A debate on a plan

"1. Does increasing education eliminate poverty or does eliminating poverty increase education? Proponent showed only a correlation, not cause and effect. I gave the example of India, in which high educational levels did not eliminate, or even dramatically reduce, poverty. What dramatically reduced poverty in India was ending their ill-advised experiment in democratic socialism. Nonetheless, poverty still remains in India despite a good educational system. Another example is the economy of the Soviet Union, which crashed despite a good educational system." Certainly education causes wealth. Have you ever compared the salary of the cashier at McDonald's to a physician's? Education improves the job you can get. "The U.S. has both a free economy and a good educational system, but poverty remains. I grant that further improvements in education will make some improvement in reducing poverty, but the statistics Proponent offered showed that the probable improvement is at most 7%. Note also that the very high mobility also indicates that the educational system is not a major bar to moving out of poverty. However good or bad the education system, people move into and out of poverty in the US in one or two generations. The education system does not change that rapidly, so the main factors must lie outside of education." Our education was ranked by UNESCO as 22 in the world. That's not that great. Anyways, the modern problems of poverty tend to be relegated now to areas with horrible education (inner cities), and the mobility in those areas is much less present. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." First, it was established as being attended by poor students (85% of tuition from vouchers) and was chosen as a microcosm and a feel-good story. And furthermore, we want everyone to have an opportunity to climb the social ladder, we want the only slightly motivated people to be able to succeed as well. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." You accuse me of not providing statistics? I challenge you to do the same, you made the statement, prove it. "Most Section 8 housing is not built by the government, it is provided by the free market. The government provides rent subsides to the owners of the housing to make it affordable. Proponent has not shown that the free market has failed to provide sufficient Section 8 housing outside of inner cities, which he calls 'ghettos.' He assumes that to be true, and he proposes a government building program to provide more housing outside of cites. Housing outside of inner cities is in fact in oversupply, so how is building more of it going to help anything? The fact is that people could always relocate if they chose to, they simple choose not to. The reasons they choose not to include ties to family, community, and culture. Those who are in poverty due to problems with mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values get better services in the central cities that elsewhere, so they will not be inclined to move." My opponent obviously does not understand the situation of Section 8. Builders do not want their houses to be Section 8 houses, as this decreases their profit. That leads to Section 8 housing being situated mainly in the inner city, where real estate is already lower than that level. Also, I do not propose building new houses, I propose purchasing houses from contractors and real estate companies to be used as low income housing. "Proponent asserts that 'Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos.' This is false. Section 8 is a rent subsidy program that provides payment to private landlords to accommodate low income renters. It operates throughout the United States, and is as available in rural New Mexico as it is in urban Detroit. It is a voucher program. I remind Proponent of the virtues of voucher programs:" As I said, landlords choose if they will allow Section 8 subsidies, and most choose not to, because real estate value goes down if they do. "Proponent claimed his plan would eliminate poverty. He now grants that a certain part of poverty cannot be eliminated. This concedes that his plan will not work. The best he can do is to argue that poverty that is a result of mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values (those values that lead to an unwillingness to work hard) are an insignificant part of total poverty. What statistics are there to prove that?" You place an insurmountable burden with your interpretation of my plan's goal. No plan can totally eliminate poverty. "The notion is clearly contradicted by the rapid escape from poverty of penniless immigrants who arrive in the US with very high motivation. A prime example are the middle class people expelled from Cuba by Castro, who have very rapidly succeeded in Florida. Refugees from rural Vietnam and Cambodia are another good example. In a society like the US that has many opportunities, motivation is the primary factor for success. This is true even if the opportunities are imperfect." Opponent does not support his claim that these immigrants are succeeding rapidly. "Professor Blumberg cites only the statistic that half the metropolitan poor live in suburbs. He gives no statistic on how many lack cars. We know that overall 75% of the poor have cars. To evaluate the effectiveness of providing cars we need to know how many people in poverty simultaneously (1) lack cars, (2) could use cars more effectively than public transportation, (3) are not disabled in such a way that they cannot drive, and (4) and are motivated to use a car to get a job. The upper limit is the 25% who lack cars. So what is the real number? Is it 5%? Proponent has made no argument that his plan would have a substantial effect." As I said, the statistic that 75% have cars is skewed. That means your data is false. ". Proponent grants that his plan will not end poverty. He makes no argument that it would even have a substantial impact. Therefore the proposition fails." The debate is about whether the proposition is good or not, not about whether it will totally end poverty (that would be pointless). As Con you must show it will not significantly reduce it.