If one is both homeless and unemployable, one should rob a bank.

Thanks to Lwerd for an excellent rebuttal. My opponent has provided counter-arguments to my three points, and added four of her own, so I will number them 1-7 and provide rebuttals alphabetically for clarity: ----- 1. Point conceded by my opponent, nothing to add here. ----- 2. My opponent's use of the word "might" in the first two sentences of her rebuttal to this point is very telling. One may or may not feel guilt for stealing, and if they did, it may or may not be too much for some to bear. I agree with this entirely, but I'm leaning much more towards "not", for the following reasons: (a) A life of living on the streets tends to desensitize people. I can't imagine the guilt, if any existed at all, would last much longer than the first-class flight to Dubai. (b) The robbery needn't be done in an aggressive manner, so as not to psychologically scar the bank tellers. The robber could very calmly state from the outset that he has no intention of hurting anybody so long as they just hand over the money. It is common robbery etiquette to use one's manners and "inside voice" when performing a robbery. (c) So long as (b) is followed, and there are no psychological ramifications for the tellers, bank robbery is essentially a victimless crime. All banks have robbery insurance, so the only "victims" are the insurance companies, who have been committing daylight robbery for years. Frankly, if there were no bank robberies at all, all insurance companies would go out of business, there would be a massive loss of jobs, etc. The occasional bank robbery is an important social service. ----- 3. Two counter-arguments to this point: d) Bank robbers are not placed in prison with hardened murderers and rapists, they are placed in low-level facilities. Frankly, these facilities are not as bad as movies have led us to believe. I had a mate serve a year in prison for break-and-enter and theft (not bank robbery as such but he stole a LOT of stuff), and his only real complaint upon his exit was that the library in prison had a very limited X-Box game selection. TRUE STORY. He had his own cell, his own shower and toilet, etc., so no risk of rape at all. I have also provided a link from a Michigan-based news site which shows that the biggest problem in low-level facilities is boredom, and a quote by an inmate who loves the food there and is thankful that the center accommodates his vegetarian lifestyle [1]. Life on the streets, on the other hand, is notoriously dangerous for obvious reasons. Therefore, I contend that a homeless person is far more likely to be abused, raped, etc. than a prisoner is a low-level facility. e) My opponent has essentially conceded that prison would outweigh homelessness, by saying that with my suggestion I "might be onto something", and then providing a list of possible crimes the hobo might commit as an alternative to robbing a bank. Therefore, I propose that either this point be dropped by my opponent, or all of my opponent's further points be dropped. ----- 4. I have two counter-arguments for the sugar daddy/mama scenario provided by my opponent: f) It is entirely unrealistic. As my opponent has admitted, this would take a hell of a lot of hard work and lying. To provide enough money to make this idea anywhere near competitive to robbing a bank, the sugar daddy/mama would have to be extremely rich. How does my opponent propose an unemployable vagrant seduce a rich person, someone so much higher on the societal ladder than he/she? Here are just some of the lies the hobo would have to pull off to get even close to scoring on this idea: "Nah, baby, I didn't soil myself… that's this expensive new cologne I got in Paris… Eu de Crud." "I put the holes in the shoes myself, to lower wind-resistance whilst jogging." "I collect these cans purely for recycling purposes… I love Mother Nature, and stuff." "No, no, no… I don't smoke crack, you understand; I just buy as much of it as I can so it doesn't end up on the streets being sold to some poor kid." g) If you somehow did manage to persuade some rich guy or girl to support you financially, you'd have to live with them, and we all know how boring and snobby rich people are. The bank-robber hobo would be independent and free of snobby b*tches for life. The gold-digger hobo would be subservient to his/her sugar daddy/mama for life. ----- 5. I think this is the best idea offered by my opponent thus far in the debate, but I favor the robbery idea for the following reasons: h) Mental institutions can be as bad or worse than prisons, as the so-called carers quite often abuse the patients, sexually, physically and mentally. Has my opponent read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? i) As my opponent said, they would ply you with drugs and therapy, which (as my opponent has said "fake" being crazy) we can assume the hobo doesn't need in the first place. Taking psycho-active drugs and being forced into various methods of therapy one doesn't need can be very dangerous indeed, and we are talking about boosting the hobo's quality of life here. ----- 6. I agree with every word my opponent wrote about the merits of drug-dealing as a victimless alternative to robbing a bank. However, I again have several counter-arguments which my opponent is going to have to answer to: j) To start a drug-dealing venture, one needs a lot of cash and contacts. You have to spend money to make money, and if the homeless guy had enough cash to start dealing, he wouldn't be homeless. k) Robbing a bank is also a victimless crime, as I've explained above. l) The financial benefits of robbing a bank outweigh those of dealing drugs many-fold. m) Rob a bank, you're rich in minutes. To get anywhere close to rich, one would have to deal drugs for a long, long time. I know many drug dealers, dealing in many different drugs, and not one of them would I class as anything close to rich. Most of them aren't even financially stable. ----- 7. My opponent has said that "even the dumbest and ugliest mother effers can get laid", but I disagree entirely and I think Ragnar would be heart-broken to read this (jk :D). I can't imagine anyone so desperate and pitiful that they would consider having sex with a hobo, much less PAYING for the experience. If one wants a prostitute, there are cleaner alternatives and the only way a hobo could even compete in that market is by having the lowest price… I'm talking a few bucks a ride at best. At this rate, the hobo could barely afford to eat let alone rent a house/apartment and get off the streets. ----- I'll leave it there for now, thanks again Lwerd I look forward to your rebuttal. :D REFERENCES [1] http://www.cm-life.com...