Newt Gingrich is engaging in class warfare when he suggests poor kids work as janitors

My opponent had stated "Unless Mr. Gingrich were to included other classes of society (into the "program") other than just the poor for his proposal, he has singled out one segment (the poor) as being a detriment by excluding the others." First I would like to point out that never once during that speech did the word Program even come up. secondly I would like to say that Mr. Gingrich is running for the office of president of the united states. It is his job to ensure the safety of all Americans. and his not suggesting that one class be treated differently then another. However He is right to single out poverty stricken neighbor hoods because areas that do not have these problems obviously are not in need of help. These people need the help, in fact if would be worse if he didn't care enough to even think of a solution to help these people. I asked my opponent to answer this question "How is suggesting job opportunity's for poverty stricken family's a cause of harm or damage?" to which he responded: "Non sequitur, This argument was not mad". However this is exactly what the debate is about by your main argument alone was suggesting that Mr. Gingrich engaged in class warfare by suggesting poor kids work as janitors. So the argument made was, and i will ask you again How is suggesting job opportunity's for poverty stricken family's a cause of harm or damage I.E. how is suggesting a practical solution for a noticeable problem, that may help in repairing these community's an act of class warfare? my opponent had stated "Reducing the crime rate is a commendable endeavor to partake, but to suggest that only one economic class of people are responsible for crime by excluding other classes of people from the same sort of "program" is implying that the other classes (middle class and affluent) have more integrity and don't commit crimes and therefore do not need the "program". Once again I would like to inform my opponent that the word program was not mentioned once during that speech. Secondly, saying that more crime happens in poorer neighborhoods is in fact a true statement. No one is suggesting that rich people or middle class Americans do not commit crimes. However it is specifically more common in cretin areas and it should be noted that if Mr. Gingrich didn't care for these people then he wouldn't be trying to help them. my opponent goes on to state that: "Once again, correlation is not causation. There are places in this world where the per capita income is under $200 and their communities are virtually crime free" that's very fortunate for them. however in the united states there are more documented cases of crime and illegel behavior in low income community's and I am sure that the people that do not engage in these kind of acts would truly benefit from a change in the way that their community's function. my opponent further goes on to say: "The fact that the product they are selling is illegal is a result of the government stepping in between two people who wish to engage in a business transaction and saying "no, you can't do that". Neither party steals, forces, or coerces the other into the transactions, leaving no rights violated. This is a case of the government stepping in to solve a problem it created." I have to laugh at this and point out that your saying it is okay for people to sell illegel goods just because both party's agreed but just by having these items in their person is an indication that they are involved in some wrong doing. Conclusion: as I have already pointed out regardless of if you agree on the type of jobs one suggested for underprivileged areas, Mr. Gingrich is in the very least trying to help not hurt these community's and that my friend is not engaging in class warfare. by your argument's if I were to say something along the lines of " really poor people should be doctor's" then according to you by merely suggesting something is engaging in class warfare. However that is just not the case. I think my opponent should try to understand the difference between the intent to help vs. an intent to harm.