The Instigator
thejudgeisgod
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society

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...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,807 times Debate No: 8607
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

thejudgeisgod

Con

I would like to thank whomever accepts this debate. I will simply set up parameters and define key terms within the resolution and then let my opponent (pro) make opening arguments.

Parameters: by benefits I mean "special consideration" in regards to education, disability checks, disabled housing, live-in nurses, or anything that is given to a disabled person.
Now I must present my bias. I am physically disabled. I suffer from moderate/severe Cerebral Palsy that solely affects me physically. My opponent should know that this topic hits close to home and should not be taken lightly. I only ask that my opponent accepts the fact that I am indeed disabled, and doesn't ask for proof. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Definitions:

handicapped: disabled; people collectively who are crippled or otherwise physically handicapped

eligible: qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen

benefits: (as outlined above)

I hand the proverbial floor to my opponent

Sources
all definitions throughout this debate (from my side) are from wordnet.princeton.edu
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

I would like to note that the Con defined "benefits" in terms of "special" considerations.

I am opposed to the extension of "special" considerations toward anyone, by anyone, be it government or any other actor (Society is not an entity, it cannot take any actions).

Now, certainly, some accommodations for disabilties are positive-- those which aren't "special considerations." The principle to be applied in general is "Provide things to others based on the values it will cause them to provide to you." Occasionally, then, accommodations for handicapped can be provided if the value gained exceeds the cost of the accommodations. This is not special, as it's how one treats everyone. Anything "Special," outside that rule, indicates that one is losing value-- one is investing more value than one expects to gross from the transaction. No one should do this, no one should destroy value on net, as the term "should" refers to the field of morality-- i.e., the field of attaining values.
Debate Round No. 1
thejudgeisgod

Con

My opponents argument is extremely shallow.

I will build my own case that will show that disabled people need special consideration by analyzing the definitions within the phrase, and demonstrate that it is a "moral duty" of the United States to provide such accommodation.

My opponent says that accommodations are good. So we agree on that...

but he believes that "The principle to be applied in general is "Provide things to others based on the values it will cause them to provide to you."

I would like to provide another principle which this country idealizes. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. The principle that my opponent provided is aimed more towards economics, where the principle that I provided is one which idealizes social equality and opportunity. I find (and I hope the voters will) mine to be more relevent to the nature of this debate.

We as a country value living life to its fullest extent, which is why we provide disability checks, and handicapped accessible housing. So that people with disabilities can pursue life, liberty and happiness.

"I am opposed to the extension of "special" considerations toward anyone, by anyone, be it government or any other actor (Society is not an entity, it cannot take any actions)."

My response: Society can't take actions? So the American Colonists who led the revolution weren't a society? What about secret societies... the Mafia? All of these are societies that take action. And all of these societies are functioning entities.

1) Disability checks

There is no doubt that a check, given to the disabled just for being disabled is a benefit. It is a benefit for the individual and for the government. In some cases, people with disabilities have no other way to generate income and collecting a monthly check is their only option. My opponent will argue that this is a mutually beneficial relationship between the individual and the government, since the disabled person pays taxes on his or her income; my opponent and I both agree that it is a good thing, where our viewpoints will differ is in deciding whether or not this is, as I outlined in my definition, a "special consideration". I will define both words in the phrase to prove that this is a special consideration.

The definition of special: particular: unique or specific to a person or thing or category.
The definition of consideration: the process of giving careful thought to something

When analyzing both definitions one can come to the conclusion that a disability check is a special consideration, because such a check is exclusively available to the disabled.

It is also a consideration because the government considers it justifiable to give a check to the disabled for no other reason than that they are disabled. This principle based on definitions is applied to all of my subsequent arguments.

2) Disabled housing.

Disabled housing, as the name suggests, is housing built exclusively for the needs of the disabled. Some of the features in such houses are fixtures and everyday necessities that are adjusted to fit the need (usually lowered) of disabled patrons; such as: sinks, cabinets, light fixtures, and the like. Such houses are free from stairs or equipped with a ramp if an incline is necessary in accordance with the American Disabilities Act of 1990. Such projects take muchlonger to complete and are generally more expensive than the average American home, because all of the extra amenities cost extra money. It is imoeritive that the government provides the disabled sector of society with such accommodations, because without them it is impossible and hypocritical for the American government to promote such ideals as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and "liberty and justice for all."

