Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5156

Social welfare should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you for joining this debate. 

It of course is clear that there needs to be a basic set of social security for people that are unable to work; and this system should not be changed. In modern day, a problem which can often be seen is the refusal of people to work. 
A society needs to maintain good standards; and also needs to be able to support people who desperately need support; with people who have health problems which prohibit them from working a job, people who want to go in rent and people working low-paid jobs. 
This money is instead used to help people who do not contribute to society in any meaningful ways. 
The government pays for these people's entire lives: from food, housing and electricity to even including a monthly allowance. 
If such benefits are given to people without any justification or them having to do anything for such benefits, they will be severely abused. 
People who are in general lazy and have no willingness to work a job get paid to sit at home and do nothing. 
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/where-are-the-missing-workers/ states that there are 1.4 million workers in America missing, many of them in low-paid jobs. 
At the same time, 3.55% of people who would be able to work do not work and recieve benefits like social housing from their government. 
When looking at countries where the social security net is even higher, like my home country Germany, it can be seen that there is a major amount of people who do not work a single day in their life, but instead will spend their entire life on social benefits; and there is no action trying to combat this, while at the same time some parts of the country are greatly short-staffed.
At the same time, if there is more demand for workers than there is supply, a basic economic rule comes into play - Supply and Demand. If there are more jobs open than people willing to work, the wages for workers need to be adjusted upwards. The company's profit margin gets smaller and smaller and therefore they need to make their products more expensive to survive. 
In conlusion, it is fair to say that social welfare is one of the reasons why inflation is getting more and more in such a world; and therefore harming people who are working in low-paid jobs. 


Con
#2
Social welfare should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Absolute minimum is 0.


It of course is clear that there needs to be a basic set of social security for people that are unable to work; and this system should not be changed.
You conceded the debate fast. So bye.

Round 2
Pro
#3
Absolute minimum is not 0 , absolute minimum is to keep people who do not work alive, while not providing them with any extra benefits other than that. Is the absolute minimum of a size or weight of. a human being 0? No.
The absolute minimum does not always have to be 0.

Con
#4
Absolute minimum is not 0 , absolute minimum is to keep people who do not work alive, while not providing them with any extra benefits other than that. 
No, sorry, thats not what the definition in any dictionary says.

But lets have a different debate. How do you feel about people eating dogs in China?
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
Eh 
Round 4
Pro
#7
Forfeited
Con
#8
Fine.