Welfare

I will address these arguments before moving onto analysis of the debate and some additional commentary. I'd also like to take this time to remind my opponent that he should write ---No round as agreed upon--- in his final round. Anything written other than or beyond that should be considered a forfeit by the judges. New Arguments "People don;t have babies so they can get money to care for those babies. Children cost more time, energy, and money than someone will ever get out of free medical visits. The math does not add up. " I've included quotes in the previous round that show that I'm clearly not making that argument. This is a straw man that is intended to make my actual arguments look weaker. Here are the quotes I listed that he derived this strawman argument from. " There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. " "Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent. " "The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada"s social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women. "" "by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy. " . http://www.cato.org... As you can clearly see, I've never argued that women get pregnant to collect welfare. "Just because someone is not getting married does not mean they are not in a relationship. One the sources my opponent cites are small sample cases. Hardly enough to make a statistical analysis of the population. The cause is see that low income parents who have medical aid for their children, are hesitate to married even other low income partners because the children can lose doctor visits. This is not have babies and government will give you enough money to pay rent and buy a new car. " This is another attempt to strawman my arguments. I'm not arguing that people collect welfare, because it's some sort of get rich scheme. I'm not sure what source my opponent is referring to either. There has been atleast 5 studies on this specific issued covered by me or the sources I've linked to. At this point, I think it's been established that a direct correlation can be made between welfare and unwed mothers. "The general welfare clause in the constitution has been used to legitimize such expenditures and fee based programs. As recent as 1982 in South Dakota vs Dole. The government with held 5% federal highway spending to a state if it did not maintain a minimum drinking age of 21. The vote 7-2 upheld the "general welfare" clause to mean the government has a responsibility to enact regulations and programs that benefit the greater America. " I think it's a little late in the debate to bring up supreme court rulings on constitutional law. I don't have the time or space neccesary to respond to this argument. I'll ask that the voter's comletely disregard this new argument as it violates the agreed structure of this debate. On a personal note. I dont think the framers of the constitution had in mind social welfare programs when they included the "general welfare" clause. Final Analysis My opponent actually did very little to argue in favor of welfare. What he did was argue against poverty. The problem is everybody is against poverty. This isn't a debate about poverty. We all hate it. We all want to live in a world without it. The debate is about welfare. Here is a summary of each of me and my opponents sections. Welfare Makes People Dependent on the Government My previous round's points are all dropped. Welfare Discourages 2 Parent Households. My opponent's rebuttals include turning my arguments into straw men and making points that have already been addressed. At this point it should be a well established fact that welfare indeed discourages 2 parent households. It violates the Role of Government. My opponent never attacks my argument concerning what the role of government is. He offers an argument concerning constitutional law later on, but I don't really have enough time to get into any arguments I have concerning activist judges, how constitutional law has no bearing on what the actual proper role of government is etc. It Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System My opponent doesn't offer any valid responses for this either. If an economic system is working properly a welfare program wouldn't need to be implemented. Instead of offering the failed economic system life support, we should shoot it in the head. Pro's Arguments His arguments can be summed up as --Poverty is Bad--. He's brought up numerous stats to show why poverty is bad. The problem is he has ignored my arguments concerning how welfare is a contributor to the underlying causes of poverty. The other argument besides "poverty bad", was about how welfare aids economic growth. However I've exposed his stats to show that the boost in the economy is only temporary and that the actual longterm affects of welfare is actually detrimental to the economy. Pro has ignored all of the rebuttals I've mentioned in my previous round.