3) Education

In accordance with the American Disability Act of 1990, all post-secondary educational institutions must (upon student approval) take into account a student's disability into consideration in the application process. This is an effort to aid disabled citizens, in the betterment and independence of their lives. Provisions within the bill include:

the mandatory hiring of a paraprofessional instructional aid (upon request from the student). Paraprofessional aides, assist those with disabilities both inside, and outside of the classroom. The duties of such an aide are dependent on the student's needs and personal preference.

A disability should be taken into consideration when applying to a college, because, schools realize that it is much harder (almost impossible) to find a sustainable, rewarding (both monetarily and otherwise) job for those with disabilities. Such mandates are indeed the moral responsibility of a country that promote liberty and justice for all. Without such accommodations, the very basis of our country's moral standards would be in shambles.

Conclusion

We can all see (including my opponent) that accommodations for the disable are positive not only for the individual, but for the society. I am not advocating hand-outs just fo hand-outs sake, I find (as a disabled person) that some people need aid from the government and societal charities. In an idealistic world, where their where people weren't born with disadvantages beyond their control, there would be no need for this resolution, but in a world marred with scars and sickness, someone must be their to give the those afflicted a hand up, and they must do so with care. It is a moral obligation. We must give "special consideration," because you can't treat a blind citizen's ailment with the same procedure as you would do with someone crippled by polio, cerebral palsy or MS.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
My opponent says that accommodations are good"
Accommodations from which the giver gains more than they lose.

As in, ramps instead of or in addition to stairs for businesses with a broad customer base, or courthouses, etc.

"
I would like to provide another principle which this country idealizes. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. The principle that my opponent provided is aimed more towards economics, where the principle that I provided is one which idealizes social equality and opportunity."
Actually, the principle you provided offers nothing of the sort. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, quite simply, lead to leaving decisions about accommodations (ABOUT ECONOMICS, you'll note, since accommodations are GOODS and SERVICES) to private citizens-- who will likely decide things on exactly the principle I mentioned.

"
We as a country value living life to its fullest extent, which is why we provide disability checks"
Disability checks? Money forcibly extorted from slaves by government agents, so that those people can't live life to their fullest extent, provided to accommodate disabled people's refusal to live their lives to the fullest extent available. Life as a dependent of force is not "life to the fullest extent." And there is no "we"

"and handicapped accessible housing."
Which housing are you talking about? If it's private housing geared toward selling to the handicapped, yes, that makes good business sense, and constitutes a pursuit of happiness by both seller and buyer. If it's subsidized by our government, that means it is subsidized by FORCIBLE EXTORTION of government agents.

"So that people with disabilities can pursue life, liberty and happiness.
"
Under the regime of government-extorted benefits, NO ONE CAN PURSUE life, liberty, or any meaningful form of happiness.

"
My response: Society can't take actions? So the American Colonists who led the revolution weren't a society?"
The Continental Army was a subsection of a society, not a society in itself. It performed the bulk of the revolution. Other individuals contributed. Mere ascribed groupings such as "society" are convenient shorthand, they have no referent in reality but the individuals, individuals who often take different actions. Many American Colonists were loyalists.

"hat about secret societies... the Mafia?"
You're equivocating. That is not a "society," that is a voluntary organization, every individual chose to be there. It isn't comparable to say "American colonists," in which different individuals do different things in regards to the relevant subject matter.

"
There is no doubt that a check, given to the disabled just for being disabled is a benefit."
Not to the person it is stolen from. And not to the disabled who know how to overcome their disability and produce enough that they will have more than the check's value stolen from. Nor to those who lose a job because their potential employer had to spend their salary on government deciding who gets benefits. Nor is it when those receiving the checks engender resentment by those who earned the money.

