If one is both homeless and unemployable, one should rob a bank.

Thanks Lwerd. 1. Lol, of course my opponent has not marred her argument or forfeited any leverage in the debate by conceding this point. It was a concession nonetheless. :) 2a. CON initially made two arguments for this point: that the robber may feel remorse for the deed, and that robbing a bank is immoral. I stand by my negation to the first point that although the hobo would be a criminal if he robbed a bank, that it is unlikely there would be any remorse felt for such an action. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there are very few times as desperate as living on the streets using bubble-wrap for a blanket. Most hobos have been exposed to or taken part in such depravity that the robbing of a bank would be childs-play. As I said in Round 2, any remorse which was initially felt would likely not last. As for the fact that stealing is immoral, I will not disagree. However, what does that matter really? My opponent can be optimistic, but I'm going to stick with realistic. You want to get off the streets, and you have no means of getting a job, you're going to have to do something immoral, as my opponent's alternative suggestions (prostitution, drug-dealing, fraud) show. In the ratio of benefits to how immoral one must act, bank robbery wins hands-down. 2b. My opponent's rebuttal to this point didn't really address my initial point at all. My point here was to show that there need be no trauma (mental or physical) inflicted upon the bank employees if the robbery is done correctly. My opponent has stated that it's possible that an innocent by-stander could be hurt, but I fail to see how. To ensure this doesn't happen, the robber could take a gun without bullets. If the police do in fact get called, and they show up brandishing guns in your direction, you give yourself up for arrest. You'll then be taken to jail, which was one of the two original reasons to commit the crime in the first place. Nobody would get hurt in this robbery. 2c. My opponent is clearly incorrect in stating that the bank's customers are paying for robbery insurance. Can you imagine if you had $10,000 in your bank, and after it was robbed and insurance paid out to the bank, you found that you only had $9,000 because they had to take a grand out to help pay for the robbery? Of course not! That money is your money, regardless what happens to it once it's deposited. 3a. My opponent has provided three links to show that bank robbers can in fact end up in higher-level prisons, such as those with rapists and murderers. What my opponent has conveniently failed to mention is that the robbers in those cases have a long history of robbing banks (one guy had robbed six in as many weeks)[1][2][3]. The fact is, for a first-time offender, particularly somebody in need, as with this guy [4], the penalty is minimum security prison, so all arguments from last round stand. 3b. My opponent's arguments for this point fall back on stealing being wrong and the fact that one may end up in a high-level prison facility and therefore be possibly subjected to rape etc. My arguments from 1a and 3a show that this is simply incorrect. My opponent is correct, there is no guarantee of protection in jail, but there is definitely a lack of protection on the streets. There is no guarantee that the food in prison will be any good, but three meals a day, however unappealing, is better than the possibility of starving to death, which is a definite reality on the streets. In terms of warmth, security, electricity, the ability to better one's self and eat right, minimum-security prison beats homelessness easily. 4. My opponent is correct again... of course it's possible for a homeless person to get a gf/bf. But we're not talking about an occassional lay, we're talking about a sugar daddy, i.e. a person rich enough to support the hobo at least enough to make it more worthwhile than robbing a bank. My points from last round about how inconceivably difficult this would be for a homeless, unemployable person stand. My opponent provided the example of Jewel, but come on. How many hobo buskers do you walk past every day who can sing like Jewel? This is one example of millions of homeless men and women across the world, and should not even be considered a possibility, let alone taken as representative. Besides, my opponent has admitted that this option would be "damn near impossible". I want my homeless man living well sooner rather than later, and he'd just as likely starve to death waiting for a sugar mama than actually find one. My opponent also failed to address the fact that finding a sugar daddy/mama would leave the hobo subservient to some rich snob he/she probably doesn't even like. Robbing a bank would leave one just as well-off, and no less independent for their trouble. 5. Everything my opponent has said about the benefits of mental hospitals apply equally to minimum-security prisons. 6. I provided four arguments to show why robbing a bank would be a far better idea than dealing drugs, and my opponent has only addressed two of them. She has not answered to the fact that the financial gains of robbing a bank far outweigh those of dealing drugs, and has actually supported my argument that to become so much as financially stable dealing drugs is very difficult and very time consuming. Regarding the argument that capital is required to start a drug-dealing venture, my opponent's idea sees our hobo start out selling dime bags and move up to bigger stuff, but come on man, life is short and my kind of homeless guy wants good results and he wants them now! Once again we should look at the risk to benefits ratio, and we can conclude that robbing a bank far outweighs dealing some yahndi. With the ridiculous drug-laws of my opponent's home-country and my own, the penalty for getting caught selling drugs would be on a par with that of robbing a bank, but robbing a bank is actually worthwhile. I have answered to the morality, victimless crime arguments above and need say no more on the subject. 7. First of all, the link my opponent provided here is a busted link, it doesn't work. I can imagine that it was intended to point at a bunch of ugly @ss prostitutes, which was somehow supposed to support my opponent's contention that one could not only make a living, but make a good living from being a prostitute no matter how ugly or smelly. My opponent misses a few key points here though. How well are these ugly prostitutes doing? Hell, I could become a prostitute right now, but there's no guarantee I'd make any money for my effort, much less enough to get one off the streets. My opponent points to so-called crack whores she sees roaming the streets as evidence that prostitution is a worthwhile venture for our beloved hobo, but crack whores are so-called for a reason.. they work for crack. Sure, they manage to survive and smoke crack, as my opponent has suggested, but they're no better off than our hobo for their effort, which has reduced them to possibly the most depraved act a human can force themselves into. My opponent talks about the guilt associated with robbing a bank, what about that of s*cking off some stranger for nickels? My opponent's points about pimps and brothels is moot, because one must still find a pimp or a brothel willing to hire them, and the same problems present themselves. 8. The options presented by my opponent here merely represent the typical life of a hobo. This is the life we are trying to get our hobo away from in the first place. Thanks very much Lwerd, I couldn't have hoped for a better opponent. :) [1] http://www.sj-r.com... [2] http://www.timesleader.com... [3] http://www.thenewstribune.com... [4] http://cancrime.com...