Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

Resolved: The United States should not implement a Universal Basic Income.

I concur with the resolution that the U.S. ought not to provide a Universal Basic Income (UBI). My counter-proposal is that the U.S. should offer a basic income, with certain exclusions for felons, violent criminals, individuals on the FBI watchlist, and legal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than a decade. This counter-proposal addresses all the positive outcomes of UBI, such as economic parity, gender equality, drug addiction reduction, healthcare access, and educational improvement. However, it is not advocating for a true UBI since it imposes conditions, which contradicts the universal and unconditional nature of UBI.

I align with the opponent's Kantian Social Contract framework but argue that it is better upheld by my counter-proposal as it doesn't endorse mass immigration or crime. Instead of generic consistency, we should evaluate ethical actions through consequentialism. I solve all the positive outcomes of UBI and support the framework better.

I fulfill the opponent's requirement to demonstrate that a basic income wouldn't benefit the average American, while the resolution is based on UBI. The opponent must prove how UBI would be more advantageous for the average American compared to a basic income without universality.

Contention 1: Crime and Terror
Under the counter-proposal, basic income is not provided to violent criminals and felons. Consider the scenario where criminal groups like the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos receive, hypothetically, $10,000 annually per member. For a smaller gang like Tango Blast, with 19,000 members, the U.S. would indirectly fund the group with $190,000,000 per year. The consequence is an escalation in crime, particularly for transnational organized crime groups. If terrorists receive funds, they could acquire more sophisticated weapons, potentially leading to military-grade hardware through the black market. The outcome could be catastrophic, as seen in the Orlando Massacre, if the perpetrator had access to an M-16, grenades, or similar weapons.

Contention 2: Welfare Magnets
UBI should be provided to everyone without discrimination. If a welfare state is created, where people receive a basic income merely for existing, it would be seen as utopian. Everyone would want to join this welfare

Yes, true, but there is the problem you have too little resource for it to give the same amount to everyone else in your argument you stated if we have 10 fishermen that catch 4 fish each but what about persons that don't give something directly back, but they are needed like the persons working in logistics (truck driver, a captain of a ship and go on) or scientist, teachers, soldiers they are needed, but they don't contribute to the pool of recourses only consuming it so you will have a shortage of food because of it (and you need those people for a working country) now about the second part: immigration could work but then the living standard need to be higher than in other countries in depends: that would create a very bloody war where most likely the rebels would lose or you must send our troops for our glorious nation of Arstotzka to support them and as last propaganda yes that could work but again your living standards needs to be better than the other country to have a efect

I appreciate the well thought-out and organized answer, but I'm afraid nearly all of it is rather inapplicable, and irrelevant. This is a philosophical forum, to my knowledge, and this is to be a philosophical conversation. The debate I hoped for was one regarding the moral and ethical implications. Perhaps I worded the resolved incorrectly. The smartest, most astute thing you said was, "Instead, this debate is about what ought to ideally, theoretically happen. While I believe that my opponent has also admitted this, I hope explicitly stating it as such helps for clarity during the debate." Indeed, this is an "ought" discussion. In no reasonable realm should this debate need include the "proving" of the purpose of government, origin of rights, or resolve any of your hypotheticals. Additionally, nearly all of the hypothetical provided by negative are matters of opinion. To "prove" any of them would be to engage in an entirely separate debate where the thesis on said hypothetical becomes what has been resolved and then debate is engaged in on that topic.

its not only hunger if we are spending are welfare on food how will we pay the bills and if we caint will be put out on the streets i dont agree with you that it should be gone if you can give me one reason why welfare should be abbolished maybe id agree

