Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Maybe Con didn't read my definition on Welfare. Just to be safe, the definition reads "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need." Note, that In R2, I stuck to the financial side of Welfare. I never went on to other types of welfare. But as you can see and read, my argument is strictly based upon the fact that "Welfare Gets Taken Advantage Of" I had provided the judges, and readers many examples, and proof that it does in fact get taken advantage of. Rebuttal #1 1.Abolishing welfare as defined is untenable." In this argument, Con seems to agree, that *everyone* no matter what the case, should receive welfare. He concedes this by stating that "To even attempt to accomplish resolve would be to sacrifice Principles most societies accept. People should be free to offer welfare to whomever, however, and whenever they so desire" The problem I have here is that welfare is provided by tax payers. So if you pay taxes, your taxes are used to support the needy. Therefore, with you saying " People should be free to offer welfare to whomever, however, and whenever they so desire" Basically, U.S citizens are *already* paying taxes that then goes to a portion of welfare. Con the goes on to accuse me saying " It sounds almost as if the resolution is suggesting we “abolish” families. Such an action is untenable." I'd like to know, when did I ever seem to make this accusation? I clearly stated that there are many better ways to help out families in need, and not even at that, but to help children whom are growing up in poverty and to at least give them a chance. Rebuttal #2 “Welfare gets taken advantage of” Note that Con only rebut's my argument that women continue to have children for welfare. Con drops my "Food Stamp" argument. He simply does not agree with my resolution to the Food Stamp argument, he leaves all accusations and proof as to how it gets taken advantage of, thus ignoring this problem. This makes my claim valid. Now moving onto the pregnancy issue. Con states that "Even the studied pro cited is not as bold only claiming that “There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty.” The studied suggests that the desired result is likely, this is hardly convincing." He doesn't explain to me as to *how* it is not convincing, yet there is proof. Con then goes to say that " Also it is important to note that this studied suggests that we “replace welfare with private charity.” This is important because as Welfare was defined in round 1 would be inclusive of “private charity.” Thus this source is opposed to the resolution." In case you were unaware, A Resolution is [1] the act or process of resolving: Therefore, I had shown you as to why welfare is not a good idea, and how it gets taken advantage of so easily. Then I came up with a resolution to the problem, that would not only just allow charity workers to help, but to help families in need in a more positive healthy way. I have a big problem with Con's "Conclusion" He states that; "Most of Pro’s arguments support welfare, just not one type. Government welfare is not the only kind of welfare. When pro concludes her round two saying “These people are actually willing and happy to help those in need,” She is endorsing the concept of welfare. Thus there is no support for the resolution." I have a problem with " When pro concludes her round two saying “These people are actually willing and happy to help those in need,” She is endorsing the concept of welfare. Thus there is no support for the resolution." I basically argued that charities, instead of the government could help these people in need. Also, how did I not give any support to my claim, yet I gave a list of organizations that are completely willing to help anyone in need. Please note, that the structure of the debate was not followed by Con. I stated that R2 was Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con. He should have came up with his own argument, instead he just rebutted my points. By the way Arguments mean more than one, meaning you should have provided your argument in this round. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...