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

Sup, Leethal :) 1. Being rich is better than being poor. We can proceed. 2a. Alright, I acknowledge that not everybody would feel guilty for their robbery; however, my point was that some people MIGHT. This is just a minor detail and something to consider while you ingest the bigger picture - stealing is wrong. I maintain that stealing is wrong and stealing is always wrong -- people are entitled to their own property. I'm not denying that desperate times call for desperate measures, and as such, the homeless may feel compelled to steal in order to survive. However, my point was that this option is still wrong. So, other moral options are preferable over a blatantly immoral option. That's why my suggestions are the superior choices. 2b. Pro's point fails here because he suggests that a robber perform the robbery without bullets so as to avoid any type of accidental death or injury. However, if one got caught robbing a bank without feasible use of a weapon, they most likely would not be sent to federal prison (which ironically was my opponent's criticism of my proposal). In fact, a big reason why bank robbers get sent to prison is not only for the theft but for the illegal possession of the firearm, intent to harm or kill (as is blackmailed by the threat, etc.). Of course even without a gun one would get in trouble; however, not to the extent that Pro wants. What's the point of staying locked up for a few days/weeks? Is it worth all that comes with it? This goes back to my 1st point. It's not just guilt that the person would feel, but stress, inadequacy, the hardship of prison, etc. 2c. Pro's assertion that it is not the bank customers who pay for robbery insurance is false. As he said, if you put in $10,000 to the bank, you will not find $1,000 (or any amount) has been deducted for insurance. However, the bank that purchases that insurance only has the money to purchase the insurance because CUSTOMERS put their money into the bank. How do banks make money? By charging interest on loans. How do they have money to lend out? Because other people put their money into the bank which is what the bank lends out... and does other things, like paying employees, earning a profit, and yes, buying robbery insurance. So, bank customers indirectly pay for robbery insurance. 3a. Pro tries to prove that bank robbers don't get sent to federal prison by claiming the examples I gave were flukes (since those people happened to be involved in 2 or more bank robberies. However, this legal website explains: Bank robbery is penalized differently from "normal" robbery because banks are federal institutions. As a result, bank robbery is a federal crime that carries federal punishment. Federal penalties for bank robberies are generally much more severe than state laws for robbery [1]. As you can see, bank robbery is ALWAYS considered a federal crime and as such carries with it federal penalties (including federal prison). So actually, all of MY arguments should be extended (regarding the danger and hardship of life in federal prison and why other alternatives are superior). 3b. Pro writes, "There is no guarantee of protection in jail, but there is definitely a lack of protection on the streets." However, Pro is ignoring the countless options I gave in previous rounds: homeless shelters, soup kitchens, charity, the Church, applying for welfare, etc. So, while he keeps insisting that "minimum security prison beats homelessness easily," you'll see that is a completely moot point because point 3a explained why federal prison is actually the basis for comparison. 4. Pro spends a considerable amount of space arguing that a homeless person would most likely have a hard time finding a bf or gf, and I would tend to agree with that statement. As I said in the last round, I simply mentioned it as a POSSIBILITY - a first (and best possible) option - not a realistic one. In other words, the first thing you should do is try to find a sugar daddy (or mama), however, in cases where that couldn't happen... i.e. most of them... then you should move on to the other alternatives. 5a. Pro glazed over this point by stating, "Everything my opponent has said about the benefits of mental hospitals apply equally to minimum-security prisons." First of all, once again, minimum security prisons are NOT what's in question. Second, he's wrong -- Some benefits of small scale mental facilities not available in prison are: better food, sympathy points (instead of harsh judgment), little to no fear of being raped or hurt, the opportunity for improvement (and maybe help?), free therapy, free minor sedatives, a greater opportunity of meeting someone of the opposite sex or who appeals to your romantic interest, etc. 5b. Pro ignored point 5b, where I explained how going to prison can have damaging and devastating effects on one's own mental health and well being. In other words, it could severely damage someone in a whole new way (and screw them up to the point where being homeless is not their only issue). 6. Pro points out that I don't address 2 benefits of robbing a bank over dealing drugs: the amount of time it takes to acquire wealth from starting from the ground up, and the fact that robbing a bank gives you a massive amount of money all at once. Alright, first, I think it's incredibly ironic that Pro's argument regarding the amount of time it would take to build a successful franchise was, "come on man, life is short and my kind of homeless guy wants good results and he wants them now!" If said homeless guy was so concerned about the value of his life, then why would he want to go to prison (as I said, some say a loss of freedom is equivalent to death - a point which Pro didn't address). Second, the money isn't the only thing that's in question here. If the goal is to receive a pay out and/or go to jail - with the more realistic option being jail - then I fail to see why a big pay out at once is even worth mentioning. We're operating under the assumption that the robber is going to get caught, and in that case, my argument regarding a bank robbery not being a victimless crime is what extend here and makes it trump Pro's suggestion. As I said, robbing a bank is less moral than being a drug dealer (in which someone chooses how to allocate their property i.e. wealth rather than stealing someone's property or wealth). 7. Please extend my arguments regarding drugs to prostitutes. The point is not that prostitution will bring you a lot of success, but that it's preferable because it's the more moral option (not stealing). I'm sorry my other link got removed -- it was a good one -- but this image best explains what I mean [2]. The point is - In the prostitution scenario, one is choosing how to spend their money, and in the other, money is being stolen which is the inferior ethical option. My point was to prove how hookers - even gross ones - can earn a living and even still afford the luxuries on the side, i.e. crack. 8. Here I posted a new contention: The individual could apply for the services and aid of social programs (welfare, unemployment, medicare, etc.) and of course utilize shelters, soup kitchens, the church and other charities. This was perhaps my best contention (in addition to the ones I thought of AFTER posting my R2 argument lol so I can't tell you what they are here, but...) Pro didn't refute this. He said, "The options presented by my opponent here merely represent the typical life of a hobo. This is the life we are trying to get our hobo away from in the first place." Well, since I posit that this life is better than prison (for the aforementioned reasons including mental and physical) then this is still a viable contention for the Con. Thanks a lot, Leethal, this was fun! [1] http://www.legalmatch.com... [2] http://pix.motivatedphotos.com...