This debate has been full of miscommunication. The first and most obvious case was in the very titling of this debate; my opponent made a mistake by not saying we would be debating the probability of implementation. Then, despite this obvious error, he continued not to listen to me pointing this out, and simply asks why I don't want to debate that. Well, the answer is obvious: we never agreed to debate if a plan COULD be implemented, so why should I have to? But I have spoken on this issue enough already. Just because my opponent can't understand this doesn't mean the people reading this debate won't. Obviously my opponent isn't the only one who made mistakes. I cited the CEA study which was not SPECIFICALLY about Universal Healthcare (although the principles apply). However, my opponent keeps saying that I made a mistake and should not have cited it (which is more or less true), yet still continually points to that study throughout the debate. It should go without saying that this doesn't make much sense. These kinds of logical fallacies have run rampant in this debate, and I think we can both agree that this was not as productive a debate as we hoped. Here I will refute my opponent's final arguments:Most of what I say in the following paragraphs I have already stated, but as my opponent seems to have missed these points, I will restate them here for his benefit. My opponent says that I asked him to argue more about implementing this plan. This is simply not true. In round three I said I would like him to provide evidence as to why Universal Healthcare would be impossible as "he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up." My opponent tried, but his argument of course fell flat. And we have already argued enough about the topic of this debate; it should be obvious to people who is right as soon as they read the title.Not to get too deep into proper word usage, but my opponent seems to think his usage of "should" is justified just because this is a political debate. That just doesn't make sense. Again, you are confusing the words "should" and "could". My opponent should sit down with a dictionary and review his statements (if he refuses to just use common sense) (1). I never said I didn't read my own source; that is preposterous. My opponent really needs to read everything he quotes more carefully. In the quote he provided you can see that I did not say what my opponent thinks. But the fact that my opponent is still bringing up my source from round 2 in the final round should tell you something: my opponent has run out of valid arguments and has sunk to name calling. As for how much Universal Healthcare would slow the growth of healthcare costs (again, my opponent uses the CEA study as a crutch), the obvious answer would be almost 100%. The reason why is because nobody would directly have to pay for their own healthcare anymore. Of course this wouldn't be completely accurate because money would still be relocated from other areas of spending, but insurance would no longer have the leverage to charge nearly as much as they do now. Logically, a 1.5% decrease is easily achievable. And I already admitted that the CEA study shouldn't have been brought into this. That is more proof that my opponent doesn't read my arguments. About my opponent's plan:First of all, my opponent says he doesn't even support his own plan. If this is true, than he shouldn't have provided that plan in the first place, as both of us agree it is a horrible idea!And I have stated why it is worse, many times, in round 4. It is in no way better than Universal Healthcare. Anyone can see why my opponent's plan is bad. To recap, it denies coverage to many people, it forces people to pay extra taxes and get nothing in return, it is full of budgetary problems and couldn't be paid for the way it was outlined, and it is much more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare.I exposed many additional problems with my opponent's plan in Round 4. The fact is that in your plan, you are STILL forcing people to pay taxes for the healthcare for the poor, without getting anything back. And if they opt out, which seems likely, than your plan can't be paid for because there's no money going into it.Note on my opponent's closing statement: I don't want to argue about the implementation of this plan because that's not what we agreed to argue about, not because I can't. Would you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not the tooth fairy is real? Of course not, because that isn't what this debate is supposed to be about. Again, my opponent keeps saying that I have not addressed all of his arguments, but doesn't point out what he wants me to address. I believe I have addressed all of his points, and he is simply trying to distract from the overall debate. If he really wanted me to address specific points, he should clarify which ones. Closing statements:Universal Healthcare would increase the health, happiness, and lifespan of Americans. It would boost our economy, and encourage small businesses with the freedom to choose whatever career you want (without worrying about coverage benefits), helping to get money flowing. Healthcare should ethically be provided for everyone because of how essential it is. Almost every other major western country in the world has provided healthcare for all their citizens. Implementing Universal Healthcare would be very beneficial and have very few or no downsides, as my arguments throughout this debate prove.My opponent has continuously dragged this debate off topic and made false statements, provided little to no evidence, and doesn't even know what we are supposed to debate about. He has said virtually nothing about why implementing Universal Healthcare would be bad, only saying it would be unlikely. Please look at this, and decide for yourself who had the better argument. I look forward to debating my opponent again, and thank you to everyone who read through this.Vote for pro! (1) http://www.dictionary.com...

