The US government should eliminate the funding toward programs aiming to help those in need

I make it a habit not to take others' views personally :) And I appreciate that my opponent hasn't forfeited either I shall respond to attempt to my opponent's attempts to justify his utilitarian values and, in this case, reconcile them with the standard ones that I had thought we had agreed on. "Say a stupid robber came into my house, and asks if my brother was at home; he won't kill me if my brother is not, and if he is, he will kill both me and my sibling. Lying is obviously immoral, and if I apply deont philosophy to this, I should not lie and simply say that my brother is at home, getting us both killed. However, if I apply util, I may lie simply for the greater good and save both of our lives." My opponent is now trying to reconcile his values with mine. What he hasn't shown, however, is that my side, that we should NOT eliminate funding, ISN'T for the greater good. Much of politics is based on the greater good. Surely the greater good is to not have Americans, living in a first world country, malnourished, rather than eliminating food stamps for them on the basis of an IMMEDIATE reduction of the budget deficit? Surely the greater good, in this case, rests with myself, since after all my opponent is now reconciling his values with mine and thus agreeing with my original case. "To counter my opponent's claims about how I have burden of proof as instigator, please realize that he instigated the claim that if people lose welfare, they would not be able to pay for food or other necessities." This is where my opponent makes a logical error. He has a positive case, that we SHOULD eliminate something which exists. If welfare didn't exist in the US, then my opponent would be quite correct in saying that I should prove why it SHOULD exist. However, we are changing something, something it would take a bill in congress to do. In order to support that bill (call it the Malnourishment for Wal - Mart workers act) my opponent must provide a positive case. "From (2), 8 dollars per hour is actually 75 cents per hour more than the minimum wage. Since minimum wage was created long before welfare was, the government probably had the idea that it would be enough to support the people receiving it, so your counters regarding salaries fall." My opponent does not really provide evidence here. The government PROBABLY thought so. Maybe they thought so back in 1968, when it was $11 per hour in 2013 dollars (1). The government PROBABLY thought many things, but going back to the National Poverty Centre statistics, objectively the minimum wage in the US is NOT ENOUGH to support (meaning pay for food, rent) for many families. "To specify, the money spent on welfare could be spent on other, more useful places such as R&D on things that would boost our economy and give us more *excess* money that then could be spent on welfare. As of now, we have no excess money or we would be doing something with it." My opponent has not told why, for instance, the military budget of the US which is higher than the next 11 countries combined (2) and is widely used (this is common knowledge) to support military bases around the world that don't directly serve the interests of American defense, cannot be cut. This budget, at approx. 668 billion (689 now under Obama (2)) is considerably higher than the 131 billion the US uses on welfare. Why should welfare be cut instead, causing malnourishment? I would appreciate if my opponent would defend the military budget of the US Maybe welfare boosts the economy? It seems logical to me that if a person is not malnourished and has some kind of abode with access to some kind of digital technology (which will be more affordable if they have food stamps) they will have a higher chance of getting a job and producing than if they are living on the street. And here's another suggestion. Since vast inequalities do exist (richest 1% of Americans have 43% of wealth and bottom 80% have 7% (3)) why not raise the tax on the wealthy, as the richest individual in America and the world, Warren Buffett, suggested (4) and therefore decrease the budget deficit? I would appreciate if my opponent would respond to this point as well. Interesting debate, I look forward to pro's arguments. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://www.globalfirepower.com... 3) http://currydemocrats.org... 4) http://www.today.com...