Soup Kitchens should be promoted.

I would like to remind my opponent that I am not "the government" nor a representative of it. I am an individual arguing for the promotion of soup kitchens. Remember also that I am not arguing for government funded soup kitchens.If we examine them closely, Con's arguments are full of fallacies. Typical for arguments generated by a politician. I will go through them individually.Argument: "how can you assume that it guarantees peace ? Is it proved that areas with soup kitchens have lower crime rates? NO. This is because the homeless are there for a reason . They are there either because they are neglected by their families , lazy or have a natural attitude defect ."Rebuttal: I am not saying that impoverished individuals only want food, I am saying that they definitely need food. That homeless people use money to buy drugs and alcohol is merely a reason for charitable individuals to volunteer at soup kitchens rather than just giving them money. I sense condemnation in your argument here: please remember that it is not only lazy/bad people that can fall on hard times and need help from the community; anyone can lose everything. We should be careful not to make sweeping declarations about every homeless/impoverished person. By feeding the hungry, we make it just a little bit easier for them to get back on their feet. We satisfy their only universal craving (all impoverished people are only necessarily addicted to food and water) and in doing so we allow them to focus on getting their lives back together.Argument: They allow entities to aid the needy and therefore fulfil ( correction ) their religious/moral/existential goals. First of all , I am here today to propose a better alternative to help the poor instead of soup kitchens so I am not saying that helping the poor is an immoral act as you suggested . So with that being said , your point is of no use to this debate .Rebuttal: Fulfill is spelled as F-U-L-F-I-L-L. Look it up. Anyway, you claimed to propose a solution to institutional poverty. Individuals who want to volunteer at/donate to/organize soup kitchens are not trying to preform the governmental task of eliminating institutional poverty: they are trying to feed the poor who are mere days away from starvation. I will get back to your point on education shortly, but here I maintain that trying to feed the poor is a worthwhile and morally valid endeavor. If nobody does it, it won't happen and people will suffer and die as a result. Argument: By instigating soup kitchens , we are sending a wrong message to society . We are telling the younger generations that it is okay to be lazy in life , it is okay to not give your all in school because when you come out to the real world , we will help you by giving you food even though you don't want to help yourself . Do we really want an increase in the homeless ? Rebuttal: This argument makes the outlandish assumption that being homeless and wating in line for a basic meal at the soup kitchen is something that younger generations will aspire to. Regardless of whether soup kitchens exist, our culture is so consumerist that everyone has dreams of becoming rich, and everyone fears becoming homeless and hungry. Your argument that helping homeless people to survive will increase the societally perceived economic value of homelessness, causing people to "go hobo" is absurd. You might argue, then, that soup kitchens will turn the homeless complacent so that they don't try to find a job. To that, my retort is that no starving people will be able to successfully apply at a job, nor will they survive to be hired. Argument: "Imagine a city that is already so congested be even more crowded with the homeless queuing up for food and encouraging more of the homeless from other areas to go to that specific area to get that food . Consider the possible diseases that could spread because of the homeless's poor health and hygiene . Consider how the homeless can steal from others . Pick - pockets , daylight robbery and get swallowed into the crowd . Contrary to what the government said , I say that this will increase the crime rates not decrease it ."Rebuttal: The only reason that a soup kitchen would cause congestion in the city would be that there are so many hungry people in the area. If this is the case, then the soup kitchen is providing a much needed service. Your argument that a high density of homeless people in one area would increase the crime rate of the city may seem valid but is flawed in reality. Homeless people found misbehaving can be denied food by the soup kitchen, and police can patrol the area to ensure that no crimes are being committed: it will be easy for them to watch over a single facility and the surrounding area, easier, in fact, than if the hungry were dispersed throughout the city. Remember, also, that full tummies are less dangerous in principle. I am glad that you brought up the point about disease: in response, I propose that organizations that start soup kitchens should do even more good and place another, clinical facility nearby that treats sick people that cannot afford medical care and promotes good hygiene throughout the area.Remember also that I am arguing that soup kitchens should be promoted: there should be more of them. If there are soup kitchens everywhere, then the homeless needn't all flock to one.ConclusionBanning soup kitchens sends the wrong message to society. The correct message to send is that soup kitchens are good and that those who work for them are providing a good service for the poor, and by extension, society as a whole. Banning soup kitchens tells the younger generations that its OK to be selfish and that we do not have to do anything when we see our fellow man starving in the streets. What kind of moral code is that?My opponent proposed that the solution to poverty is to invest in education, however, he did not provide a method of implementation. How are we supposed to make sure that EVERYONE is educated enough to be secure in their jobs? That sounds like a far off goal that would involve fixing the whole economy. Soup kitchens do not work towards a far off, institutional goal; they are valuable because they help to reduce the suffering of America's worst off residents. Con suggests that we give up on these people because all homeless people are lazy criminals. This claim is blatantly false: anyone can fall on hard times, and many are born into poverty. Letting people starve to death when we have the resources to prevent such horror is sin, it is institutional evil, it is selfishness, and it shows an extreme deficit of compassion. People should be allowed and even encouraged to help the poor through soup kitchens and other charitable programs.Thanks to Con for participating.