One's poverty is the fault of the individual

My opponent starts out by explaining that poverty is an unfortunate consequence of the capitalist system and thus, is ingrained in our economic structure. I agree with him on this point. However, the issue is not about overhauling the economy or about the issue of poverty in general. This debate is about whether or not an individual can reasonably escape poverty. My opponent seems to believe that government efforts to "even the playing field" have failed and that the very nature of the economy is structured in such a way that the poor will remain poor. However, these are just his beliefs. As of now, my opponent has only provided evidence for a single argument: Technological advances. In fact, this is not evidence at all, but a proposed explanation for his belief. My opponent argues that the menial labor that once provided jobs for 100 people can be done by a single person, and that this technological growth is responsible for poor people being unable to pull themselves out of poverty. This argument fails for the following reasons: 1. The good of the majority versus the good of the few. In my opponent's "source" (which is a fictional book and thus, not exactly a source), he shows how the lives of hundreds of people are made miserable by technological advances. However, he neglects to mention exactly what the philosophy behind this occurrence is. Hardworking people who are dedicated to society, using intelligence, have constructed methods by which food can be produced faster and more efficiently in order to feed more people. In addition, jobs were created in industries where tractors are constructed. Tractor drivers are also needed, as well as tractor mechanics. Jobs haven't been lost, they were simply shifted around. Furthermore, the tractor, used in the 1930's, is still being used today, over 70 years later. In those 70 years, automated agricultural technology has done far more good for more of society than the farm hands that it has displaced. Did people lose jobs because of technology? Yes. Was it a fatal loss? Was this loss purely because of matters beyond their control? No. 2. People get what they deserve. When living in a society, one gets from society what they contribute. It is irrational for me to say that I have the right to someone else's property when they have worked for it and I have not. This is called stealing. A bunch of farmers being displaced by technology is an illustration of how society's needs have changed. If a person's chosen line of work is not needed, why should we burden society in order to provide for this person what he does not earn? A person can choose to spend his day throwing rocks around on a field. He can choose to specialize and throw them further and higher than anyone else. However, if this activity does not contribute to society, why should he get paid? What right does he have to luxuries beyond health care, education, a place to live, and plenty of food to eat? 3. Technology is a big deal, but not as big as it was in the past. My opponent's argument was in regards to 1930. Today, progression in technology does not have the economy-wracking effects it did in the past, because in the 70 years between then and now, the roar of technological progression has finally settled onto a dim hum. Technological improvements still force people out of jobs, but very few, and for the most part, they make jobs easier to do and actually open up new jobs for other people. Even if my opponent's point about technology were valid about the technological advancements of the past, this is not to say that he is correct in pointing fingers at technology today. Even with technological advancements, there are dozens of jobs available for each and every person at any given moment in time. It's just a matter of how picky or how lazy an individual is. Now, in regards to my opponent's point about the practicality of my suggestions: "Going out and getting an education, even if it was just that simple as Kleptin suggests, takes years and is not a practical answer to an individual's situation" First of all, we are not talking about an individual person, because the individual person presents with too many variables. We are talking about the poor in general, and the family structure of poor people, in order to best illustrate the concepts and philosophies involved in this discussion. Second, education does take years and years. This is why children are mandated to attend school from the ages of 5 to 18. Long past are the days where children have to work in coal mines instead of spending their days in the schoolroom. There is no excuse for not having an education, because it is law, and because measures exist to ensure that all children can go to school without having their parents worry about starving to death. "OK, I'll just go out and study to be a lawyer, while I am living in poverty, with three children, while my rent and all my expenses are put on hold for the ensuing years; then I will emerge from this situation no longer poor. After all it was my fault, anyway. His argument is not pragmatic. " Strawman fallacy . http://en.wikipedia.org... The strawman fallacy is the deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's point, and the subsequent attack of this false argument. It is akin to constructing a straw man in my image and attacking that straw man, then asserting that he has beaten me. The man living in poverty with 3 children is living in poverty for a reason. There is also a reason why this man is not already a lawyer. Perhaps this man made bad decisions and due to teen pregnancy, ruined his own life. Perhaps this man slacked off in school and did not obtain high enough grades to get into a good college, or did not bother to go to college at all. For the sake of this argument, let us turn our attention away from this man and onto his children, so that we can argue on a blank slate. His children will grow up in poverty, but they will all have some educational background since they would have been schooled since a young age. They would have the right to attend public schools and if their father was not too much of a deadbeat and spent a decent amount of money on educational materials, there are many high tier public schools that accept based on merit. With just that step, the poverty cycle can be broken. Provided that their father is a good enough father and not a lazy deadbeat, then they can attend excellent highschools which will send them to excellent colleges and perhaps even land them in law school. And with that, the lower class turns into the upper middle class in a single generation. This is not a rare story in any way. Immigrant families go through this cycle all the time. My father came from nothing and worked dozens of jobs off the books to save enough money for his family and his own education. He saved enough money for city college and worked hard while studying to keep tuition, landing a white collar job after graduation. Now, he makes almost 6 figures a year and I have reaped the benefits of his hard work, and will never know poverty myself. There is absolutely no excuse for the average impoverished person. So long as you work hard enough, either you or your children will escape poverty. My opponent's one and only point was that this cannot occur if technology eliminates job availability. I have already shown that his argument involving technology is outdated and irrelevant. If my opponent's point is to stand, he must show how jobs simply aren't available to the poor. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.