For the sake of making it easier to read, I'll address your points with my rebuttal underneath each claim you stated in your last argument.I mean this in the nicest way, but I don't believe you have even looked up what food security even is."Governments should not be responsible to provide food for their citizens"This is irrelevant to the debate topic. Food Security is the state of having reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food. This has nothing to do with providing direct aid for citizens. "In response to Pros argument that Governments are "Morally obligated" to provide their citizens with food is like saying that you should always give the seagulls bread on the beach that are taking dives for your food."You appear to try to be making an argument against a claim that was never brought up on my side. The argument on my side is that governments should be "Morally Obligated to provide fundamental Food Security." You seemed to have twisted my words, using an analogy of giving seagulls bread to a statement you gave about "governments being "morally obligated to provide their citizens with food.'" This is besides the point of the debate, as it is only to debate about the availability of food to be morally obligated by the government."Point 1: By the government providing food for everyone in need of it people will learn to live off of that without trying to earn it for themselves...People need to learn to live without the government providing everything for them. In conclusion if you learn to live off the government, you will be less likely to improve your situation."No need to adress first part of your point-appears irrelevant to the true topic. Are you trying to say the government simply shouldn't have a role in ensuring food is available to it's citizens? If so, then assume all government programs like school lunches, food stamps, meals on wheels, and farming regulations were just stopped. No government regulated Imports or Exports on foods since the government supposedly shouldn't be allowed to insure food security. If you honestly believe food security shouldn't be obligated by the government, then please enjoy a society where agrigultral terriorism will soar, a rise in extreme poverty conditions due to minimum wage workers having no access to foods, and a rise of extreme obeisety and risk of heart attack due to the ill-regulations of food processing with cheap ingredients, and possibly illegal ones. This are just a few of the extreme issue we would face without government handled food security, so convince me otherwise."Point 2: Just in America there are approximately 610,000 homeless people. On average it costs $294 to feed 1 person per month. So, if the government provide food for every homeless person in America it would cost over 2.1 billion dollars per year! Also, the amount would never decrease because (see first point) they would get used to the situation they are in instead of try and improve."Okay, again. this point is irrelevant to the topic of FOOD SECURITY. I don't want to begin on another topic about spending, considering this is still not the point of the debate, but if you truly think that spending over 2.1 billion dollars is "too much" to insure every person in America can actually eat, then wouldn't you agree maybe cut ending $610.096 BILLION DOLLARS ON MILITARY would be perfectly fine to make sure every person can sleep a little better,especially since the next 10 countries that spend less than us combined are all allies? And okay, so the homeless rely on food. This isn't going to discourage them from getting jobs, that's just ignorant. THEY ARE STILL HOMELESS. Do you personally just believe every homeless person is just going to STOP looking for a job now that they are living off minimal food requirements? And what makes you think homeless people actually could even GET a job as of today? Isn't that why they are homeless, because they can't GET a job? This statement is just ignorant. "In closing no one should have to be hungry but the government should not have to pay to feed everyone. It would be too expensive and also would not motivate people to get jobs but discourage them from trying to get jobs because they don't need them to live."So 2.1 Billion is too expensive to make sure every human in America can make ends meet off LIFE, but god forbid anyone cut something from are 610.096 Billion dollars in spending. and your argument about homeless people basically going to stop looking for jobs because they can make minimum eating isn't even close to even arbitrary. Your entire argument stands invalid.