"It is a benefit for the individual and for the government. "
The government is running up debt to pay such things, constantly endangering it's sovereignty, which is the most important thing to most governments.

"In some cases, people with disabilities have no other way to generate income"
Then "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is impossible to them anyway. They aren't pursuing it, they are having some artificial resemblance of it handed to them, one that has lost all meaning. Happiness requires self-esteem, self-esteem requires earning what you get.

"My opponent will argue that this is a mutually beneficial relationship between the individual and the government,"
No, you won't, because you used a straw man, extending my support of a SPECIFIC VARIETY of accommodation outside it's proper context.

"
In accordance with the American Disability Act of 1990, all post-secondary educational institutions must (upon student approval) take into account a student's disability into consideration in the application process"
In other words, all post-secondary educational institutions are slaves to the whim of government, and so is whoever is paying for them.

This addresses the rest of your argument.

"I am not advocating hand-outs just fo hand-outs sake, I find (as a disabled person) that some people need aid from the government and societal charities"
"need" is not a rightful claim. And charities are not "Societal," they are made by specific people, and voluntary, achieved groupings, society is an involuntary, ascribed grouping. Sometimes sacrificial people, sometimes not, depending on what they get from the charity.

"In an idealistic world, where their where people weren't born with disadvantages beyond their control, there would be no need for this resolution, but in a world marred with scars and sickness, someone must be their to give the those afflicted a hand up, and they must do so with care."
Error of confusing agent and beneficiary. Simply because someone needs something does not mean anyone else must provide it. Need, again, is not a rightful claim to a slave.

"t is a moral obligation."
Morality is the field of pursuing one's values. NOT the field of destroying one's values, becoming a slave to people who become dependent and thus incapable of understanding those values.

"We must give "special consideration," because you can't treat a blind citizen's ailment with the same procedure as you would do with someone crippled by polio, cerebral palsy or MS.
"
Yes, I can. The procedure is simple. If I am a business, I treat them all with whatever procedure will make me the most money. If I am a government, I do the same, noting that not providing them access to the same government buildings and services I use for the business of government with everyone else will undermine my ability to govern, that being the only relevant consideration, and not a special one, I can't make it impossible for taller than normal or shorter than normal or black or transgendered people to use them either.
Debate Round No. 2
thejudgeisgod

Con

I applaud my opponent's quick response.

My opponent states:

"Disability checks? Money forcibly extorted from slaves by government agents, so that those people can't live life to their fullest extent, provided to accommodate disabled people's refusal to live their lives to the fullest extent available. Life as a dependent of force is not 'life to the fullest extent." And there is no 'we' "

I would like to highlight that my opponent stated "disabled people's refusal to live life to its fullest extent available"

Disabled people don't "refuse" to live life to its full extent, they are the victims of misfortune, which they had no control over. I will concede that there are people out their, who take advantage of the system, and "milk their disabilities", but providing these people (through no fault of their own) afflicted with a disability with a check, allows them to maintain stability in their lives. How does the "common man" benefit from this? Disability checks allow disabled people to participate in the economy. They can use them in proactive ways (i.e. to help pay for college, invest in the stock market, and pay taxes). A disability check helps to ensure that the disabled, can participate and play an active role in the economy.

In response to my opponent's contention regarding life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The three aspects of this phrase are considered to be among the "inalienable rights of man". My opponent is correct, in saying that a man has every right to spend his money how he sees fit, which is why he is not forced to donate his earnings to charity. Disability checks, however, function similarly to social security. When someone retires they are given money that they invested in their retirement (through taxes). The reason why these funds are taken involuntarily, is to ensure economic stability for people that can't work. The same applies for SSDI, it is taken out of the tax pool to ensure that people can attain an amount of economic stability. It is the recipient's prerogative to decide what he or she does with is SSDI money.

SSDI is provided upon the basis of need. For example, when I go to college in the fall, I will be eligible to receive SSDI, to help pay for college, as I would be unable to work while being a full-time student. When I graduate from College and become employed, I will be ineligible to receive SSDI, because I have a source of income. If for some reason (God forbid) my health take a turn for the worse, and I was unable to work because of any ailment, I would again be eligible to receive Disability.

