The US government should end welfare

I would just like to again thank my opponent for this lovely Debate R1: My opponent is has only managed to come up with 2 other things that this welfare money goes too cars and hygiene. On this issue of a car, walking is lovely, also I don't have a car, I work hard, and I use mass transit or walk everywhere. So a car is not an essential there is also carpools and taxis, basically at one point when both my parents were working we didn't have a car and we managed to survive. So why should the American taxpayers pay for someone else car and gas when we struggle to pay for our own On the issue of hygiene, why in the world would you need 300 dollars to spend on hygiene, I have 5 brothers and sisters and my mother feeds our entire family for a month on about 200 dollars, so why in the world would you spend 300 dollars solely on soap and toothpaste that seems a little ridiculous to me R2: I argue this contention on the fact that my entire first argument derives from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and as the resolution says "The US government" it means that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence supersede the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because in the US the Constitution is the supreme law of the land R3: First, my Opponent has failed to prove his point that abolishing welfare would dramatically increase the crime rate, and has failed you say he doesn't need to, meaning that he accepts the idea he must prove abolishing welfare would dramatically increase crime, and he has failed to do so so this contention falls however if that is not sufficient. I would like to point out my Con has said nothing about about my source that there was higher crime in years where there was higher TANF benefits and less when fewer people received TANF, and he tries to dismiss my Utah/California statistic as irrelevant. So Utah has less crime than 11 out of the top 15 welfare states in the nation, and as my opponent pointed out the other 4 states can be attributed to things besides welfares[1][2] D1: I will answer this more fully in my D1b response but I would just like to point something out Con said "There is also an idea that justice is fairness." Let me ask this is it fair to take from one who has worked and earned and then give it to one who has not worked and earned it? D1a: "They do consent (as a collective) to taxes and welfare spending." I never consented to welfare spending, however my opponent seems to be trying to say that the collective will overrides the rights of the majority. This cannot be considered a valid argument as the resolution says the US. The US was founded by the Declaration of Independence and is governed by the Constitution, the founders of this nation which wrote both documents believed that all men had inalienable rights, to life liberty and property*, the definition of inalienable is: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"[3] This means no person but you can choose to forfeit this rights you do not have the right to take these from others. So regardless of how unjust or how inequivalent to robbery it may seem to my opponent welfare is the same as robbery (at least within the confines of this debate) and therefore my point still stands. D1b: br17 seems to be saying that collective consensus is what creates morality and that the government should legislate morality. If this is true then everything Hitler did was completely right and moral for he had over a 90% approval rating with most of the German people, thus by br17's definition of morality all things that people think are right are right, so killing millions of people is okay, robbing is okay, killing your daughter because she back talked you is a okay according to the morality of my opponent D2a: My opponent says that welfare is not a large part of the budget and says there are other things we could cut. I agree there are other things we could cut however welfare should also be cut as 1/6 of all money the government makes goes to just TANF, that seems to me maybe scaling that back a bit would help the deficit D2b: My opponent says nothing against what I said in this point, he only says that is not what he was trying to prove. Regardless of what you were trying to prove you still did prove or more accurately disprove your first and third contentions So in summary what has happened in this debate is: CC1(Con's Contention 1) :It helps children TANF has been proven not to aid children as much as thought and that all necessities of life are provided by other programs CC2:It is in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and Universal Decree of Human Rights My second contention proved that it is contrary to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which supersedes the authority of the Universal Decree of Human Rights CC3:It would dramatically increase crime My opponent has dropped this contention and been unable to prove it would dramatically increase crime and I have provided many facts to indicate otherwise PC1: It is unjust and illegal My opponent has tried to prove this point by using moralities and justices outside the resolution and debate PC2a:It is expensive Con has said that there are other areas that could be cut but has failed to effectively prove that it is not a large part of the income of the federal government PC2b: In my opponent's rebuttal to this point he basically admitted that his first and third contention are invalid So in summary My opponent has dropped his 1st and 3rd contentions He has provided little defense of his 2nd My important contentions have persevered through and proven his to be incorrect [1]http://www.disastercenter.com... [2]http://www.cnbc.com... [3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Thank you again for this excellent debate *virtual handshake*