You want my opinion on National Healthcare, you got it. Here are my opinions about the healthcare industry. (I'm assuming we're basically talking here about our beliefs and then go on to prove why either of our beliefs are illogical?) Mmkay. My beliefs: There's a sick person. There's a doctor. Sick person. Doctor. Sick person pay doctor. Doctor cure sick person. American system: There's a sick person. There's a doctor. There's a middleman. Called the Healthcare Industry. Sick person. Healthcare Industry. Doctor. Sick person pay 100 dollars to Healthcare Industry. Healthcare Industry pays 100-X dollars to doctor. Doctor cure sick person. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER why there needs to be a middleman between the sick person and the doctor. If it was possible, I'd just advocate that there is a direct link between doctors and patients, but nowadays, with all the new equipment, methods, etc etc etc, there needs to be someone that pays for it. I think that it's better that the government provides it, because all citizens are due health, and because its a better alternative to the system we have now. The system we have now basically spews propaganda to the people about how the healthcare industry cares about the people living around, when clearly, they pay the doctors and they pay their employees bonuses every time they exclude someone. I believe that is immoral. But regardless of morality or immorality, I simply do not see why we NEED a middleman. Again, the only justification is that there needs to be a money flow, and I say that since individuals (generally) don't have that sort of money, the government ought to pay for it. Some people bring up arguments that national HC means big taxes blah blah blah but when I hear this, I basically believe that it's a fallacious argument and they don't really think about what they're talking about. Generally speaking, people acknowledge that humans are worth something, and we shouldn't discriminate, dehumanize, exclude or enslave other people. However when people say that we can't afford a tax increase because the economy can't take it, they're basically saying that the cash flow of the world is more important than the lives of several million citizens. And even if that's not true, I don't see how tax increases will crash the stock market. Then again, I haven't taken Econ yet. I dunno. I just think that providing national healthcare is a just and moral thing to do.

Second round is rebuttals and conclusion. Here's my stand, all you have to do is argue against it: I believe that the current welfare system should be abolished. It's not helping anyone, not the poor, not the taxpayers and not society. The taxpayers are stuck picking up the tab for a flawed system. Society's suffers in that our churches, schools, parks, and other programs are shoved to the side and ignored. Instead of the money to improve these things, it's tossed to the welfare system so more and more people can be supported. And the poor are trapped because the system pays them more than they can get working a forty (or more) week at minimum wage. Basically the American welfare system is a complete failure. It provides free money to the poor and gives absolutely no incentive to be free of it. Worse yet, it seeds future generations to live this way as well. The current welfare system is set up so that its paying those on it more than that of someone working. Thirty-five states pay above the current minimum wage. Thirteen states pay over what would average out to $15 an hour. That's nearly $8 over minimum wage. There are even a few states that pay nearly $44,000, which is equal to a teachers salary. Where's the incentive to get off the system? There isn't one. Worse yet, this system is teaching the children that furthering their education, getting a job and working hard isn't necessary, not when they can not work and get paid. Why work when you don't have to? That's the mind set of the children growing up on welfare have begun to adapt. Currently there are about 110,000,000 Americans on welfare. That's about 36% of the population and doesn't include those that are receiving food stamps or unemployment. If these are added the total percentage comes up to about 49. That's half (or close enough) of the American people. Around 131 billion dollars is given to the welfare system annually and again, this amount doesn't include food stamps or unemployment. Imagine what could be accomplished with that amount of money. Here are a few more numbers: The average time spent on AFCD (Aid to Families w/ Dependent Children) Less than 7mth - 19% 7mth - 12mth - 15.2% 1 - 2 years - 19.3% 2 - 5 years - 26.9% Over 5 years - 19.6 True the stats state that families do eventually get off welfare is there but what isn't in the above numbers are the numbers of those that return. 22% of those who get off welfare return and of that number, about 13% are not returning because of a loss of a job but only because they complied with the rules and are back to receiving the benefits. What does this say about America? My opinion, the people of this country have become lazy and expectant. There's no reason to earn money when the government is willing to give it away as long as you meet the guidelines they set forth. Guidelines that help the non-working members of society and not those that work hard and could actually use a little extra assistance. What's worse is that people are learning to expect the welfare system to give them money. Let's get America back to the hardworking, dreams come true country it's known for and do away with a system that keeps the poor, poor.

