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

Thank you, Mongeese, for starting this debate. I have thought about your contention and have come to the conclusion that you are incorrect. 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. 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." Genetic disabilities, which are the only ones that contribute to speciation and natural selection, are present from birth; disabilities that will cause one to be unable to do work that he or she could do before becoming disabled are not genetic disabilities and are completely unrelated to natural selection, and are not covered by disability benefits. B. Welfare Checks - No ties to genes. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 benifited the unfit, they would make natural selection possible, not hinder it. 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. D. Conclusion Neither eligibility for welfare nor eligibility for disability checks indicates poor genetic fitness, and even if one did, poor fitness is necessary for natural selection. The affirmitive's contention is completely false.