Disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.

Thank you, Mr. Smooth. This debate is going to be good. I can feel it. "A. Victory in this debate for Mongeese, due to the topic, requires for my opponent to convince you that both disability checks *and* welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection; if I can convince you that disability checks *or* welfare checks do not go against natural selection then I have won the debate." Yeah, I guess. "B. Disability Checks - Definition of Disability vs. Darwinian Definition of Fitness Your contention, as it relates to disability checks, is dependent on a 'disabled' person's being 'genetically unfit.' According to information on the US Government's internet domain at the http://www.ssa.gov......, a person is eligible to receive disability benefits if and only if 'You cannot do work that you did before, [the US Government] decide[s] that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s), and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death.'" Alright, my definition for disability check for this debate is "a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability". This is the type of check that parents receive to help care for their disability-burdened children, such as the payments Nadya Suleman receives to "make up for" the fact that three of her children are disabled. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Now, naturally, the chance of your survival goes up if you have more money. Thus, disability checks increase the chance of any disabled kid surviving. For natural selection to work, the unfit (disabled) have to fail to survive and reproduce more often than those who aren't disabled. With the chance of their survival going up, the process of natural selection is slowed down by these disability checks; thus, disability checks go against the concept of natural selection. "B. Welfare Checks - No ties to genes." Actually, they're indirectly connected. "1. Welfare is given based on one's economic situation. Although welfare qualifications are constantly changing and vary from place to place, so universal qualification standards do not exist, welfare is generally awarded to people who do not have enough money to support themselves and who do not have the means to improve their economic situation." Welfare is given to those who are unable to survive on their own. Although your genes do not directly affect your success, they play a huge part. Those who have spectacular strength, stamina, and physical greatness have a higher chance of being in sports. Those who lack speech impediments become TV show hosts or public speakers. Those who are highly intelligent work as scholars, inventors, and engineers. Those who look and sound great become actors and singers. Those who lack genetic "spectacularness" are less likely to be any of these things, and thus are more likely to have low-paying jobs or be unemployed. "2. One's economic potential depends on the economic situation of his or her father and/or mother, and economic potential is required for economic well being." Your genes are also dependent on those of your father and mother. "One's economic potential is dependent on one's inheritance. Education requires money. To get money, a student must borrow money from one's family, friends, or other "friendly" sources that are interested in the wellbeing of the student (such as one's father or mother), or borrow money from "unfriendly" sources such as banks that are interested solely in profit and have no objection to financially crippling a student (if I am wrong here, please let me know. I don't want to go to college overlooking a golden financial possibility); getting out of a good college with money requires being born into wealth. Education and financial freedom yield well paying jobs, which yield money. If one breaks it down, the conclusion is that money yields money." This is irrelevant; a family that has a poorer gene pool is more likely to reach such an economic situation. "3. Economic well being is not indicative of genetic superiority. A person with wealth is not necessarily genetically superior to one without wealth. Many billionaires (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ingvar Kamprad) wear glasses because their sight is not 20 20; however, there are people with less than billions of dollars who do not need glasses because they are more fit than Bill Gates. Hemophilia originated from Queen Victoria and was passed down to her very rich descendants." There may be people more fit than those who currently hold economic power. However, natural selection is a long and tedious process. The best do not always end up on top; the worst do not always end up on the bottom. However, those with better genes have a slight advantage. Hemophelia originated from an accidental, unpredictable mutation, not connected to natural selection. On a slightly different point, glasses are also against natural selection, and the ability of a royal man having the ability to choose his bride from among anybody in his kingdom contributes to royal families often having better qualities that most commoners. "C. Natural Selection requires both overpopulation and genetic diversity. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...... This diagram summarizes natural selection. Reproductive ability's causing a geometric increase in numbers yields competition. Without the ability to have unfit organisms in a population, natural selection can not occur. If disabled/welfare checks benefited the unfit, they would make natural selection possible, not hinder it." We already have overpopulation and genetic diversity. If there are no "unfit organisms" in a population, then there is no need of natural selection. By benefitting the unfit, we are allowing them to have a slight illusion of not being unfit, thus making them slightly less perceptible to natural selection. If you had one guy who had the ability to make a million dollars a year, and another guy who had the ability to make $100,000 a year, and another guy who made $50,000 a year, and another guy who made $2,000 dollars a year, and another guy who made nothing, and the government took $10,000 from the millionaire and gave $4,000 to the poor guy and $6,000 to the broke guy, then the poor and the broke have the same chance of survival, and a slightly higher chance than they should have, so they impede natural selection. Additionally, the millionaire lost $10,000, ever so slightly decreasing his chance of survival, thus making the most fit slightly less likely to survive, which slows down and is against natural selection. "D. Even with welfare checks we will overpopulate beyond capacity. http://books.google.com...... In short, we can and will make more babies than we can support even with welfare and disability checks." If we removed welfare checks and disability checks, the disabled and poor would be more likely to die off, and less likely to reproduce, and our population will not overpopulate so quickly. CONCLUSION: With welfare and disability checks slightly increasing the survival chances of those with poor genetic traits, natural selection is slightly slowed down. Thus, disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.