First of all, thank you for accepting this debate and I was actually referring to the UK welfare state but I suppose the debate can be applied to both nations. Now, I agree with some of these points that there aren't many alternatives but I believe as a nation if we were more collective then the welfare state could be adjusted. The main problem I see in the welfare state is that there isn't as thorough background search of the person applying for it as maybe there should be. This could easily be set up by looking at the census of everyone and medical history, wage etc. and applying data to a computer system and actually looking to see if some people aren't as in desperate need as some. I believe varying the amount of money given to these people is important as an old person isn't as in need of money than someone who has a life threatening disease e.g. cystic fibrosis. This would be the easiest alternative to ask of the government but going back to the idea of more voluntary work I think a reward scheme could be set up for doing a certain amount of voluntary work. For example "100 or $100 for 10 hours of service to the community. This would be cheaper than the current welfare state is and it would give people the incentive to give something back to their community. Welfare state can encourage people to not get better jobs who may be in school and barely able to pay the bills, even if they work. They may make just enough money to qualify for benefits, but not enough money to fully support themselves unless they live in a bad area. People apply for benefits if they are unemployed but surely even in this day and age getting a job would be a more efficient way of earning money and it is problems like this that make the welfare state so evasive. My final reason about how the welfare state is unreliable is it is people who work hard to make a living that are effectively paying for some people to not bother getting a job and get money given to them and them not earning it. These people are not playing their part to help boost the economy which isn't helping the UK out at all. In conclusion I will fire back a different question; Do the negatives outweigh the positives? And frankly I don't believe they do. The welfare state was better when it was first introduced in 1906 but I feel it has taken us a significant way forward but it is old and can no longer lead us in the right direction, it too needs a pension after its retirement.

