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

Thanks, Leet, for the response! 1. For the record, just because I conceded that being rich is better than being poor doesn't mean that I forfeited any point to the Pro. Instead, this is just an agreement which helps to establish the following contentions. 2a. Pro contends that a bank robber wouldn't feel guilty after committing his crime. While it's true that people have a variation of guilty consciences, my main point here still stands - the individual becomes a morally bankrupt individual whether they acknowledge it or not. Stealing is infringing upon someone's property, and even if one doesn't feel sad about what they've done, they still have to live with the reality that they are criminals. You cannot justify theft (which my opponent has attempted to do) so regardless the robber would be burdened with the consequences of the crime. In addition to guilt, this could mean regret, paranoia, or even a thrill which could lead to further bouts of risk taking and crime. Regardless, my rebuttal to Pro in this regard doesn't encompass all of the points I have been trying to establish, which mostly come into fruition when you move onto my contentions. 2b. Many times bank robberies do not go as planned. For instance, a teller would call for police back-up or a patron or guard will interfere. In that case, there's no guarantee that the perpetrator wouldn't accidentally be hurt or killed, or that someone else wouldn't. Point being: The operation may not go smoothly and you cannot assume that a teller would just politely hand over the money. 2c. Pro is under the impression that robbing a bank is a victimless crime because all banks have to purchase insurance. However, who do you think pays for that insurance? That's right - the bank's customers. The only reason that banks have any money in the first place is because customers put their money into the banks. Therefore, the customers are the ones paying for insurance, so regardless the customers are the ones that suffer. And even if you go the route that customers would have to pay for this insurance regardless of whether or not the bank was robbed, even insurance money collected and dispersed is just redistribution of other people's money. So, by robbing someone, someone is always being stolen from, their rights and property being infringed upon immorally and illegally, etc. 3a. Pro operates under the assumption that a bank robber would be sent to a low-level prison facility. However, the links I'll provide will prove that bank robbers do, in fact, get sentenced to federal prison [1] [2] [3] and those are just a few of many scenarios. 3b. Next Pro somehow comes to the ridiculous conclusion that just because someone MIGHT be better off in prison than on the street, that all of my aforementioned or additional contentions should be eliminated. That's absurd. I stand by my points: Stealing is wrong, and federal prison can be dangerous. The point here is to acknowledge that just because life on the street can be tough, so too can life in prison. There's no guarantee that it will be better in 1 place than the other. In one situation you're worried about being cold; in another you might worry about being raped or killed. Sure on the inside you get three free meals, but on the outside you might be able to score something better than what's served inside. So the point here is this: There's no guarantee of safety either way, therefore my other points will prevail (reasons why stealing is wrong, and alternatives to stealing). 4. Pro contends that one wouldn't be able to get a bf/gf if homeless. I negate. He's operating under the assumption that a homeless individual is a bum hobo. In fact, there are plenty of people living in homeless shelters who DO have significant others, aren't smelly or dirty, etc. Example: I have a friend who ran away from home when she was pregnant, became homeless and lived in a shelter. She was technically unemployable because she was diagnosed with high-risk pregnancy, meaning she couldn't really do any labor and just had to sit down all day. Yet, she somehow managed to get a boyfriend even in that condition. Another example: The famous song writer Jewel infamously lived in her car on her road to stardom. She wound up becoming rich and famous and scoring quite a few men despite her stint being homeless. So, while Pro is correct to say that it would be damn near impossible for all homeless people to date, it's still true that some can. All I said was that this should be your first and foremost option - not your only one. 5a. Pro points out that in mental facilities, patients are often abused sexually and mentally. First off, the individual in this scenario might enjoy the sexual "abuse." This is because of course they will not actually be mentally unstable. That also excludes the possibility of any other types of abuse. Not all people in mental facilities are bat shyt crazy either; some just have minor problems - ones you could hardly even tell, sometimes. So, the individual could fake taking the drugs (if they didn't want them)... not to mention that those drugs are incredibly minor and not really harmful, and just live life pretty normally without the hardship of prison. Keep in mind that just as there are low-level prison facilities, there's low-level mental facilities as well. 5b. No, mental facilities aren't perfect... but are prisons? I find it ironic that Pro is concerned about the mental health of the homeless person in 1 situation but not the other. Prison can have devastating mental effects, including but not limited to paranoia, depression, claustrophobia, delusions, psychological fear, etc. says this government study [4]. Plus, a selective interpretation of objectivist philosophy may lead some (like Ragnar) to conclude that prison or the deprivation of liberty is equivalent to taking one's life. For a homeless person, this is not justified. 6. As an alternative to dealing drugs, robbing a bank is far worse. It is NOT a victimless crime as I have proven. A transfer of wealth without consent still means that someone is losing money. On the other hand, choosing to smoke pot is the choice of the individual, and in fact the dealer is servicing society by providing a risky service. To combat the idea that you need a lot of money to get started, I negate - Have the homeless person start by saving $10 to buy a dime bag (.5 of a gram). That person can then sell 2 nicks, have a little bit left over, use that to sell in the next round, etc. In other words, yes, it would take awhile to get things up and running and profit significantly... however, the goal isn't to become Pablo Escobar, my friends, but just to get by. 7. Now, as far as having sex with undesirable people, this link complete with pictures of real live prostitutes will illustrate just how desperate some people are to have sex or score the occasional BJ [5]. So yes, people WILL pay for sex with not so well-off or hot/clean individuals. Further proof are crack whores you'll see roaming the streets, who manage to survive (and smoke crack) all on a prostitute's salary. Talk about effective budgeting. Not to mention that Pro is completely ignoring (a) pimps or (b) the best option of legalized prostitution (great wages!) if they could just make it to Nevada. 8. Time for a new contention: The individual could apply for the services and aid of social programs (welfare, unemployment, medicare, etc.) and of course utilize shelters, soup kitchens, the church and other charities. [1] http://www.thenewstribune.com... [2] http://www.sj-r.com... [3] http://www.timesleader.com... [4] http://aspe.hhs.gov... [5] http://thejebbica.com...