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

welfare system. should it be taken down?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 89468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




some people are riding the welfare system. should it be taken down, or should it keep going. some people who ride the system are taking our tax dollars, and using them so they can stay home and sit on the couch all day. Should we really have the welfare system anyway? Practically no one uses it except for the people who hide behind the door of their house being so damn lazy. Should they get their *** off the couch and start working?


The resolution is unclear who is arguing what. Based on my the negative case, I am going to assume he is arguing against the welfare system, however the confusing part is that the resolution poses this question of whether or not the system should be abolished. So technically taking the negative stance should be against abolishing the welfare system. Based on his case however, he seems to be against the system, so I will argue in support of the welfare system.

I thank the Neg for this debate. As the Neg outlines no rules for conduct and presents arguments in the first round, I will assume it is fair for me to do the same. As a road map, I will begin with an overview, then move onto refuting the Negative Case, and move onto the affirmative case immediately after.

Recognize that as implied in the Negative R1 and outlined within the Resolution, my sole burden is to prove that the welfare system should remain in tact. I do not have to prove that it should remain the same size or should not be reformed. This means that he has the burden to prove that the welfare system should be completely removed. Remember that as we go through this debate.

==First Rebuttal==

The Neg's sole argument presented is that the welfare system is abused. The first thing to realize is that if I outweigh in the affirmative case, you vote aff. The second thing to realize is that the Neg provides no evidence to support his claim. This is simply his assertion. Make him provide a source for this claim before he gets any offence here. Third, ever system is always going to have some abuse. It is unavoidable. Fourth, this literally doesn't matter. US News outlines this for us. In 2009, there was a hike in welfare spending as part of Obama's 2009 recovery act. Since 09 however, the percentage of US GDP spent on welfare is expected to decline. (0) But Fifth, and finally, The Wall Street Journal writes quote: It’s poor-paying jobs, not unemployment, that strains the welfare system. (1) At this point, it is clear that it isn't the fact that people on welfare don't have jobs, its that they don't have good paying jobs.

==Affirmative Case==

The affirmative Case is going to be very simple. The thesis of the affirmative is that the welfare system combats poverty and its associated impacts.

==Contention 1: Welfare prevents Poverty==

All empirical evidence suggests that for various reasons and factors, welfare reduces and prevents poverty. The Economist reports that a study conducted by Colombia University found that without welfare, deep poverty would be triple or quadruple current rates (2). Furthermore, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that 19.7 million people, 9 million of those where children, where lifted out of poverty because of the social safety net (3). That outweighs any nonexistent impact presented by the neg.

==Contention 2: Poverty is Bad==

There are 3 primary impacts to poverty. The First is health. ThinkProgress outline 4 ways in which poverty impacts health. First, those who are poor can not afford healthier food. Second, those who are poor are more likely to smoke. Third, those who are poor live in urban areas with poor air quality, and Fourth, Poverty has impacts on physical and mental health. On the fourth one, ThinkProgress outlines that even those who escape poverty will deal with the long term consequences for the rest of their life. Furthermore these people will have to deal with increased stress among other negative health impacts.

Secondly, the economy. Harry J. Holzer, of Georgetown University and the Urban Institute, finds that childhood poverty costs America 500 Billion dollars per year(5). Furthermore, the Center for American Progress and Action Fund finds that poverty weakens the middle class, America's engine for economic growth and hurts American competitiveness (6).

Third, lives. An article backed by Bernie Sanders finds that 130,000 people die each year in America because of poverty (7). A life is always going to outweigh because a life is irreversible. Even if you buy that there are economic harms to the welfare system, in so far as I link into lives, I win this debate. Life is the most basic thing on the hierarchy of needs. Nothing else matters if people are dead because they can't care about the economy.

At this point, this should be a very clear affirmative ballot. Thank you and I await the Neg's response.

Debate Round No. 1


DelOLGuY forfeited this round.


Extend and vote aff.
Debate Round No. 2


DelOLGuY forfeited this round.


Vote Aff.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.