the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society

I applaud my opponent's quick response. My opponent states: "Disability checks? Money forcibly extorted from slaves by government agents, so that those people can't live life to their fullest extent, provided to accommodate disabled people's refusal to live their lives to the fullest extent available. Life as a dependent of force is not 'life to the fullest extent." And there is no 'we' " I would like to highlight that my opponent stated "disabled people's refusal to live life to its fullest extent available" Disabled people don't "refuse" to live life to its full extent, they are the victims of misfortune, which they had no control over. I will concede that there are people out their, who take advantage of the system, and "milk their disabilities", but providing these people (through no fault of their own) afflicted with a disability with a check, allows them to maintain stability in their lives. How does the "common man" benefit from this? Disability checks allow disabled people to participate in the economy. They can use them in proactive ways (i.e. to help pay for college, invest in the stock market, and pay taxes). A disability check helps to ensure that the disabled, can participate and play an active role in the economy. In response to my opponent's contention regarding life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The three aspects of this phrase are considered to be among the "inalienable rights of man". My opponent is correct, in saying that a man has every right to spend his money how he sees fit, which is why he is not forced to donate his earnings to charity. Disability checks, however, function similarly to social security. When someone retires they are given money that they invested in their retirement (through taxes). The reason why these funds are taken involuntarily, is to ensure economic stability for people that can't work. The same applies for SSDI, it is taken out of the tax pool to ensure that people can attain an amount of economic stability. It is the recipient's prerogative to decide what he or she does with is SSDI money. SSDI is provided upon the basis of need. For example, when I go to college in the fall, I will be eligible to receive SSDI, to help pay for college, as I would be unable to work while being a full-time student. When I graduate from College and become employed, I will be ineligible to receive SSDI, because I have a source of income. If for some reason (God forbid) my health take a turn for the worse, and I was unable to work because of any ailment, I would again be eligible to receive Disability. The government, in order to avoid giving funds to undeserving recipients require a lengthy history of background information. All of that information can be seen here http://ssa.gov... The housing I was referencing in the previous round is a public institution, where said housing must meet state and federal regulations and standards. There are several large construction companies that are enlisted to ensure completion of the project. These employees must ensure (as in any residential project) that the home being built is up to code throughout construction. There (may be, depending on the buyer's budget and needs) other accommodations. For government financial aid to be provided the buyer must first qualify for SSID AND show financial need. My opponent states: "The government is running up debt to pay such things, constantly endangering it's sovereignty," My opponent clearly doesn't understand that the United states is ensuring its sovereignty by providing these services. If the government were to discontinue such services, the welfare of our nation and its people would be at stake. The main purpose of a democratic government such as ours, is to provide representation for the people. The American Disabilities Act has been brought to Congress four times since its institution, for a vote to either continue or discontinue or amend its services. It has been amended three times, in 1990, 1998, and 2008, each with overwhelming support to continue to provide these services, and extend its jurisdiction on the behalf of the disabled. It has shown overwhelming bipartisan support. I said "In some cases, people with disabilities have no other way to generate income" My opponent said: Then "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is impossible to them anyway. They aren't pursuing it, they are having some artificial resemblance of it handed to them, one that has lost all meaning. Happiness requires self-esteem, self-esteem requires earning what you get. My response: This money allows them to pursue their own semblance of happiness, and be proactive in society. They can choose to pursue whatever it is that makes them happy, whether its attaining a higher-education, buying a home, or spending the last days of their waking life on vacation. The pursuit of happiness relies, upon more than money, you are correct, but your requirements are purely personal opinions that cannot be proven. The pursuit of happiness isn't purely economical, its personal. Its finding, whatever makes you happy (within the confines of the law). Ah, my my apologies, all post-secondary institutions that receive money from the state (public universities) must comply with that. Although most private schools recognize it. Colleges aren't left up to the "whim of the government", they are (as it has always been) of servitude to the student. The student is the one that chooses whether or not to divulge and have consideration paid to their disability. I don't think you have a true understanding of how expensive it is to be disabled. The wheelchair that I sit in as I type this is a six-thousand dollar piece of equipment. What if I don' t have six thousand dollars to my name? Should I be left to crawl around in the streets, unable to work? Under your extreme-capitalistic regime that's what I would be doing. I'd be unable to attend school and participate in economy. I ask the voters to simply think. What I am proposing isn't immoral. I have been saying throughout this debate, "these people" and "the disabled", when I am included in that group. I was born into a situation out of my control. I will never be free of it, but I will assure you that my intention is never to take more than I deserve. I just want to succeed. And sometimes, I need help. Some people need help. That doesn't make them any less of a person. I will hopefully never have to collect a disability check, but I know people that, will need it to succeed. I urge a strong vote in negation of this resolution, for the sake of those that need help in pursuing happiness. Give them Liberty. Vote CON. Sources: http://www.ada.gov... http://www.ada.gov... http://www.ada.gov... www.wordnet.princeton.edu (used for def's in round 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://ssa.gov...