Infidel tournament: Resolved, welfare should be abolished

Ok, so I am going to divide the debate into major topics instead of into cases. This is slightly unorthodox, but my opponent is doing this, so it is easy for the reader if I do it as well.Unfreedoms His only responses to the Amartya Sen analysis was that "money is not a right" and that nobody has a right to other people's money. This is nonresponsive to the concept of unfreedoms. Sen does not view "unfreedoms" through the lens of "rights"; rather, he sees them as harms to the development of society. That being said, "money is not a right" is non responsive for two reasons. First, I never said that money was a right, so you can throw this out the window. Second, even if for some reason you do not buy this, the right to life is not listed as a right in the Constitution, but we do not claim that people do not have that right. Similarly, there is no reason to deny that people have a right to money on those grounds. He notes that "stealing" money is a violtion of property rights, but note that this is not theft because the wealthy have earned their fortunes due to the advantages that they hold in society. Welfare is contributing to the advancement of society as a whole, and not to an individual person. Finally, he says that "poor people still have political freedoms", but this idea is nonsensical because they do not have equal access to political freedoms as others do. The wealthier are more influential in the political realm because they can use their money to run ads, campaigns, lobby politicians, etc. Sen notes that economic degredation leads to the degredation of other rights; the fact that they can still vote is meaningless because it is the weakest form of political expression.So, extend Sen because the analysis was not adequately responded to. This means that his burden is to prove that welfare creates unfreedoms in order for him to win the round.PovertyIn response to the Kentyworth and Bradley data, he pulls out some analysis from the year 2008 and claims that welfare fails. There are three reasons to prefer my evidence over his. First, his evidence is limited to one year, while mine occurs over a span of forty years and thus my evidence is able to show a trend while his evidence cannot. In fact, he is not examining trends at all; he is simply giving you faulty analysis based on a single year. Second, his evidence is only limited to one country, whereas I have given you numerous examples in which the adoption of the welfare state has led to massive reductions in poverty. Thus, my data is more applicable and more likely to be true. Finally, his data is based on 2008, which was a year in which a gobal recession occurred. Thus, his data is inferior to mine because mine controls for other circumstances while his does not.So, you can extend the poverty analysis and vote con based on the reduction of poverty alone. The impact is that I am reducing the unfreedoms that Sen discusses, whereas he is clearly magnifying them.CrimeIn response to the studies that I presented to you, he simply notes that welfare leads to crime because access is limitless. I have three responses. First, you can extend the TANF analysis from my first rebuttals because it explicitly shows a 53% decrease in the number of people who use welfare. Second, extend the turn on his statistic: 94% of people are not dependent on welfare, meaning that they do not access it for a limitless amount of time. Finally, note that his claims about "limitless free rides" are completely wrong because TANF is only given to adults for five years. "There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods" [1]. This link-turns his analysis because it depends on the idea of limitless access, which is clearly false. Next, extend the dropped Williams analysis about how the majority of crime is linked to financial hardship. This is extremely important in this round because it solves the issues that he discusses about single parents and drug usage. These are not linked to welfare; rather, they are linked to poverty. This is important in this round because it backsolves his other claims as to the links between welfare and crime. If you do not buy this, extend the Foley analysis which further provides evidence for this and then notes that providing welfare in a staggered form drastically lowered crime rates.Finally, since my opponent has decided to invoke his personal morality about single parents in the round, I would like to note that TANF has actually provided an impetus for marriage. "Since the enactment of TANF, the share of children living in single-mother families decreased from almost 22 percent of all children in 1997 to 19 percent in 2002, and the share of children living in cohabiting families rose from 5 to 6 percent . . . TANF allowed states to impose family caps on the receipt of additional cash benefits from unwed childbearing. Between 1994 and 1999, unwed childbearing among teenagers declined 20 percent among 15-17 year olds and 10 percent among 18-19 year olds." [1].CostHe gives you nothing but fake analysis. Welfare costs 400 billion at the most, and not the 1 trillion that he claims. 1 trillion is about 1/3 the size of the deficit, but he claims that welfare costs 13%, not 33%, so he is contradicting hismelf. Even if you do not buy this, he dropped the analysis about using other means to cut the budget in a more effective manner and the analysis about how the benefits of welfare vastly outweigh the costs, meaning that it should not be abolished even if it is costly. Extend those dropped arguments and vote con.ConstitutionalityOther than magically deciding to be a moving target and claiming that this debate is centered on the federal government (which is not true because it is not specificed by the resolution and it was not specified in round 1), my opponent drops the 10th Amendment analysis, which explains that welfare can be taken up by the states. This is relevant for a single reason: TANF, or welfare, is administered by the states, and not by the federal government. Thus, it is perfectly constitutional.ImmoralityApparently the source that I provided to show that his 47% statistic is fake is having server problems, so I am going to quote one of my opponent's sources instead. From his New York Times Source: "All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality. . . Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47." [2] (Note: This was Source 16 from the opponent's Round 3 speech). Also, extend the analysis about protecting life throught the reduction of poverty. That is a morally worthy goal for the state, so welfare is not immoral. AlternativesExtend the dropped Richman analysis, which explains that charity cannot solve poverty because it is inconsistent and cannot be given to all. Then extend the data from the affirmative case, which clearly shows that poverty was reduced because of welfare. When charity was used, poverty was greater; when the welfare state was adopted, poverty decreased drastically. This provides both analytical and empirical analysis as to why charity cannot solve for the poverty problem, and both were dropped by the opponent.CorruptionI never denied that corruption exists. I simply noted that it is outweighed by the positive impacts of welfare, and that it only amounts to about $40 billion, which is three times less than the amount of Medicare fraud that doctors commit. The solution is not to abolish welfare; it is to make corruption more difficult. These were all dropped, so extend them and vote pro.Dependency He dropped all of the analysis that I had for this point. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [2]