Newt Gingrich is engaging in class warfare when he suggests poor kids work as janitors

and for his willingness to allow me to set the definition of "Class Warfare" for the purpose of this debate. My general understanding of the term "Class Warfare" is when one declares or proclaims a particular segment of society (By Class ie. Affluent, Middle Class, The Poor) as being a detriment to society as a whole. Example: It's the greed of the 1 %r's that are responsible for the economic collapse" I accept the perimeters my opponent has set for this debate but do wish to point out that these perimeters place "Con" at a disadvantage by limiting the use of Mr. Gingrich's statements to those of Dec. 1st 2011, and not allowing into the discussion statements he made on Nov. 18th,2011 that were the catalyst for his "clarification" statements made on Dec. 1st (for which my opponent is referring) and on Dec.5th, 2011. I am confident that my opponent Steve221 has sound justification for such a move and have faith in his ability to present his arguments within these perimeters. With that being said: Let the debate begin Class warfare is when one declares or proclaims a particular segment of society (By Class, ie. Affluent, Middle Class, The Poor) as being a detriment to society as a whole. On Dec. 1st, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa, Newt Gingrich was asked by an audience member to clarify the comments he made last month in which he called the current child labor laws "stupid" and would replace janitors with schoolchildren to work in the community school. Source #1Mr. Gingrich responded with "children born into poverty aren't accustomed to working unless it involves crime. ," And,"Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday," Source #2Followed by"They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal,"Source #2Mr. Gingrich also said that successful people he knows started work early by doing small jobs like babysitting and shoveling snow. Source #2 Contention #1 "children born into poverty aren't accustomed to working unless it involves crime. " This suggests that poor children are not "accustomed" to working and are criminals because of their family's economic status. For this to be true would mean that ones economic status would dictate ones personal integrity and every poor child in the world would by default be a criminal just because they were born into poverty. This clearly is not the case, every person is an individual, and has individual tendencies and values. Ones values and proclivities do not change with economic status. If one lacks integrity while they are in poverty, they will still lack that integrity once financially secure. If one has personal integrity while being financially secure, they will still have personal integrity if they were to lose it all. (or never acquire financial security in the first place. )Nor does being "born into poverty" prevent one from being accustomed to working. many children of poor parent(s) have to take an active part in maintaining the household (cooking, cleaning, babysitting, etc. ) as a part of their household responsibilities. Contention #2 "Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,"This issue of "not having work habits" was touched upon in Contention #1 but to address the claim that "The Poor" "have nobody around them that works" casts a pretty wide net. This assumes that because one is poor nobody around "the children" works or ever has worked. This may not settle to well with entire communities who have lost their jobs due to the local plant, coal mine, steel mill, fill in the blank, closing down. This also assumes that "a child born into poverty" does not have the free will to strive to do more than those around him/her, or to look disdainfully at those who do not do more to overcome their obstacles. Contention #3 They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal. Once again, this is casting a rather wide net. it supposes that by the nature of ones economic status that they have no concept of of capitalism. loyalty, Integrity, or personal responsibility. These concepts are not mutually exclusive to the middle and affluent classes. Also, even if one were not to have a habit of "staying all day", what's to say that one couldn't learn the habit as one learns the habit of getting up and going to school and staying there all day once kindergarten begins for them. Once again, being poor does not effect ones values and proclivities, and not being in the habit of something does not mean you could not get into the habit of something. Contention #4 successful people he knows started work early by doing small jobs like babysitting and shoveling snow. Correlation is not causation, Period! I find it doubtful that any of the "unnamed" "successful people" Mr. Gingrich refers to built their empires on babysitting or shoveling driveways. In response to my opponents claim that "Mr. Gingrich suggested job opportunity's for poverty stricken kids" I feel that taken as a whole, the message that can be brought away from Mr. Gingrich is "Look, we got a lot of lazy criminals in the in the poor areas of this country, Lets make 'em work so they won't be lazy, or criminals any more" This implies that if someone is in a poor area they lack integrity, and that somehow their values will change once they get a job. The response to this assertion is these concepts sound great in a sound byte, but the underlying facts do not hold up to scrutiny. I look forward to my opponents response. Source #1 . http://abcnews.go.com... Source #2 . http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com...