Rich vs. Poor

I"ll address my opponent"s remarks, and then review my own case, paying special attention to why a Pro vote is in order. CON"S CASE: POOR EMBRACE POVERTY/MODERATION I think the absurdity of this claim is fairly obvious. Neither do they nor should they embrace poverty of that kind. Remember, we"re discussing people who are living on less than $2 a day"who lack access to basic sanitation, food, clothing, shelter, etc. No one wants to live surrounded by debris and disease-ridden muck, nor do they wish to starve, go naked, be exposed to the elements, be unable to receive care for injuries or illness, etc. Con"s one example to support his position is Gandhi, who chose a life of poverty. Yet, unless he was willfully starving himself out of some act of civil disobedience, Gandhi still had the basic necessities of life, and legions of supporters. Most of the poor are poor not out of choice, but because they are unable to escape their condition. Furthermore, most of the poor aren"t poor because they"re engaging in civil disobedience"they don"t want to die any more than I do. FINANCES CAN ONLY IMPROVE For someone living on $2 a day, they may be scared of having their wage reduced to $1.25. The situation can always get worse. But, if we do want to affect change in the poor"s lives by improving their livelihoods, charity is an excellent way to do it, as my own case points out. EASIER FOOD PREP Really? I would think that before we could talk about food prep, we should talking about have food to prep. As the evidence I offered showed, many of the extreme poor are undernourished or starving. It seems ridiculous, even offensive, to suggest that the poor should be happy because they don"t have to worry about cooking. I would think that they"d be happy to cook in order to actually eat. Starvation is a form of suffering that should not be taken lightly. As I noted: "According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they "die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death. " Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children. " IGNORE ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS So, they may not be throwing themselves out of windows. Instead, they"re enduring untold suffering"they"re hungry, ill, and unsafe, without adequate food, medicine, or money to address their concerns. I think the economic down turn would be paltry compared to the pain they"re already enduring. The rich have a duty of charity to help ameliorate this problem. FREEBIES If freebies are okay, why not give the rich the burden of charity, which is, after all, a freebie? It"s the Pro"s argument that freebies are not only good, but morally obligatory. HEALTH The extreme poor can still acquire illicit drugs through trade/bartering or if they grow drugs (or are near areas where they"re grown. ) Many of the destitute find solace in illegal drugs as a means of escaping their woeful and pain-filled existence. So no, health is not improved. Furthermore, the claim that health is somehow improved is inane, particularly in light of all the evidence that I provided in my case to the contrary. ACHIEVE YOUR DREAMS Con seems to advocate some form of Epicurean ethics, whereby people reduce their desires to increase their happiness. Yet, even Epicurus notes that there are some basic desires that must be met for all people, including the desire to eat and to be healthy. The poor can"t even achieve these dreams, as evidenced by the facts I presented. LESS CRIME You"re right that the poor are not enviable (which seems to be a concession that poverty is not something to be aspired to. ) So, people may not steal from the poor, but the poor may very well steal from the more affluent. This could land them in prison or drive them into feeling guilt. Instead of forcing the choice of whether to steal from the rich or not, why not just preemptively have the rich give to them? HEAVEN Firstly, this argument assumes that there is an afterlife. If my opponent can show a good, empirical reason to believe in an afterlife, I might buy this. But, unfortunately, as no new arguments are permitted in the final round, he will be unable to warrant this assertion. Secondly, even if you buy the premise of his point, i. e. that heaven exists, there is still a fatal flaw: as I pointed out just last paragraph, the poor are often forced to steal to survive. This is a sin, and would hinder their entrance into heaven. Yet, if the poor don"t steal, and allow their bodies to decay because of a lack of resources, then they are not treating their bodies as temples. So, they"re caught in a double-bind. Either way, they won"t go to heaven. Voting Pro would eliminate this problem by helping to eliminating poverty. OVERALL Con totally fails to warrant a number of his assertions"in fact, the one concrete example he does offer is fallacious, and only applies to one of his 8 arguments. He also cites a number of witticisms, sayings, axioms, and so on, (quotes from Confucius and various common adages) to support his positions. But if I may counter theses catchy quotations and sayings with one of my own, Voltaire once said that, "A witty saying does not an argument make. " MY CASE: Con complete drops Pro case. This has three huge impacts: (1) My Contention One proves the poverty and the income gap should be eliminated, (2) My Contention Two links morality and resource distribution, proving that the poor should be obligated to give some aid to the poor, and (3) living in poverty is like a living hell, due to the enormous negative impacts I enumerate. Extend these impacts across the flow. Since no new arguments are permitted this round, the Con may not attempt to address my case, granting me the full offense of my round two comments. VOTE PRO (1) Because the arguments of the Con operate on the faulty assumption that poverty is good, despite the evidence in my case to the contrary. The Con case also fails to provide convincing logic and evidentiary support for his claim; he relies on myriad suppositions and aphorisms to make his points, as I noted in my rebuttal. (2) Because "freebies" are essentially what I"m advocating. I"m just saying that the rich should be mandated to give freebies. Since the Con seems okay with the notion of freebies, then I see little additional difficulty in making them compulsory/obligatory. (3) Because of the clear, and uncontested, impacts of my case, especially contention two. Contention two alone proves a moral obligation of charity, which is enough to cast a Pro ballot right now. Thus, I affirm.