the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society

The resolution states: "the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society". My emphasis will be for my conclusion, on the word should which makes this resolution a debate on morality. So the million dollar question for you (the voters) is is it morally permissible for the government and/or society to give benefits to the disabled based of course, on their disability. Disability checks: Disability checks are functionally the same as social security checks. They are ways to make sure that every American citizen is taken care of when they are unable to work. For a person to receive a disability check they must provide evidence that they are physically incapable of work, so the "common man" isn't getting "robbed and isn't the victim of "theft", as my opponent has obtusely articulated. These benefits that "Average Joe" pays for insures that he has a fallback in case one day he becomes crippled by disease. Is that immoral? I don't don't think that my opponent understands that those who receive these benefits, must also pay taxes on them. So "robbery" is nonexistent. If the beneficiaries of the SSID also pay taxes on their benefits, is it unjustified that they receive them? My opponent keeps regurgitating the fact that "need isn't a rightful claim to a slave". My opponent isn't a slave to anyone. If he claims that he is either a slave to the disabled or to the government, he would be profoundly incorrect. A slave is defined as: "a person who is owned by someone" (wordnet.princeton.edu) My opponent isn't owned by the government. He has rights. He can petition, he has freedom of speech. He also has the right to not pay his taxes. Now, he might faces consequences if he chooses not to pay them. In the case that he is arrested, he has the right to a jury of his peers, and an expedient trial. You see, my opponent has rights. He has the right to vote for his government officials, who in turn, decide the laws. He cannot however, overturn the wishes of the popular majority. The popular majority has decided that it is morally permissible to provide the rights constitutes in the American Disabilities Act, and its subsequent revisions. I said: "The government, in order to avoid giving funds to undeserving recipients require a lengthy history of background information." My opponent's response: It cannot possibly avoid giving money to "undeserving" recipients except by avoiding giving money. To "deserve" money is to have created a value to exchange for it. Anyone who has not created such a value and will not create a value in the future that exceeds that amount plus time value plus risk plus whatever value is added by competing demand for credit is automatically "Undeserving." My rebuttal: My apologies: "undeserving" was the wrong choice of word: unqualified would be better suited. I said: "The housing I was referencing in the previous round is a public institution." My opponent responded: "I.e. forcible extortion." This debate isn't on the morality of taxation. You COULD see any taxation to be forced extortion. As a law abiding citizen of the United States you pay taxes. Since you are a law abiding citizen, you also have the right to vote for representatives (I.E. "No taxation without representation"). I said: "My opponent clearly doesn't understand that the United states is ensuring its sovereignty by providing these services. If the government were to discontinue such services, the welfare of our nation and its people would be at stake." My opponent responded: "The welfare of YOU and people like YOU perhaps, those of you incapable of overcoming these problems on your own. The nation as a whole, no. In fact, the rest of us would have one less thing to worry about." My response: I am saddened by my opponents blindly incompetent statement. The American Disabilities Act is in place for two reasons. To provide for those "like me" and to insure those people "like you" that in the instance that "people like you become disabled and unable to work." The American Disabilities act is two-fold. It provides for those who can't work (note that I'm not included) and insures that the average American who can work (now you can include me) that if anything happens to us that makes us incapable of work, THEN we are taken care of. See, we have more in common than you thought. SSDI stands for Social Security Disability Insurance. I said: "The main purpose of a democratic government such as ours, is to provide representation for the people." My opponent responded: There is no such entity as "the people." Democracy is not an excuse for theft, it's merely a structure that commonly results from too many parties pursuing power. My rebuttal: By "the people" I meant American citizens. American citizens are an entity because they can take action. They can vote, they can petition, they can debate (among other things). I said: "The pursuit of happiness relies, upon more than money, you are correct, but your requirements are purely personal opinions that cannot be proven." My opponent responded: You're saying it's possible to be happy, i.e., approve of one's life, without approving of oneself? I am saying neither of those things. I am merely saying that the pursuit of one's happiness is merely a personal journey. My opponent also states: " Or possible to approve of oneself when oneself is an incompetent parasite who destroys other people's lives in the name of his "needs"? My response: Who are you to deem anyone an incompetent parasite? They are not destroying anyone's life, they are helping to insure your own, in the case that some day you are disabled and cannot work. Again the ADA and SSDI benefit everyone. I stated: "...all post-secondary institutions that receive money from the state (public universities) must comply with that. Although most private schools recognize it. Colleges aren't left up to the "whim of the government", they are (as it has always been) of servitude to the student. The student is the one that chooses whether or not to divulge and have consideration paid to their disability. Again my opponent asserts that I conceded the point about disability checks, and therefore the morality of government funded benefits when I said that he has the right to spend his money the way that he wants to. I did not concede that point, since the funds are taken from a tax pool. He does not have the right to LEGALLY evade taxes. He does have the right to spend the money that ISN'T TAXED the way he wants to. I stated: "I was born into a situation out of my control. I will never be free of it, but I will assure you that my intention is never to take more than I deserve." My opponent responded: "Too late, intentions or no." I respond: You don't know me, you don't know what I've taken. All you know is that I am disabled, which I chose to divulge, for the sake of this debate. I resent that remark and I hope that the voters can see that statement for what it is: A blind generalization. I would like to again point out two of our country's mottos, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which is considered an inalienable right; and "Liberty and Justice for ALL."; not just average Joe. Whatever claims my opponent makes about thievery, burglary, and or, slavery, I ask you to disregard as irrelevant, because this is not a debate on the morality of taxation. I urge a RESOUNDING vote in the negation's favor. The sources used are the same as above. I used wordnet.princeton.edu to define "slave" which can be accomplished by googling "Slave definition"