The government, in order to avoid giving funds to undeserving recipients require a lengthy history of background information. All of that information can be seen here http://ssa.gov...

The housing I was referencing in the previous round is a public institution, where said housing must meet state and federal regulations and standards. There are several large construction companies that are enlisted to ensure completion of the project. These employees must ensure (as in any residential project) that the home being built is up to code throughout construction. There (may be, depending on the buyer's budget and needs) other accommodations. For government financial aid to be provided the buyer must first qualify for SSID AND show financial need.

My opponent states: "The government is running up debt to pay such things, constantly endangering it's sovereignty,"

My opponent clearly doesn't understand that the United states is ensuring its sovereignty by providing these services. If the government were to discontinue such services, the welfare of our nation and its people would be at stake. The main purpose of a democratic government such as ours, is to provide representation for the people. The American Disabilities Act has been brought to Congress four times since its institution, for a vote to either continue or discontinue or amend its services. It has been amended three times, in 1990, 1998, and 2008, each with overwhelming support to continue to provide these services, and extend its jurisdiction on the behalf of the disabled. It has shown overwhelming bipartisan support.

I said "In some cases, people with disabilities have no other way to generate income"

My opponent said: Then "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is impossible to them anyway. They aren't pursuing it, they are having some artificial resemblance of it handed to them, one that has lost all meaning. Happiness requires self-esteem, self-esteem requires earning what you get.

My response: This money allows them to pursue their own semblance of happiness, and be proactive in society. They can choose to pursue whatever it is that makes them happy, whether its attaining a higher-education, buying a home, or spending the last days of their waking life on vacation. The pursuit of happiness relies, upon more than money, you are correct, but your requirements are purely personal opinions that cannot be proven. The pursuit of happiness isn't purely economical, its personal. Its finding, whatever makes you happy (within the confines of the law).

Ah, my my apologies, all post-secondary institutions that receive money from the state (public universities) must comply with that. Although most private schools recognize it. Colleges aren't left up to the "whim of the government", they are (as it has always been) of servitude to the student. The student is the one that chooses whether or not to divulge and have consideration paid to their disability.

I don't think you have a true understanding of how expensive it is to be disabled. The wheelchair that I sit in as I type this is a six-thousand dollar piece of equipment. What if I don' t have six thousand dollars to my name? Should I be left to crawl around in the streets, unable to work? Under your extreme-capitalistic regime that's what I would be doing. I'd be unable to attend school and participate in economy.

I ask the voters to simply think. What I am proposing isn't immoral. I have been saying throughout this debate, "these people" and "the disabled", when I am included in that group. I was born into a situation out of my control. I will never be free of it, but I will assure you that my intention is never to take more than I deserve. I just want to succeed. And sometimes, I need help. Some people need help. That doesn't make them any less of a person. I will hopefully never have to collect a disability check, but I know people that, will need it to succeed.

I urge a strong vote in negation of this resolution, for the sake of those that need help in pursuing happiness. Give them Liberty. Vote CON.

Sources:
http://www.ada.gov...
http://www.ada.gov...
http://www.ada.gov...
www.wordnet.princeton.edu (used for def's in round 1)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ssa.gov...
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
I would like to highlight that my opponent stated "disabled people's refusal to live life to its fullest extent available"

Disabled people don't "refuse" to live life to its full extent"
They (the ones accepting the checks, fortunately not all of them) refuse to attempt to live in their own right. That is the fullest extent available.

"How does the "common man" benefit from this? Disability checks allow disabled people to participate in the economy. They can use them in proactive ways (i.e. to help pay for college, invest in the stock market, and pay taxes). A disability check helps to ensure that the disabled, can participate and play an active role in the economy."
Student loans permit disabled people to go to college. Disability checks only screw up the market mechanism of figuring out whether that cost will be exceeded by the benefits the disabled person they create, making it less likely to be true.

