welfare promotes laziness

The basis of my argument is that by giving people the option to welfare by human nature they will rely on government aid as long as it is offered. Let us first look at the number of people drawing welfare which in 1994 was around 15 million people, and is obviously risen a significant amount since that time. During my extensive research of this topic one thing has became aware to me, that if given the option people will allow others to do the work for them without themselves doing anything. Lets use logic for a moment, if someone offered you the chance to have everything you need payed by another person, who would decline? There are no circumstances that someone would not decline to that proposition. There are a several ways in today's age that people can obtain some sort of government help. Out of all these options there are "loop holes" in everyone that would allow some one to get away from having to work.

That is my opening argument, its not in depth but i will wait for my opponent to argue his view of the topic.

First off let me start this round by thanking me opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject.
Next, I will make the clarification my opponent forgot to in their opening statements; This debate is relative and in regards to the United States. Not another country, and not internationally.
---
As a brief roadmap, I will be offering framework, then definitions, and finally arguments.

=Framework=
Obs1: People are proud by nature; accordingly, people do not want to do anything that would make them appear weak, stupid, or otherwise inefficient.
Obs2: People one welfare usually do not survive on welfare alone
Obs3: Because my opponent has stated that there are no circumstances in which person would decline having everything they need payed for by another, they must prove their stance beyond the shadow of a doubt. IF they are unable to do this, then they will lose this debate.

=Definitions=
1. Welfare- [1] "Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need"

2. Lazy- [2] "disinclined to work or exertion"

=Arguments=
With my argumentation I will go Con then Pro. I would also like to note that I will only be presenting one argument per round, and will offer no new arguments unless my opponent does so as well.
Con-

C1: People are naturally prideful-
As such, they aren't going to want to do anything that makes them look bad. Whether people are made to look lazy, stupid, fat ugly, etc.; they don't take it lying down. And as sad as it is, when a person is on welfare they're already looked down upon in the first place. We see it then as a logical truth that people aren't going to look to welfare except as a last resort, and once on welfare will try as hard as they can to get off.

Pro-
The only thing I have to say against my opponent, is that their entire case is unwarranted. They give us not proof, or real reason to believe what they have said.

So I urge you all, please Vote Con!

=Sources=
[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...

For a brief roadmap i will be covering all of my opponents prior arguments, and proving how my side of the debate should be the one accepted.

Observation1: First of all "proud" is a word that has several definitions. According to dictionary.com proud is defined as "having, proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority." If felling proud that means showing one's importance. So i bring up the case of suicide. Suicide is commonly a case shown in people felling that they are unimportant, and frankly committing suicide makes people appear weak. In today's time suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in America, and in 2006 the total number of deaths was 33,300. Due to the last statement, 33,300 people seems quite a significant amount of people not felling proud, and appearing weak.

Observation2: The definition of survive according to thefreedictionary.com is "to remain alive or in existence." According to my opponent all welfare recipients have to do is remain alive and they can live on welfare.

Observation3: It is human nature to be lazy that is to reason why communism will never work with people. As soon as someone realizes that they do not have to do anything, THEY WON'T. If my opponent shows me a case in someone would decline to such a thing then great, but in this point in the debate he has not shown any sort of evidence except his personal opinion.

HIS DEFINITIONS: (During this time i will be proving why his definitions are not the ones that should be used in this debate)

Welfare- His definition was neither cited or a contextual definition.
Lazy- He does not show his citation for his definition, and therefor should not be accepted within this debate.

MY Definitions:
Contextual definition: Coming from a source related to the topic.

His arguments:

C1. My opponent stated that once people are on welfare they will do anything in their power to get off of the government help. I make a request that he post a significant amount of cases in which people try to get off of welfare.

HIS SOURCES

My opponent lists his sources put upon closer examination the sources he listed are completely different than his definitions he presents.

Why Vote AFF. (pro)

Within this round i have shown why my opponents arguments are flawed. Unless my opponent can find significant amount of cases in which welfare would not promote laziness among people then there is no doubt in my mind who should win this debate. Unless my opponent can completely reject my arguments i can see no other possibility than a Affirmative (pro) win.

I'm just going offer a few observations on the round thus far, and then proceed to argue straight down the flow.

Obs1: in my opponent's initial arguments, they've laid down the groundwork arguments; and in these very arguments, they've given them-self the burden to prove that all people, given the opportunity, would indeed live off of welfare.

