Instigator / Con
14
1498
rating
8
debates
43.75%
won
Topic

Government Benefits

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
14
1497
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Description
~ 1,837 / 5,000

Now I suppose a general description of the rules.

Rules:
(1.) BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)
(2.) Sources are NOT everything. (Something that is also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions that are unable to be defended by mere facts)
(3.) Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks, ...etc)

In this debate I will be defending the side that government benefits are a bad idea to say the least. To clarify what “government benefits” are, I have used the government term found at ( https://www.usa.gov/benefits ) To sum it up, it comprises of all of the supplemental subsidies our government gives out including Food, Healthcare, Housing, and Financial Assistance.

I would like to weigh this debate based on two main values:
1. Purpose of our Government
2. Freedom
My opponent may use other Weighing Mechanisms, but I request a debate of the WM should this be the case.

Here is a clarification of the burdens:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For side Pro (For Government Benefits): To support (build evidence on) and defend Government Benefits.
For side Con (Against Government Benefits): To support (build evidence on) and defend against Government Benefits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will have three rounds and 1 week each to post.

To Truth!
-logicae

Added:
--> @logicae

It appears by logicae's argument in round 1 that the purpose of FICA taxes are not acknowledged in the argument, but are noted on every paystub produced by every employer to its employees. By the argument, we are to understand that the government merely spends money to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the tune of $2.3 trillion, and, apparently, that money comes out of our pockets for everybody. Nope. Re-enter FICA taxes. FICA taxes are withdrawn from every employee, and matched dollar for dollar for each employee by the employer. And each dollar I paid in FICA while working [now retired] was earmarked FOR ME. FICA started as MY MONEY [plus the contribution of my employers], and continues to be MY MONEY, not yours, or anyone else's. This is NOT a socialist agenda, as I suspect logicae believes, nor is it even a welfare expenditure. The other $645B logicae argues is up for discussion, but the $2.3T is not party to "welfare" benefits because they are not shared from one big pot.

Added:
Instigator
--> @Ragnar

Hello Ragnar! Glad to see his majesty in my humble dwelling :p.

To be honest I do not care much for voting, but values really do matter in debate because they determine the mindset or overall goal of the debate. For example I could say that life is the most important value we could hold, but if I told you that justifies wrapping everyone in bubble wrap and locking us in cages to protect that life...well you might point out that life is not the only thing valuable needed to be considered. This is where other values come in. (such as liberty for this example) Sometimes our focus is in the wrong place and I think this is exactly the case with Government Benefits.

Also to further clarify the military and other subsidies (such as farm subsidies) are not listed for this debate in the description, so I guess I dodge that bullet XD.

To Truth!
-logicae

Added:
--> @logicae

Select Winner might be better if you want to decrease the impact of sources.

As a voter, I doubt I will see any reason to disregard the two weighing values.

I suspect this will come down to the aggregate AKA "on balance." Some benefits would be insane to throw out (GI benefits as an example), others are insane to continue (milk subsidies as an example).