"
In response to my opponent's contention regarding life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The three aspects of this phrase are considered to be among the "inalienable rights of man". My opponent is correct, in saying that a man has every right to spend his money how he sees fit, which is why he is not forced to donate his earnings to charity. Disability checks, however, function similarly to social security."
This is not a defense. Social security is no more moral than disability checks. You have conceded that a man has every right to spend his money how he sees fits, which means you concede the argument in regards to disability checks, which violate this right.

"The reason why these funds are taken involuntarily, is to ensure economic stability for people that can't work."
And the reason burglars visit my house is to ensure economic stability when they can't work. No one has a right to maintain economic stability at the expense of the only one who actually earned that particular piece of economic stability.

Do note that inabilities to work are often caused by various laws that raise the costs of hiring.

"
SSDI is provided upon the basis of need."
This is not a defense. Need is not a rightful claim to a slave.

"

The government, in order to avoid giving funds to undeserving recipients require a lengthy history of background information."
It cannot possibly avoid giving money to "undeserving" recipients except by avoiding giving money. To "deserve" money is to have created a value to exchange for it. Anyone who has not created such a value and will not create a value in the future that exceeds that amount plus time value plus risk plus whatever value is added by competing demand for credit is automatically "Undeserving."

"
The housing I was referencing in the previous round is a public institution"
I.e. forcible extortion.

"
My opponent clearly doesn't understand that the United states is ensuring its sovereignty by providing these services. If the government were to discontinue such services, the welfare of our nation and its people would be at stake."
The welfare of YOU and people like YOU perhaps, those of you incapable of overcoming these problems on your own. The nation as a whole, no. In fact, the rest of us would have one less thing to worry about.

"The main purpose of a democratic government such as ours, is to provide representation for the people."
There is no such entity as "the people." Democracy is not an excuse for theft, it's merely a structure that commonly results from too many parties pursuing power.

"It has shown overwhelming bipartisan support."
Bipartisan support is not what is needed to justify taking money from everyone. Unanimous support of all 300 million americans is what is needed to justify taking money from everyone. Nothing less will suffice.

"This money allows them to pursue their own semblance of happiness"
Those who can pursue happiness should never be sacrificed for some incompetent's semblance of it.

"The pursuit of happiness relies, upon more than money, you are correct, but your requirements are purely personal opinions that cannot be proven."
You're saying it's possible to be happy, i.e., approve of one's life, without approving of oneself?
Or possible to approve of oneself when oneself is an incompetent parasite who destroys other people's lives in the name of his "needs"?
Which of these two are you affirming?

"Ah, my my apologies, all post-secondary institutions that receive money from the state (public universities) must comply with that. Although most private schools recognize it. Colleges aren't left up to the "whim of the government", they are (as it has always been) of servitude to the student. The student is the one that chooses whether or not to divulge and have consideration paid to their disability."
This does not alter that the state decides what constitutes a disability, how much of whose life will be sacrificed to pay for it, etc.
Oddly enough, a teacher once tried to convince me to apply for disability accommodations. For numerous reasons I told them to bugger off, though in more diplomatic terms :).

"
I don't think you have a true understanding of how expensive it is to be disabled. The wheelchair that I sit in as I type this is a six-thousand dollar piece of equipment. What if I don' t have six thousand dollars to my name? Should I be left to crawl around in the streets, unable to work?"
Yes. Just as someone else who hasn't earned other means of transport for themselves must crawl. The fact that some people have an easier time walking than others does not justify theft by those others. One does not earn things by having a difficult path to tread, one earns things by producing them or things that someone will exchange them for.

"
I ask the voters to simply think. What I am proposing isn't immoral."
You conceded that point when you conceded that I had a right to spend my money, irrespective of government demands.

"I was born into a situation out of my control. I will never be free of it, but I will assure you that my intention is never to take more than I deserve."
Too late, intentions or no.

"And sometimes, I need help."
Then ask more sympathetic people for it, or earn it. Working is more moral, even begging is more moral, than lobbying a government to continue programs of theft.

