, which enables you to not worry about working or getting off the couch, then you are most likely going to vote for that party again. It's basic politics.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
there is no plot to create dependency. that is an unfounded assertion by con. there is as far as is most apparent, a desire to feed people who would otherwise starve.

even if so many use food stamps for so long, that only shows that the inability to work is systematic such that it creates long dependency.

less than three percent of food stamps are fraudulent.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by footballchris561 2 years ago
footballchris561
dairygirl4u2cbballcrook21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that not only should we not do it because it causes dependency but also proved that we can't afford it because of the immense debt. Easy win
Vote Placed by cathaystewie 2 years ago
cathaystewie
dairygirl4u2cbballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar goes to CON because PRO refuses to capitalise. Sources also go to CON because PRO cited no sources. PRO never fulfilled their BOP of clearly outlining the role of the government (i.e. whether it is overstepping its role). PRO also failed to rebut CON's main argument of dependency, responding only with the assertion that 'the food stamp program does not aim to create dependency but is instead a program that aims to help the underprivileged'. CON was the only side of the house to characterise the demographics of those who benefit from a food stamp program, and from there CON uses this to disprove the legitimacy of said program. For all the reasons above, this debate irrefutably falls to CON.
Vote Placed by PericIes 2 years ago
PericIes
dairygirl4u2cbballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had numerous spelling and grammatical errors, such as "comepte." Pro also does not seem to be familiar with the concept of capitalization. Con had more convincing arguments, inasmuch as that they were all relevant and supported with sources, unlike Pro's. Con had more reliable sources (two journalism articles) against Pro's lack of sources, despite her large claims.