The U.S. federal government should increase social services for persons in poverty.

Simply remember that I am not a CX debater, and thus, I'll probably get much of the format wrong. Oh well. That's DDO. I negate that Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. For the sake of the debate, I hope it's clear that social services are generally defined as government subsidies, benefits, and services such as social security and medicare, subsidized food and housing, and free or discounted health care. The money to fund these social services is obtained through taxation, and increasing these social services would require a proportional increase in taxation. *Overview* I believe that my opponent may be employing a very sneaky tactic. If you'll look at his arguments, it's clear that he has provided absolutely no analysis. Only a list of brief claims, followed by a short cite. If it turns out that my opponent was attempting to bait me by presenting a remarkably bare case structure, only to unleash his full analysis of this structure in the coming rounds, I should think that counts against him. If not, we'll continue as normal. 1. Significance/Harms I won't contest this observation. I'm sure that these claims are true (I trust your warrants), and have no bearing on either side of the case other than clarification. 2. Inherency a. I wont contest this. I'm sure the needs of some people are increasing as a result of the financial crisis. b. Arguing that food stamps need more funding presupposes first that it's morally permissible to infringe on the property rights of some people through mandatory taxation for the sake of people in need; that is, the rights of some take priority over the rights of others; furthermore, it presupposes that food stamps (i. e. subsidies) are a proper way to deal with economic hardship. 3. The "Planks" I'll respond to the four "planks" as a, b, c, and d, respectively. a. Privatize. As opposed to allowing government bureaucrats to force charity upon us, let private agencies (and private benefactors) provide voluntary aid to those in need. b. Once again, he presupposes that taxes are a justifiable means of obtaining funding for anything. At the point that the government is forcing citizens into the dichotomy of "give up your money (taxes) or give up your freedom (jail)", it's clear that increasing taxes only allows the government more access to the rights of private individuals. c. Okay. Pro can maintain a monopoly on legislative intent, inasmuch as the privilege isn't used in an attempt to force myself into an indefensible position. If he abuses it, he loses it. d. The function of that department has nothing to do with providing social services to the impoverished [. http://agricoop.nic.in...]. Even if the plan to increase the coverage of "SNAP", the Department of Health and Human Services would probably be the one to do it. 4. Solvency a. Whether they're successful is irrelevant, considering that - at best - one is helping the poor at the expense of the middle and upper classes. Again, Pro presupposes that the rights of some take priority over the rights of others. The 5th Amendment argues that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process of law [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]; that is, unless one has committed a criminal offense by infringing on the rights of another. Penalizing a person due to his success to reward someone due to his poverty is neither constitutional nor morally permissible. b. The program is efficient in sacrificing the rights of the materially secure - that's nothing to brag about. c. Private charities operating on voluntary donation (instead of stolen money) would be the legitimate response to hunger. Efficiency takes a back seat to ethical legitimacy, because the ends - no matter how desirable - don't justify any means that can get the job done. The need or pitiful condition of one person doesn't create any kind of a positive obligation upon me to provide aid. I have the RIGHT to do so, but not the DUTY. To say that the obligation exists is to say that, for whatever reason, I am obligated to sacrifice my rights for the sake of another person; unfortunately for Pro, all men are equal where rights are concerned. I can't stop the impoverished person from exercising his right to seek food, so long as he respects my right not to be stolen from - a right which this plan perpetuates the infringement of. 5. Advantages a. Subsidizing something only gets you more of it. If you subsidize poverty, you get poverty. His evidence claims that food stamps will stimulate the economy, but that wasn't the case with the New Deal, or the Great Society, or the stimulus packages advocated by the Bush and Obama regimes [. http://memory.loc.gov...][http://www.lewrockwell.com...][http://www.infiniteunknown.net...] *Conclusion* Pro's case is based on a few things. It's based on superficial claims, unwarranted presuppositions, faulty priorities, and a hint of conditionality (for focusing solely on SNAP). I offer no case of my own, and state only that, whatever the solution, this isn't it.