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

" I don't don't think that my opponent understands that those who receive these benefits, must also pay taxes on them. So "robbery" is nonexistent." This does not follow. The fact that taxes exist is robbery. Just because the robbing mechanism is also turned on those who are paid by the first round of robbery does not alter the general fact of robbery, and would not unless the "taxes" on these benefits were 100% and all money returned to it's rightful owners. "If the beneficiaries of the SSID also pay taxes on their benefits, is it unjustified that they receive them?" Yes. I think I already said that too. " My opponent isn't owned by the government. He has rights. He can petition, he has freedom of speech. He also has the right to not pay his taxes. Now, he might faces consequences if he chooses not to pay them" This is nonsensical. The facing of "consequences" created by the government for not paying taxes is proof that my right not to pay taxes is respected. The fact that I am taxed means that the government treats my money as theirs-- and therefore the source as theirs. "He cannot however, overturn the wishes of the popular majority. " The wishes of the popular majority in regards to MY LIFE. MY PROPERTY. The assertion that their wishes rightfully override mine in those areas is the assertion that they own me and everything I create. The fact that I am occasionally permitted to complain futilely about it is not relevant to this. "unqualified would be better suited." Government creating qualifications for access to the fruits of me. Yep, definitely not ownership :P. "This debate isn't on the morality of taxation" Every debate on the morality of a specific instance of taxation (the government benefits you are talking about) is also a debate about the morality of taxation. Just like a debate about "Should I murder that innocent child on twelfth street" is also a debate about the morality of murdering innocents. The particular relies on the reasoning for the general case in morality. "You COULD see any taxation to be forced extortion. As a law abiding citizen of the United States you pay taxes. Since you are a law abiding citizen, you also have the right to vote for representatives (I.E. "No taxation without representation")" This banality does not solve anything. They are not representatives of me. They are representatives of a mob which never includes me. Only the majority are represented, and so, by the principle "No taxation without representation," only the majority should be taxed. Since the majority would never stand for being taxed alone, they would vote for no taxes, and therefore by your stated principles no taxes (and therefore no tax-funded benefits, including those you've advanced against the resolution), are valid. "I am saddened by my opponents blindly incompetent statement. The American Disabilities Act is in place for two reasons. To provide for those "like me" and to insure those people "like you" that in the instance that "people like you become disabled and unable to work." The American Disabilities act is two-fold. It provides for those who can't work (note that I'm not included) and insures that the average American who can work (now you can include me) that if anything happens to us that makes us incapable of work, THEN we are taken care of. See, we have more in common than you thought." I don't WANT to be taken care of. I no more want to enslave others than I want to be enslaved myself. The risk of disability? I'll take it, with the reward of freedom. "By "the people" I meant American citizens. " This alters nothing. American citizens are not unanimous, no one can represent them all. "American citizens are an entity because they can take action. They can vote, they can petition, they can debate (among other things)." This is invalid. American citizens do not all vote the same way. They do not all petition the same way. In order to qualify as an entity in a given regard, their constituent actions would have to be unanimous. "I am saying neither of those things. I am merely saying that the pursuit of one's happiness is merely a personal journey." Getting dragged along by your slaves is hardly a "personal journey." And yet that is how you propose to pursue happiness. "Who are you to deem anyone an incompetent parasite? They are not destroying anyone's life, they are helping to insure your own, in the case that some day you are disabled and cannot work." They ensure that my own will NEVER BE MY OWN, if they keep getting their way. As I said before, the risk of disability is vastly preferable to slavery. "Again the ADA and SSDI benefit everyone." Not me. " Again my opponent asserts that I conceded the point about disability checks, and therefore the morality of government funded benefits when I said that he has the right to spend his money the way that he wants to. I did not concede that point, since the funds are taken from a tax pool. He does not have the right to LEGALLY evade taxes. He does have the right to spend the money that ISN'T TAXED the way he wants to. " All money I create is rightfully mine, regardless of what the law says. The law simply asserts I am a slave when it declares taxation. It does not make it rightful. All sorts of laws exist, by your reasoning, every law which has ever existed is right. "You don't know me, you don't know what I've taken. All you know is that I am disabled, which I chose to divulge, for the sake of this debate. I resent that remark and I hope that the voters can see that statement for what it is: A blind generalization." You've taken a claim upon me. Whether you've used that claim is another story, the fact remains that you're acting to perpetuate it by advocating it. " I would like to again point out two of our country's mottos, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which is considered an inalienable right; and "Liberty and Justice for ALL."; not just average Joe." Liberty exists for none according to what you are advocating. I offer liberty to all-- and justice, i.e., the natural consequence of one's actions or lack of them. Again, every debate about a specific instance of morality relies on the validity general principle.