Welfare is an applicable stance for a Libertarian

You make incredibly good arguments, and you appear to be a very good debater. However, you make numerous assumptions that cannot be proven and have negated nothing as most of your arguments are off topic. You have laid out a great case that charities ought to be able to absorb any current welfare expenses, as charitable contributions will go up as taxes will go down under a libertarian-style government. This is still an assumption. Regardless, this is not the resolution. If you are correct in your assumptions, then welfare will not be needed, and no taxes will need to be collected for this purpose. This, again, is not the resolution.You provide evidence that the welfare system costs more than the prisoners do. This assumes that the welfare system will not be changed. This, too, is not the point, as the debate is if ANY welfare is allowed, current levels or otherwise. You assume welfare recipients do not work and you assume poor people commit theft. I said neither. This is a misrepresentation of my argument; I implied DESPERATE people will resort to force, whether it is to feed themselves, buy medicine, or procure themselves clothes to wear. I am not too familiar with formal logic and debates, but the syllogism would go as follows: P1: Desperate people will resort to force to procure basic necessities P2: People using force to obtain goods will go to jail P3: Jails will give basic necessities to individuals P4: Citizens pay taxes to fund jails C: Taxes go to provide basic necessities to desperate people So, if money is already used to feed and clothe these people, why not do it in an attempt to avoid damages, victims, and other consequences resulting from an aggressor? Why should I be forced to give money to someone twice, once from theft, and once from taxes? The resolution is whether or not government aid is acceptable in a libertarian society, not if it will be needed. You have offered little evidence supporting your claim in regards to the resolution at hand, and nothing has negated mine.Notice my premise begins at the failure of charities. If there is no such failure, as you contend, then it isn’t an issue, but that is not the resolution. The debate is whether providing aid is contradictory for libertarians, which presupposes that government intervention may be needed as charities are unable/unwilling to provide for all who need it. If welfare is not needed, then there is no need for it, and there would be no tax money used for it.The only thing you offered was mention of the non-aggression principle, which I used in my argument. The fact is, either as welfare or criminals, tax money will be spent on food and shelter for these individuals. However, only the criminals are aggressors THEMSELVES, which can be avoided, in part, if their basic necessities are met. Will this eliminate ALL crime? Of course not, but it will eliminate some, as those who are desperate WILL resort to theft. Those who are greedy will not be affected, and should be in jail. You demand I offer evidence and statistics, which are irrelevant and impossible. We have no way of knowing what charitable contributions will be in the future, if it is enough to cover everyone’s needs, if there is any discrimination in charities' services, or what affect it would have on corrections spending. All of this is irrelevant, as even if there were no need for welfare, the issue still remains on whether or not it is an acceptable stance. I can offer the following information for 2011. There were 2,188,005 burglaries resulting in $4.8 billion in damages. [1] There were 715,373 motor vehicle thefts resulting in $4.3 billion in losses. [2] There were 6,159,795 cases of larceny resulting in over $6 billion in stolen assets. [3] This is millions of aggressors and millions of victims, which some can be avoided by supplying the means so people are not resorting to desperate acts. You have established that security is a valid role of government under libertarian principles, so why is a means of crime prevention frowned upon. In summary, taxes are collected to food and clothe criminals ONLY AFTER they have become an aggressor. Some of these aggressors act out of desperation. Government’s role is to offer security from aggressors, so preventing potential aggressors from victimizing others is a valid function of government. In this light, welfare is akin to an insurance premium paid to the government. Do not assume that welfare would need the same revenues as it currently does.One aggressor is better than two. 1. http://www.fbi.gov... 2. http://www.fbi.gov... 3. http://www.fbi.gov... NOTE: I do not want to drop this in case I need it, but your welfare numbers are misleading as they do not include food stamps, both in number of people using them and the dollar value. This greatly reduces the perceived increase necessary for charities to overtake the welfare, which would hurt your argument. Food stamps need to be included as, even if I would do away with them, food is still provided. Furthermore, food is a basic necessity that would result in desperate acts if it is absent, and are included in the total cost of current welfare spending, which you use current models for your comparisons.