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

Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

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: 5/27/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 624 times Debate No: 114479
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)



I believe that physically and mentally disabled people need to pay more taxes to atone for their disability. Disabilities are punishment from God for one's sins. Those sins could include, but are not limited to, rape, murder, theft, and bullying.

Sometimes, the sinner/criminal's kids receive a disability. That is why disabled people need to pay $100,000 USD, or the equivalent of their currency, every year they live.

Also, disabled people use stuff like wheelchairs and crutches, which really waste material and production costs. With the same amount of material and money, we could build a time machine so we can go back in time and nuke India so they won't stink up the world.

Indians today are indeed a problem:


I will accept this debate, though it seems to be rather ironic. Proof of burden is on Pro, as is the debate format.
Debate Round No. 1


Special needs people never do anything productive or useful for society. All they can do is cause trouble and make things difficult on other people.

Also, disabled people often are beggars.

Since they basically take money from other people, it's logical to ask them to give more money.

A thief must pay back 7 times:

Proverbs 6:30-31 says " Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house."

See, the average beggar in the United States makes around 60 bucks a day. That's about $20,000 to $25,000 each year. And if we only ask them to pay $100,000 a year, that's already very merciful. 100,000/20,000 is less than 7.

The average wheelchair costs $100 to $800, depending on size and quality. Many people with cerebral palsy, severe physical disabilities, etc. need wheelchairs. Since they basically waste materials when they are better off dead, they need to pay at least $700 dollars every time they use their wheelchair. If we count using the wheelchair for one day as one "use", then each year they owe the gov't more than $250K dollars. And that doesn't even consider economic inflation and taxes.


I have no idea why the hell I am taking you seriously, but whatever.

Your claim that all disabled people are beggars and thieves relies on an obivous faulty generalization fallacy. The fact that you are using stock images serves as proof that you are not taking this seriously. The worst part is that you haven't specified that this is not a serious debate; next time put this into the "funny" section.

Now let me utilize your own logic to make a counterargument. Everything below this is satire until further specified.

Bro, clearly you don't know facts. The facts are that all non-disabled people are thieves, whereas only most disabled people are theives.
Look at this picture:

This is my proof; it's about as good as yours. This guy is clearly not disabled, he is healthy and yet he is stealing.

What if we gave all beggars 100k annually? 100k/20k is also less than 7.

Okay I'm done.

If somebody decides to vote for this, vote pro if you support the further degradation of the site by trolls. Quite frankly, I think you ought to vote "con" if you do not, and want to see more respectable debates.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: SJM// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con just argues that not all of them are X, however this is not a proper refutation. Although not all of them are X, that doesn't mean that they aren't to a significant extent X. This is not an all or nothing situation. For example, not all cigarette smokers get cancer, but to a significant extent people do, therefore we can argue that smoking causes cancer. Second, Con doesn't take this debate seriously and assumes Pro is joking, but this is unprofessional. This may be a very serious debate for Pro and to treat it otherwise is insensitive and poor conduct. And finally, Pro's sources are not very credible, but way more credible than Con's.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both debaters. The voter only assesses Con"s points, and never assesses Pro"s. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide some specific assessment of the sources in the debate. Simply generalizing about their credibility is insufficient. (3) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Unless one of the debaters is insulting, forfeits a round, or breaks the rules, this point may not be awarded.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.