Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Now I suppose a general description of the 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
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 3 days each to post.
“During the 20 years before the War on Poverty [President Johnson’s attempt to pay America out of poverty] was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged.”
There are around 1 billion people in the world who live with less than 1 dollar per day. More than half of the world population lives with less than 10 dollars a day.
- Extreme inequality is out of control. Hundreds of millions of people are living in extreme poverty while huge rewards go to those at the very top. There are more billionaires than ever before, and their fortunes have grown to record levels. Meanwhile, the world’s poorest got even poorer.Many governments are fueling this inequality crisis. They are massively under taxing corporations and wealthy individuals, yet underfunding vital public services like healthcare and education.These policies hit the poor hardest. The human costs are devastating, with women and girls suffering the most. Despite their huge contribution to our societies through unpaid care work, they are among those who benefit the least from today's economic system.
- THE WORLD’S RICHEST 1% HAVE MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH WEALTH AS 6.9 BILLION PEOPLE.
- ALMOST HALF OF HUMANITY IS LIVING ON LESS THAN $5.50 A DAY.
- ONLY 4 CENTS IN EVERY DOLLAR OF TAX REVENUE COMES FROM TAXES ON WEALTH.
- THE SUPER-RICH AVOID AS MUCH AS 30 PERCENT OF THEIR TAX LIABILITY.
- TODAY 258 MILLION CHILDREN – 1 OUT OF EVERY 5 – WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO TO SCHOOL.
- FOR EVERY 100 BOYS OF PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE WHO ARE OUT OF SCHOOL, 121 GIRLS ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION.
- EVERY DAY 10,000 PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY LACK ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE.
- EACH YEAR, 100 MILLION PEOPLE ARE FORCED INTO EXTREME POVERTY DUE TO HEALTHCARE COSTS.
It is good that Rational madman and I agree that theindividual is the key value of this debate. Thus who ever upholds theindividual best in this debate should prove the stronger side.
Rational madman starts out by pointing out the United Statesis among the richest nations in the world and that most of the world is farpoorer in comparison. This I would certainly agree with, but I want to pointout that this degree of prosperity came about in western societies because they uniquelyvalued the individual above government, culminating into freedom and innovation. Furthermore, the poorest countries tendto be the ones that exert greater control. The collapsed Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela,North Korea, and China come to mind.
“It's extremely easy to sit there and say that individualsmatter and that the 'evil state' is stealing from them via taxation but let'snot forget that your money is only worth anything because others in societygive it that value.”
True, everyone hates taxes. My argument is that taxes shouldbe kept as low as possible in order to uphold the centuries long understanding thatwe know best what to do with our money. All government benefits do is decidefor you what you need, and take your money to pay for it.
Rational Madman then argues that government benefits are simplya benefit to the poor and a hindrance to the rich. While it may be easy toclassify better off people as evil or less deserving, I think it is wrong to suckon success of another because you are not him. But even if you insist on demonizingthe rich and forcing them to pay, you still do not remove the problem of takingover people’s lives, which is what relying on the government does for people(See my former post).
Another point made was that Government benefits benefit themajority of people. This is simply not true. According to the census only 22%of Americans even participate in government benefits on a monthly basis. (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html)Still even if this was possible, you would still be degrading people to the status of aleach as I pointed out in my first post. Why should they achieve anything at all if they are rocked to sleep in the government cradle? Thisis exactly why government benefits have failed at dropping poverty-Theirintended goal in the first place.
I also want to turn this point about the rich’srelationship with the government. I think that the rich actually do better withgovernment benefits, because it keeps people below the poverty line and unableto compete in the rich’s domain. Image that the rich are the ones who haveclimbed a ladder (The great ladder of success) and the poor are the ones given money to stay at the bottom. Government is always the favorite benefactor of the rich, so isgiving more power through government benefits a good idea? Certainly not.
Finally, Rational Madman asks us to appreciate the fact thatthose of us better off may fall into harsh times and find ourselves in need ofthe safety net government benefits provide. However, no amount of government safetynet can save you. This is because the very same money you turned in earlier isthe very money given back, minus the amount lost to bureaucracy, and you areleft off no better than if you had kept your money in the first place.
“It is an illusion based on cynicism towards the poor, thatleads one to think that 'giving to the poor' ruins economies.”
We are in agreement this this is wrong, but this is not whatwe are talking about. The problem is not whether we should help the poor, butrather who should do it. I think because we agreed that the individual is most important, we shouldalso agree that the individual should not be prevented from his own help to thepoor.
Secrets to success – NorwayThe HDI criteria are designed to be broad enough to be inclusive of countries’ social, political and economic diversity while being indicative of a country’s quality of life. With the exceptions of 2007 and 2008, Norway has topped the HDI chart in every year since 2001. The UN also regards Norway as ranking high in its implementation of the SDGs. So why has it been so successful?Norwegians have a relatively high life expectancy of 81.7 years – one of the highest in the world. This is in part due to Norway’s accessible and affordable public healthcare system. Norwegians spend an average of 17.7 years in school – a measurement reflecting on levels of knowledge as well as freedom of choice, both of which indicate a high level of human development.It is true that at US$67,614, Norway’s GNI per capita is the seventh-highest in the world: Norwegians have a lot of purchasing power, which is likely to translate into a high potential for choice. However, this alone is not sufficient to explain Norway’s performance. Strong institutions and a holistic and capability-based approach to development also play a significant role.For instance, Norway ranks first on the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), first published in UNDP’s 2016 Human Development Report, which compares country’s HDI rankings to their levels of inequality. The IHDI is sensitive to the level of human development lost when inequality is high, allowing for a more complex understanding of the relationship between development and welfare distribution.When we talk about what makes a country a success or failure with respect to the SDGs, GDP simply does not reflect the progress of human development. Though the HDI may not fully capture all the complexity of the 17 SDGs and 169 targets, it is not realistic to expect any index that accommodates the diversity of all countries’ development to do so. Rather, the HDI can be used as an easy and more accurate indicator of progress as it considers factors that serve as valuable forecasts of quality of life.