Welfare

Before we begin I would like to point out that my opponent has already lost this debate. They have lost this debate because they have taken the Con on welfare, and both the resolution and the first speech seem to suggest that the burden is to prove that welfare should be abolished. In fact, in my opponent’s first sentence she states “I believe that the current welfare system should be abolished.” This is the burden my opponent has chosen, which they completely relinquished in their second speech. In the first paragraph of her second speech, my opponent says “What I"m opposed to is the way the system is set up.” Earlier, she basically admits that I am right stating “first let me clarify that I don"t disagree with the fact that welfare assist the elderly and disabled. Nor am I denying that single parents aren"t helped.” My opponent has already dropped her burden, and therefore loosed the debate. That being said, her next speech promotes something even worse. I would also like to point out that nowhere has my opponent provided sources that are actually verifiable. I say this for three reasons. Firstly in her first round she provided no sources. Secondly in her second round, she listed sources but not the specific pages, meaning that there is no way of knowing the exact article, chart, page etc. that the information came from. Thirdly the sites aren’t linked to specific parts of the argument, so I have no way of knowing which source verifies which agrument so that I could look up her claims to verify them. At this point my opponent immediately forfeits sources. As far as my opponent’s defense of the census, it is completely unverified. In my opening argument, I brought up a source (specifically my ____) which showed that the census over counts in relation to welfare. My opponent’s response was “I am unsure how you can possibly state that the census I used double counts and so forth.” This was not followed by a citation. Next my opponent also states completely erroneous numbers for the US population. She states that “As of July 2012 the American population was estimated to be around 953 million people.” Not only is this statement not sourced, it is also plain wrong. The actual US population is closer to 318,444,000, barely a third of the number my opponent states [1.] Maybe they were referring to the total population of the Americas (North, South and Central,) but that is completely irrelevant to the debate. As far as my source on McDonalds, it is cited in my 3rd source from the first round, and I have only found pieces of it. My opponent’s objection is irrelevant, in that she brings up why they couldn’t get the job. It doesn’t matter why, because my opponent’s whole argument centers around their being able to. On to rebuttals and extensions. Firstly, my opponent tries to rebut some of my arguments, lets go through those. Response #1: Welfare actually costs a lot. My opponent uses the fact that it comes out to 110 billion a year, which most people think of as a lot of money. But it is actually only about 2.7% of government spending. That is like saying we can’t increase money for education because we are spending a lot on it, and then, when someone tells you it isn’t enough and is only 3% of the gov. budget, saying, but it is 110 billion, it is too much. Response #2: Money spent on welfare should still go to other stuff. Again, take from the 820 billion in defense spending, which is less necessary than welfare. Additionally, adjusting requirements (adding workfare) for the small amount of people who are able-bodied and idle (9%) won’t significantly increase money to education, it would be a drop in the bucket. Response #3: Your response is simply, but there are still a lot of idle women and there must be idle men. Your response admits single mothers make up most of the welfare recipients. (80%) Your rebuttal is just numbers, it doesn’t tell me why I am wrong. Response #4: the number of people on welfare is growing each year. I don’t know where she gets this from but it just isn’t true, and are directly refuted by my first source. Response #5: I may have exaggerated about children’s encouragement to be on welfare, but it is still true b/c they learn by example. Firstly there is no evidence provided for the second generation stuff and secondly your argument states that most families work hard and get off of welfare (only 19% are on it for more than 5 years,) invalidating your point entirely. Response #6 has already been talked about, it once again doesn’t disprove my point and the numbers it is derived from are incorrect. On to defenses of my case Contention 1: You say “the system needs a facelift” this is a forfeit of your burden, and the thing about your grandfather helps me, welfare needs to have more money so that parameters can be loosened, not to be abolished. Contention 2: You say “I didn’t say people on welfare are lazy, but I addressed your contention above.” I don’t know where or how, and you actually did say that “the people of this country have become lazy and expectant.” Contention 3: “You don’t have to drop out.” I’m sorry you had such a hard experience, but the fact that you did it doesn’t mean that everyone can or that everyone will. Your response is everyone can do everything that I can. By that logic, everyone can be a star athlete savant physics professor who dabbles in philosophy all while being president for two terms. I applaud your persistence but it isn’t a valid response, as many people aren’t able to do what you did. 7% of people in the US don’t finish high school [7] Lastly on to my rebuttal of my opponent’s new case. What my opponent is talking about in her second speech is “welfare reform” also known as workfare. Workfare has a myriad of problems. Firstly it creates more unemployment and need for welfare. By filling jobs with workfare participants, the government pushes out other people who would work for more, creating more unemployment, which the govt. can’t pay for, leaving more people unemployed and without benefits than before. Next, being on workfare makes it more difficult to find a job. I know that a lot of people think that you can magically find work without a degree, but in reality it takes a lot of effort. People need time and energy to do this, which workfare prevents. Even if it does incentivize finding a job, it makes it harder to do so, both by increasing the amount of unemployed persons (as stated earlier) and by taking away time. Additionally, the unemployed are used as an inflation buffer by the government, they should at least be compensated. In conclusion, we need welfare, and if anything we need more of it. My opponent seems in two minds about this (uncle story) but it is evident that what we need is an expansion, not an abolition. An expansion would hurt millions, and wouldn’t help her uncle. It is unethical to abolish welfare, or to institute welfare. On my arguments, on the burden, my conduct and my sources, I urge a con ballot. [7] http://nces.ed.gov... Almost all my sources were stated last round. Thank you