Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote

I ask that the voting community completely ignores my opponent’s second round argument. All arguments were completely baseless and devoid of any supporting evidence. I ask that all points be awarded to me.I'm beg that the voters do not.I will have to paraphrase my opponents rounds, seeing as he quotes me in those sentences in such ways he has.It is not my burden to show why anyone should be able to vote.It is your burden, and I'll show you why it is.Your resolution is: Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote.This statement certainly implies, nay, it more than implies that other groups retain their abilities to vote. The question becomes, then:"Why should only this group have the ability revoked, while others retain it?"This is the question I'm asking.It is irrelevant that everyone votes in their own best interest.It most certainly is not irrelevant, and I'll show you why.Your argument, to me, seems to come down on the idea that those on benefits will vote for more benefits at the exclusion of others.You said this multiple times. 10 times in your first round. I counted.So I was/will show you that everyone votes in their own best interest, and, thus one group of the everyone should not have the right revoked with every other group retaining the right.What sources say that those on benifits do not directly choose to get more benefits?It is basic government. The voters do not vote policies; they vote for people who then try to do what is best for the country.I take it my opponent concedes my points that we do have: more “takers” than “makers”, more people on food stamps than ever before, and the fact that Democrats receives support from upwards of 80% of those who are on the government dole.I do agree, except with the term "taker".This fact proves that people who are on welfare will continue to support those who promise to give them money.Essentially. Again, though, everyone votes in their own best interest.We also have restrictions on rights to protect property which includes a person’s money.This is true. However, it is the lawmakers who decide your taxes, and you have representatives who work in your best interest.So if no one has a right to someone else’s property, why then should we allow people to vote for someone else’s property to be redistributed to them?They don't vote to take our money; our leaders vote to take our money.Also, to elect a leader, we need 51% of the nation.66% of the leaders must agree to create a law.Those who choose to accept support from someone else’s tax dollars should temporarily give up their voting privileges until they are able to fully support their selves again.This creates a huge problem. If those who vote for benefits can no longer vote, then all that would be left are people who want to stop benefits.These people would end benefits, and those who were on benefits would die. They could not gt their benefits, and could not vote to stay alive.Your plan kills off millions!A tax cut isn’t taking money from anyone else.Yes, it does. Think of it this way:50% of revenue is from the lower and middle class taxes. 50% revenue is from the upperclass.We give the upperclass a taxcut.50% L/M, 45% U.We need that 5% paid, so:55% L/M, 45% U.The upperclass (U), redistributed the money from the middle/lowerclass (M/L)You’re assuming they have a right to these things (jobs) when I’ve proven they don’t. No... You assert that it isn't their right. What about the persuit of happiness? You cannot persue happiness when your laid-off.Your saying "the Tea-Party bribing people for their votes with someone else's money" is completely baseless with no supporting sources.Taxcuts. But you're right. It was irrelevant.What sources say it isn't as damaging as I believe?Our crisis started with Bush, way before these benefits were as huge as they are now. The benefits may have added to the problem, but they aren't a crippling force, considering there weren't so many with Bush.The people on welfare don’t “give the bank money”Most people pay taxes, which pay for benefits.So again, it is people holding a vote on what to do with other people’s money.It is our LEADERS holding a vote on what to do with OUR money.If someone is able to violate another’s right with their vote, it is only fair that they in turn give up a “right” as well. You are mistaken... It is our LEADERS who decide what to do with our taxes.Also, what if people need the money?The Congress..decides what they do with your taxes at the direction of their voters.Only 6% if voters approve congress 6%. It looks like congress does not listen directly to their voters.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...