"I will hopefully never have to collect a disability check, but I know people that, will need it to succeed.
"
No one needs a disability check to succeed, because needing a disability check is proof that one has already lost. Just like a company needing a bailout is proof that they've lost.

"
I urge a strong vote in negation of this resolution, for the sake of those that need help in pursuing happiness."
I urge a vote on a similar ground-- a vote for the sake of those who can pursue happiness-- if only the government stops attacking them in the name of helping others.
Debate Round No. 3
thejudgeisgod

Con

The resolution states: "the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society".

My emphasis will be for my conclusion, on the word should which makes this resolution a debate on morality. So the million dollar question for you (the voters) is is it morally permissible for the government and/or society to give benefits to the disabled based of course, on their disability.

Disability checks:

Disability checks are functionally the same as social security checks. They are ways to make sure that every American citizen is taken care of when they are unable to work. For a person to receive a disability check they must provide evidence that they are physically incapable of work, so the "common man" isn't getting "robbed and isn't the victim of "theft", as my opponent has obtusely articulated. These benefits that "Average Joe" pays for insures that he has a fallback in case one day he becomes crippled by disease. Is that immoral?

I don't don't think that my opponent understands that those who receive these benefits, must also pay taxes on them. So "robbery" is nonexistent. If the beneficiaries of the SSID also pay taxes on their benefits, is it unjustified that they receive them?

My opponent keeps regurgitating the fact that "need isn't a rightful claim to a slave". My opponent isn't a slave to anyone. If he claims that he is either a slave to the disabled or to the government, he would be profoundly incorrect. A slave is defined as:

"a person who is owned by someone" (wordnet.princeton.edu)

My opponent isn't owned by the government. He has rights. He can petition, he has freedom of speech. He also has the right to not pay his taxes. Now, he might faces consequences if he chooses not to pay them. In the case that he is arrested, he has the right to a jury of his peers, and an expedient trial. You see, my opponent has rights. He has the right to vote for his government officials, who in turn, decide the laws. He cannot however, overturn the wishes of the popular majority. The popular majority has decided that it is morally permissible to provide the rights constitutes in the American Disabilities Act, and its subsequent revisions.

I said: "The government, in order to avoid giving funds to undeserving recipients require a lengthy history of background information."

My opponent's response: It cannot possibly avoid giving money to "undeserving" recipients except by avoiding giving money. To "deserve" money is to have created a value to exchange for it. Anyone who has not created such a value and will not create a value in the future that exceeds that amount plus time value plus risk plus whatever value is added by competing demand for credit is automatically "Undeserving."

My rebuttal: My apologies: "undeserving" was the wrong choice of word: unqualified would be better suited.

I said: "The housing I was referencing in the previous round is a public institution."

My opponent responded: "I.e. forcible extortion."

This debate isn't on the morality of taxation. You COULD see any taxation to be forced extortion. As a law abiding citizen of the United States you pay taxes. Since you are a law abiding citizen, you also have the right to vote for representatives (I.E. "No taxation without representation").

I said: "My opponent clearly doesn't understand that the United states is ensuring its sovereignty by providing these services. If the government were to discontinue such services, the welfare of our nation and its people would be at stake."

My opponent responded: "The welfare of YOU and people like YOU perhaps, those of you incapable of overcoming these problems on your own. The nation as a whole, no. In fact, the rest of us would have one less thing to worry about."

My response: I am saddened by my opponents blindly incompetent statement. The American Disabilities Act is in place for two reasons. To provide for those "like me" and to insure those people "like you" that in the instance that "people like you become disabled and unable to work." The American Disabilities act is two-fold. It provides for those who can't work (note that I'm not included) and insures that the average American who can work (now you can include me) that if anything happens to us that makes us incapable of work, THEN we are taken care of. See, we have more in common than you thought. SSDI stands for Social Security Disability Insurance.

I said: "The main purpose of a democratic government such as ours, is to provide representation for the people."

My opponent responded: There is no such entity as "the people." Democracy is not an excuse for theft, it's merely a structure that commonly results from too many parties pursuing power.

