Taxpayers should not pay for the poor.

My case shall take the form of two different arguments:1. Refute the opponents case2. Show how my opponent doesn't actually affirm the resolution. I shall go in order. "We shouldn't pay for people who don't have a job because they don't wanna have a job! "Hey thanks for this. I'm sure my uncle, who got fired from his job about eight months ago and has been going to interview after interview after interview and none working out for him, would really love to hear this opinon of yours. But from a less personal stand-point, this makes the false assumption that everyone who doesn't have a job doesn't actually want a job, which is absolutely horribly wrong. I'm actually kind of suprised you brought it up. "We should help the poor, just not give them money! "You do realize how contradictory this statement is? How do we organize soup kitchens? With money to buy the supplies and hire the workers. How do churches give supplies to the poor? By buying the supplies with money. How do charities send aid to the poor? With money. Guess what all of those have in common? They need money. So by taking money out of the equation, we stop all aid to the poor. So by affirming, you actually contradict your own advocacy of still helping the poor, just without money. As my opponents only arguments have been refuted, I shall now proceed to have fun and show why my opponents case doesn't actually affirm the given resolution. The resolution is as stated above in the title "Tax payers should not pay for the poor". I would like to direct the audience's attention to the using of the words "pay for", indicating that a purchase is being made. Thusly, the resolution can be condensed accurately into the following revised resolution:"Tax payers should not buy the poor. " This would indicate something along the lines of a slave trade is occuring. As we can see from looking at my opponent's case, that he doesn't spend a single character talking about how the poor shouldn't be enslaved. I argue that slavery is a good thing because it gets shiit done. Instead of having to worry about wages and law suits and private practice laws, you can just crack the whip and force you to get to work. Thinks of all the problems this would fix:1. No more crime. As slaves are under your complete control, you can force them to do as you wish. This would completely dissolve the crime rate, as we would simply tell them not to commit crimes, and they from then on couldn't.2. Quicker job completion. Ever wonder why it takes construction companies six months or more to build a really simple, unfurnished house, and it takes the crew of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition only a week to build a super fancy, well-furnished house to replace an old one, which includes demolition times? Yeah, with slave labor, we would be able to give those silly TV workers a run for their money. Two day construction times, anyone?3. Ever get annoyed with you siblings or family because they just won't do what you want them to do? Easy, buy them out and force them into slavery with you as their master. Then they have to do what you want them to do. I could go on for a while, but I'll stop there for now. So, the debate breaks down really simply:1. My opponents arguments are flat-out wrong.2. They don't apply to the resolution.3. I'm showing why we ought to pay for (i. e. buy into slavery) the poor.