Obs2: My opponent's last speech, while not only not upholding the initial burden they give themselves; is full of semantic arguments that do not make any warrant to vote for my opponent.

--
Pro-
Obs 1-
+ Redefining a term that is not one's own is completely abusive, and semantic. Ignore the first half of this argument, as my opponent has no warrant behind redefining my term

+ The suicide argument is weak, my opponent makes this argument as a general argument towards society. Second, many people commit suicide for a multiplicative of reasons. Be it a mental illness, depression, or whatever else; and beyond that my opponent presents us with no evidence to support this argument.

Obs 2-
+ Again this is semantic. My opponent is attack my definitions, not my arguments.

Obs 3-
+ So all I have to do is show a case in which some-one would decline having everything in their life payed for?
Fine, I decline to have everything in my life payed for by welfare! I will instead work hard, go to college and get a good job to support my family.

+ If you as the voter would choose not to be on welfare, this argument is grounds to vote for the Con in this debate.

Con definitions-
Welfare- My definition had a direct link to my source.
Lazy- Again, I had a direct link to my source.

Pro definitions-
My opponent hasn't even offered any definitions

Definitions Debate-
We offer definitions in any debate for clarity, and understanding of what the round is about. This is not a voting issue.

Why not to vote Pro-
He offers no real arguments, and spends a significant amount of time simply focusing on definitions; and then he doesn't even provide any definitions.

Why to vote Con-
+ See my argument on his observation 3, if you choose not to live on welfare; then I have proven my point. there are people who will choose not to live on welfare.

+ Even if you do live on welfare, if you are one this site you're obviously not lazy; especially if you're reading this debate to vote on it. There is all the more incentive that welfare doesn't make people lazy

+ My opponent has given you absolutely not reason to vote for him. He has presented absolutely zero arguments in this round

Con-
My opponent hasn't actually attacked my arguments, so I'll just extend everything.

Vote Con please!

For a brief roadmap i will be covering all of my opponents prior arguments, and proving how my side of the debate should be the one accepted.

Obervation 1: My opponent stated that people commit suicide for a number of reasons, but there is one underlining issue left. He never listed a source stating specifically the causes for suicide. So for lack of evidence his argument should be disregarded.

Observation 3: My opponent stated that he would decline to be on welfare, well isn't that convenient. The negative side is once again lacking evidence to make his arguments reliable and allow for clash, so therefor they should be disregarded due to lack of warrant.

Definitions Debate- I never stated definitions were a voting issue, but to ensure a quality debate the definitions must be made the best possible to ensure clash, and the educational value of debate. As we all know debate is supposed to be an educational activity, and allowing the negative team to take that aspect out of debate makes this pointless.

Why vote Affirmative (pro)- My original argument stays intact despite the other teams arguments, and in debate all the affirmative team has to do is carry the burden and they win.

Why not vote Con- He says if you choose not to live on welfare then the negative team should win? Wait a second the topic was it promotes laziness, and without a link his argument is completely useless.

I would again like to state for all of my opponents arguments he provides no link from them to the topic, and i have fulfilled my burden as the Pro team, so therefor i see nothing other than a affirmative win.

I've already proven my stance in round one (which my opponent has not covered) so please extend all of my arguments as voting issues.
I will go through my opponent's last speech and deconstruct their arguments piece by piece.

Obs1: This has become irrelevant to the resolution

Obs2: My opponent dropped this observation.

Ods3: My opponent hasn't presented a single piece of evidence throughout the course of this debate either. Not has he even attempted to cite a source.

Definitions Debate: Please reread my opponent's round 2 speech; this argument is a blatant lie.

Why Not to vote PRO-
+ They've made no argument to warrant a vote in their favor.
+ My opponent has abused semantic arguments to the point of utter ridiculousness
Why to vote Con-
+Extend my prior argument
+ My opponent hasn't attacked my only contention; he has only attacked my definitions and sources. Even if my only argument where something ridiculous like, "cashing in all of their government checks keeps them too busy to be lazy" if would have to be accepted.

In conclusion: this has not been a debate. Instead my opponent has simply thrown out blatant, and poorly written semantic arguments; he has not stated an argument to warrant voting Pro, and he consistently harped on definitions and sources (which are both bad in their own, prior mentioned regard)
Therefore since my opponent has not filled his most basic BOP, there really is no ground to vote for anyone in this debate other than myself.

Accordingly please vote Con.
Thank you and drive home safely.