My rebuttal: By "the people" I meant American citizens. American citizens are an entity because they can take action. They can vote, they can petition, they can debate (among other things).

I said: "The pursuit of happiness relies, upon more than money, you are correct, but your requirements are purely personal opinions that cannot be proven."

My opponent responded: You're saying it's possible to be happy, i.e., approve of one's life, without approving of oneself?

I am saying neither of those things. I am merely saying that the pursuit of one's happiness is merely a personal journey.

My opponent also states: " Or possible to approve of oneself when oneself is an incompetent parasite who destroys other people's lives in the name of his "needs"?

My response: Who are you to deem anyone an incompetent parasite? They are not destroying anyone's life, they are helping to insure your own, in the case that some day you are disabled and cannot work. Again the ADA and SSDI benefit everyone.

I stated: "...all post-secondary institutions that receive money from the state (public universities) must comply with that. Although most private schools recognize it. Colleges aren't left up to the "whim of the government", they are (as it has always been) of servitude to the student. The student is the one that chooses whether or not to divulge and have consideration paid to their disability.

Again my opponent asserts that I conceded the point about disability checks, and therefore the morality of government funded benefits when I said that he has the right to spend his money the way that he wants to. I did not concede that point, since the funds are taken from a tax pool. He does not have the right to LEGALLY evade taxes. He does have the right to spend the money that ISN'T TAXED the way he wants to.

I stated: "I was born into a situation out of my control. I will never be free of it, but I will assure you that my intention is never to take more than I deserve."

My opponent responded: "Too late, intentions or no."

I respond: You don't know me, you don't know what I've taken. All you know is that I am disabled, which I chose to divulge, for the sake of this debate. I resent that remark and I hope that the voters can see that statement for what it is: A blind generalization.

I would like to again point out two of our country's mottos, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which is considered an inalienable right; and "Liberty and Justice for ALL."; not just average Joe. Whatever claims my opponent makes about thievery, burglary, and or, slavery, I ask you to disregard as irrelevant, because this is not a debate on the morality of taxation.

I urge a RESOUNDING vote in the negation's favor.

The sources used are the same as above. I used wordnet.princeton.edu to define "slave" which can be accomplished by googling "Slave definition"
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
I don't don't think that my opponent understands that those who receive these benefits, must also pay taxes on them. So "robbery" is nonexistent."
This does not follow. The fact that taxes exist is robbery. Just because the robbing mechanism is also turned on those who are paid by the first round of robbery does not alter the general fact of robbery, and would not unless the "taxes" on these benefits were 100% and all money returned to it's rightful owners.

"If the beneficiaries of the SSID also pay taxes on their benefits, is it unjustified that they receive them?"
Yes. I think I already said that too.

"
My opponent isn't owned by the government. He has rights. He can petition, he has freedom of speech. He also has the right to not pay his taxes. Now, he might faces consequences if he chooses not to pay them"
This is nonsensical. The facing of "consequences" created by the government for not paying taxes is proof that my right not to pay taxes is respected.

The fact that I am taxed means that the government treats my money as theirs-- and therefore the source as theirs.

"He cannot however, overturn the wishes of the popular majority. "
The wishes of the popular majority in regards to MY LIFE. MY PROPERTY. The assertion that their wishes rightfully override mine in those areas is the assertion that they own me and everything I create. The fact that I am occasionally permitted to complain futilely about it is not relevant to this.

"unqualified would be better suited."
Government creating qualifications for access to the fruits of me. Yep, definitely not ownership :P.

"This debate isn't on the morality of taxation"
Every debate on the morality of a specific instance of taxation (the government benefits you are talking about) is also a debate about the morality of taxation. Just like a debate about "Should I murder that innocent child on twelfth street" is also a debate about the morality of murdering innocents. The particular relies on the reasoning for the general case in morality.

"You COULD see any taxation to be forced extortion. As a law abiding citizen of the United States you pay taxes. Since you are a law abiding citizen, you also have the right to vote for representatives (I.E. "No taxation without representation")"
This banality does not solve anything. They are not representatives of me. They are representatives of a mob which never includes me. Only the majority are represented, and so, by the principle "No taxation without representation," only the majority should be taxed. Since the majority would never stand for being taxed alone, they would vote for no taxes, and therefore by your stated principles no taxes (and therefore no tax-funded benefits, including those you've advanced against the resolution), are valid.