I would like to remind Pro that this is not a debate on supply-side economics per se, but strictly on a comment that he made in our last debate: that we should promote policies that place the vast majority of money into the hands of wealthy people, because that produces the best economic benefit. This is not a debate on inflation or regulation, per se, those I can see how those topics may make their way into our discussion. Before I move into countering the resolution at hand, I would like to point out the factual inaccuracies in Pro's initial arguments. One, he claims that "if you give a bunch of poor people money all you will see is inflation, not real growth. That is why the US has been seeing high inflation since the war on poverty." This comment is inaccurate. In fact, the current inflation rate is about 1.6 percent [1]. This rate is below the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent [2]. However, even now the Federal Reserve has began tapering asset purchases, reducing them by $10 billion per month [3] in light of an improving economy. Moreover, with interest rates in the zero lower bound, we are in a situation comparable to Japan [4]: it isn't possible to reduce interest rates any further and receive from that a stimulative effect, and even under current policy, it is extremely difficult to inflate because banks are not loaning, investors are holding cash, et al. We're in this situation right now [5], so may the records show that runaway inflation is not a looming threat. The fundamental distinction that I would like to highlight is that inflation is an increase in prices relative to a base year [6], not an increase in the monetary base. It is possible for the monetary base to increase, but inflation to stay low and stable, as it has [7]. The next comment from my opponent that I would like to disprove is his notion that giving poor people money will not generate real growth. First, we have not been doing this. Has Pro forgotten about 1996 welfare reform passed by Bill Clinton, which included harsh work requirements, limits on the amount of years beneficiaries could be on the program, and allowed states to initiate "family caps" that would significantly harm mothers [8]? Although poverty fell during Clinton's term, largely as a result of a growing economy and growing labor force participation rate, extreme poverty -- defined as households living on $2 per person per day -- grew [9]. Here's an illustration from this same paper: Next, is my opponent forgetting about the attacks on social programs under Ronald Reagan's term -- including efforts to define ketchup as a vegetable in order to cut school lunch programs [10]? How about Republican efforts to cut food stamps recently? They've made several attempts to this end, at one point demanding a 5 percent cut in the farm bill legislation [11], while at the same time supporting subsidies to affluent corporate farmers? How about the sequester started which booted 57,000 children off Head Start [12]? My point is that it is a lie that the federal government has simply been throwing money at anti-poverty programs. To the contrary, the federal government subsidies affluent farmers, the Big Five oil companies, and affluent investors, such as Mitt Romney, who was able to pay about 14% of his income in taxes on millions of dollars in income. The system is inherently rigged in such a way that it allows the truly affluent -- many of whom made it there themselves, but still some by a rigged system -- to avoid taxation, whether it be by offshore tax havens or inordinate tax breaks, and slams the poor and those struggling to make ends meet. But let's move back to the premise of our last debate that you challenged me to. For those who don't know, the debate was on the impact of Reaganomics over the past 30 years [13]. My opponent chose the title, which meant that he accepts that the core principles of Reaganomics [14] -- lower taxes, less regulation, lower inflation, less spending on social programs, more spending on the military -- have been policy for this period of time. And to a large extent they have, as I have just shown you. Therefore, we have a case study on whether these policies of ensuring that the very rich do well, with the aim that their wealth will "trickle down" have been effective. Here are our results: 1. Productivity has nearly doubled, while wages have stagnated and, since the Great Recession, fallen. Here's a chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [15]: 2. Tax rates are near historic lows for affluent people -- thus we have in fact had policies where the rich had most of the money -- yet people are still very poorly-off [16] -- largely because of the ability to ship jobs overseas to avoid taxes, or to hide one's money in offshore bank accounts: 3. While median wages have fallen, 95% of the gains since the recovery have gone to the top 1 percent [17]. 4. Beginning around the late 1970s -- and from thereon spiraling out of control after Ronald Reagan took office -- distribution of income thoroughly refutes trickle-down. Let's look at another graph from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality [18]: What we learn from this graph is that the top 20% of income earners have done better, while the bottom 60% have not. It demonstrates that we already have the system that Pro has been advocating, and yet it has not made everyone better off. Let me now offer my alternative. Following WWII, we had tax rates between 70 and 91% [19], including in the 1950s under Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, and yet the economy boomed--growing 37% [20], which can be attributed to investments in the Interstate Highway, science and technology, and the G.I. Bill. The point that I'm going to introduce now, and expound on later, is that my opponent's gravest misconception is not in his world view. I have no doubt that he wants most people to prosper and views his proposed economic system as the most utilitarian. However, he is overvaluing supply and underestimating demand. Corporations and high-income individuals are not suffering from a lack of productivity, and thus due not need tax cuts. Rather, they are suffering from a lack of demand for their goods and services. We know that because studies, such as this one from the EPI that I encourage you to read [21], tell us that the issue is lack of sales, not lack of "regulatory certainty." Even business surveys (chart shown below), the Wall Street Journal, Ben Bernanke, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Bruce Bartlett agree with this view [22]. As for the business surveys, here is the chart I spoke of [23]: Here's another one [24]: And I have another one, this one from the National Federation of Independent Businesses [25]: And I'm out of characters. Back to you, Pro. 1. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com... 2. http://www.federalreserve.gov... 3. http://money.cnn.com... 4. http://www.princeton.edu... 5. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... 6. http://www.investopedia.com... 7. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... 8. http://usgovinfo.about.com... 9. http://www.npc.umich.edu... 10. http://abcnews.go.com... 11. http://www.slate.com... 12. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 13. http://www.debate.org... 14. http://www.investopedia.com... 15. http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com... 16. http://static5.businessinsider.com... 17. http://money.cnn.com... 18. http://www.stanford.edu... 19. http://www.salon.com... 20. http://www.shmoop.com... 21. http://www.epi.org... 22. http://mediamatters.org... 23. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org... 24. http://mediamatters.org... 25. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org...

I will be arguing against implementing universal health care in the United States given the current conditions. The first round will be acceptance. My opponent should be arguing that it may be a good idea to implement universal health care in the United States given current conditions.


Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

The concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a progressive social policy that's gaining traction globally, with over 15 countries currently conducting feasibility trials. This periodic, unconditional, and guaranteed payment to all citizens, regardless of income, is championed by scientists, politicians, and economists alike. The primary advantages of UBI include poverty eradication, potential economic stimulation, promotion of work, reduction in bureaucracy, enhancement of health and intelligence, and decrease in crime rates. It addresses the looming threat of job insecurity due to automation, as technology outpaces job creation, making industries more efficient with less need for human labor. UBI could end homelessness, hunger, and poverty by providing a basic living income. It might even pay for itself by boosting the economy, as increased spending by the poor leads to more demand and higher tax revenue. Unlike welfare, UBI doesn't discourage employment, allowing people to retain their benefits while working. It simplifies welfare systems, reduces health care strain, and fosters a smarter, more rational society by alleviating the stress of poverty. Moreover, by lifting society out of desperation, crime rates could significantly drop. UBI is not just a benevolent policy; it might be the only viable response to the threat of automation.

Thank you for proving to us that you didn't read the rules. Round 1 is acceptance from Con. My main argument will be that "Welfare Does More Harm Than Good" Let's get straight to it! Argument #1 Welfare gets taken advantage of. It's quite obvious that women continue to have children to receive welfare checks. Sadly, these checks get taken advantage of by not using the money for what it's actual purpose is for. If we cut the system entirely, imagine how many women would stop having children. They wouldn't continue having children because then that means they wouldn't be receiving more money. [1] What would happen to the poor if welfare were eliminated? Without the negative incentives created by the welfare state, fewer people would be poor. There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty. Studies suggest that women do make rational decisions about whether to have children, and thus a reduction in welfare benefits would reduce the likelihood of their becoming pregnant or having children out of wedlock. Another problem is that these receivers continuously apply for food stamps, though they don't actually need them. Allot of fraud goes on as well with people applying and selling food stamps to those who aren't on welfare. On February 15,2015 Brushton, New York, 30 people were arrested for eligibly selling food stamps. [2]NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cards in a manner that was against the law. All allegedly bought alcohol, received cash, and bought other items food stamp recipients are not allowed to buy using a food stamp card, known as the Electronic Benefits Card (EBT). Police charged all defendants with second degree criminal use of a public benefit card, petit larceny, and misuse of food stamps. Though most were released with an appearance ticket, one defendant was held for parole violations, reports WPTZ. Not only was the system being taken advantage of once more, but imaging how easily kids would be able to get alcohol as well. [3] This type of fraud, called trafficking according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, happens by exchanging food stamps for cash. Trafficking food stamps happens at an extreme “street exchange rate,” which can range anywhere from $.25 to $.50 per dollar, according to WSPA. This means that for every $1 in EBT benefits sold, the recipient gets $.50 to $.75 in cash. According to Addicting Info, the stigma about this type of welfare abuse or food stamp fraud is that it is unusually high because it is so easy to do. Resolution: Instead of providing food stamps, charities could help out tremendously. Many charities are willing to help the needy in any way they can. For instance, there are organizations that cook and provide food to the needy. Why don't we replace providing food stamps, and do it in a much safer way. All food stamp receiving families should be introduced to SNAP. [3] SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program integrity. So, not only will they be receiving food, they can also learn about how to make healthy choices and presume a healthy lifestyle. This is also a benefit for children growing up who had never been taught about healthy food decisions. Argument #2 [4] It is less efficient than private charity. Private, local charity is true charity: it is voluntary, and it is not subject to the bureaucratic filtering process. I have never heard the government or any of its programs praised for efficiency, except by the government and those who head the programs! There are many willing charities that are eager to help the needy in any way possible. Why not let them? [5] If you need help with paying your rent or bills, including your electric or heating bills, you can look into the following local and national charities and non-profit organizations. A number of other services may be provided by a charity, including free food, housing, basic needs such as clothing, and much more. Various programs and services are offered by charities, as noted below. Unfortunately the resources available from these organizations tends to be limited, and only a certain number of people can be assisted. This is mostly due to the high demand placed on the charities. Much of the aid is focused on people who are most at risk. This can include senior citizens, families with very young children, and the disabled. Even if a charity or non-profit can’t meet your needs, ask them for referrals. Or maybe they have a waiting list that you can sign up for. Just because this is limited doesn't mean it's a bad thing. They will help those who are in most need and are assuredly unable to sustain a proper lifestyle. Many of these systems wouldn't be taken advantage of because people are actually helping you out. They don't just give you money and say "Here you go, your monthly check, do whatever you please with it" Nope. These organizations are making sure you use this money wisely and effectively. Some of these organizations include: [4] Community Action Organizations are local public and/or non-profit groups that provide various types of assistance to those in need. They can help with heating and utility bills, provide job training, rent payments, and various other services. Episcopal Church - This is a national organization, but the services run by each local parish vary. The charity supports the vulnerable and families living in poverty. Volunteers can provide basic needs such as personal hygiene items, clothing, hot meals, or food. Some of the parishes of this charity may also have more extensive support, even involving health clinics held by volunteers or loans to use for car repairs. Continue with services from Episcopal Church. Non-profit credit counseling agencies operate in many cities and counties. These organizations will usually charge clients a small fee for their services. However, if your income is low enough, then the debt reduction and other financial services may be offered for free, as a charity type service. Find a listing of free or low cost non-profit credit counseling agencies. Note that these people are actually willing and happy to help those in need. Sources: [1] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org...... [2] http://www.inquisitr.com...... [3] http://www.fns.usda.gov...... [4] http://chalcedon.edu...... [5] http://www.needhelppayingbills.com......

