Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Pro says “Note, that In R2, I stuck to the financial side of Welfare. I never went on to other types of welfare. But as you can see and read, my argument is strictly based upon the fact that "Welfare Gets Taken Advantage Of" I had provided the judges, and readers many examples, and proof that it does in fact get taken advantage of.”Fair enough. Parents provide “welfare” to their children via food, clothing, shelter etc. Pro wants to “abolish” or “destroy” completely this welfare simply because it is taken advantage of. If pro had her way parents would no longer provide these types of welfare to their children. Note for her to argue that welfare should be distributed differently or from non-government sources is not sufficient to fill her burden. This is due to the full definition she provided for welfare. So her argument is to “abolish” any kind of welfare that is given. Imagine the number of infants and children that would die under such an arrangement. Therefore, we should not abolish these types of welfare. Such an argument would be to argue families should not exist. Fathers and/or Mothers should not provide for their children in any way. Ergo the resolution is negated.Pro says that I “seem to agree, that *everyone* no matter what the case, should receive welfare.” This is not the at all what I argued. I argued that there is no tenable way to prevent all types of welfare, thus it cannot be abolished. It is impossible. Also due to the broad definition provided almost everything can be deemed welfare. So no, I am not argueing that everyone no matter the case should receive, rather that it is empirically obvious that everyone does.Pro wants me to explain why the study concluding that something may be “likely” is not convincing. The study does not give any kind of barometer or estimate as to how much an impact. Will there be one less kid, or one million. Rather they just say it is “likely.” Or in other words they speculate without any data to support that conclusion.Pro says “I basically argued that charities, instead of the government could help these people in need. Also, how did I not give any support to my claim, yet I gave a list of organizations that are completely willing to help anyone in need.”What it seems pro is not getting from my argument is that charities would fit under the definition provided for “welfare.” Charities offer “Financial or other aid provided to people in need.” Thus, by the definition that pro provided, charities are welfare. So for pro to promote charities to replace government welfare is only to argue that a type of welfare should be replaced by another type, but still a type, of welfare.Pro says “Please note, that the structure of the debate was not followed by Con. I stated that R2 was Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con. He should have came up with his own argument, instead he just rebutted my points. By the way Arguments mean more than one, meaning you should have provided your argument in this round.”Here is the round one…. R1. AcceptanceR2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from ConR3. Argument/Rebuttal'sR4. ConclusionI did provide an argument. I argued that abolishing welfare is untenable… then I rebutted. Thus I followed the rules outlined in round one.