"I am saddened by my opponents blindly incompetent statement. The American Disabilities Act is in place for two reasons. To provide for those "like me" and to insure those people "like you" that in the instance that "people like you become disabled and unable to work." The American Disabilities act is two-fold. It provides for those who can't work (note that I'm not included) and insures that the average American who can work (now you can include me) that if anything happens to us that makes us incapable of work, THEN we are taken care of. See, we have more in common than you thought."
I don't WANT to be taken care of. I no more want to enslave others than I want to be enslaved myself. The risk of disability? I'll take it, with the reward of freedom.

"By "the people" I meant American citizens. "
This alters nothing. American citizens are not unanimous, no one can represent them all.

"American citizens are an entity because they can take action. They can vote, they can petition, they can debate (among other things)."
This is invalid. American citizens do not all vote the same way. They do not all petition the same way. In order to qualify as an entity in a given regard, their constituent actions would have to be unanimous.

"I am saying neither of those things. I am merely saying that the pursuit of one's happiness is merely a personal journey."
Getting dragged along by your slaves is hardly a "personal journey." And yet that is how you propose to pursue happiness.

"Who are you to deem anyone an incompetent parasite? They are not destroying anyone's life, they are helping to insure your own, in the case that some day you are disabled and cannot work."
They ensure that my own will NEVER BE MY OWN, if they keep getting their way. As I said before, the risk of disability is vastly preferable to slavery.

"Again the ADA and SSDI benefit everyone."
Not me.

"

Again my opponent asserts that I conceded the point about disability checks, and therefore the morality of government funded benefits when I said that he has the right to spend his money the way that he wants to. I did not concede that point, since the funds are taken from a tax pool. He does not have the right to LEGALLY evade taxes. He does have the right to spend the money that ISN'T TAXED the way he wants to.
"
All money I create is rightfully mine, regardless of what the law says. The law simply asserts I am a slave when it declares taxation. It does not make it rightful. All sorts of laws exist, by your reasoning, every law which has ever existed is right.

"You don't know me, you don't know what I've taken. All you know is that I am disabled, which I chose to divulge, for the sake of this debate. I resent that remark and I hope that the voters can see that statement for what it is: A blind generalization."
You've taken a claim upon me. Whether you've used that claim is another story, the fact remains that you're acting to perpetuate it by advocating it.

"
I would like to again point out two of our country's mottos, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which is considered an inalienable right; and "Liberty and Justice for ALL."; not just average Joe."
Liberty exists for none according to what you are advocating. I offer liberty to all-- and justice, i.e., the natural consequence of one's actions or lack of them.

Again, every debate about a specific instance of morality relies on the validity general principle.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mythbuster 7 years ago
mythbuster
As Joe Biden would say to the politician in the wheelchair, "Stand up, Chuck!"
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I c wut u did thar.
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
Very good debate, albeit a very long one.

C: Tied. No noticeable difference.
S&G: Pro. "accommodations"
A: Pro. Ayn Rand (oops... I meant Pro) is right: there is no such thing as a "society" which is capable of conferring so-called "special" benefits, only individuals and their private property.
S: Con, I guess?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
This debate is too long to start using it lol.
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Yes I did. Check the forums. You need to start using it for your quoting.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Are you developing us a pretty new DDO improver tool John?
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
[image]http://img33.imageshack.us...[/image]
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
[quote]Test quote. 123. Testing[/quote]

[img]http://img33.imageshack.us...[/img]

Don't be alarmed, these tags won't work for you guys yet.
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
[b]testing testing 123[/b]
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
But but but...

I'm lazy!

Note that some of my quotes seem to follow your rules, but there are so darn many of them. Lol.

Would be much more readable with [quote][/quote] :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
thejudgeisgodRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
thejudgeisgodRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:24