1. Too many countries: It can be done one country at a time, over a period of 100 or 200 years. 2. The US and other countries don't have enough money: If done over a long period of time the money needed shouldn't overwhelm the nations doing the giving. 3. The US already tried that: What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was send soldiers. We didn't hire the Iraqis and Afghans to rebuild their infrastructure. Not as far as I know, anyway. 4. We Have No Right To Do That: So a nation doesn't have a right to help another nation on its feet? 5. Many Poor Countries Don't Have a Lot of Farmland: With today's technology, including fertilizers and stuff like that, I'm sure we could make that land arable. 6. The Program Relies on Idiotic Assumptions: It seems like if they have their own businesses, and if opportunity abounds, the people will indeed learn to support themselves. And we wouldn't simply be giving them aid. We would have them build their own infrastructure, and we'd be paying them. They'd eventually learn to help themselves, even after the US lets go of the strings. Summary: I think the program would work, if done properly.

I would like to remind Pro that this is not a debate on supply-side economics per se, but strictly on a comment that he made in our last debate: that we should promote policies that place the vast majority of money into the hands of wealthy people, because that produces the best economic benefit. This is not a debate on inflation or regulation, per se, those I can see how those topics may make their way into our discussion. Before I move into countering the resolution at hand, I would like to point out the factual inaccuracies in Pro's initial arguments. One, he claims that "if you give a bunch of poor people money all you will see is inflation, not real growth. That is why the US has been seeing high inflation since the war on poverty." This comment is inaccurate. In fact, the current inflation rate is about 1.6 percent [1]. This rate is below the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent [2]. However, even now the Federal Reserve has began tapering asset purchases, reducing them by $10 billion per month [3] in light of an improving economy. Moreover, with interest rates in the zero lower bound, we are in a situation comparable to Japan [4]: it isn't possible to reduce interest rates any further and receive from that a stimulative effect, and even under current policy, it is extremely difficult to inflate because banks are not loaning, investors are holding cash, et al. We're in this situation right now [5], so may the records show that runaway inflation is not a looming threat. The fundamental distinction that I would like to highlight is that inflation is an increase in prices relative to a base year [6], not an increase in the monetary base. It is possible for the monetary base to increase, but inflation to stay low and stable, as it has [7]. The next comment from my opponent that I would like to disprove is his notion that giving poor people money will not generate real growth. First, we have not been doing this. Has Pro forgotten about 1996 welfare reform passed by Bill Clinton, which included harsh work requirements, limits on the amount of years beneficiaries could be on the program, and allowed states to initiate "family caps" that would significantly harm mothers [8]? Although poverty fell during Clinton's term, largely as a result of a growing economy and growing labor force participation rate, extreme poverty -- defined as households living on $2 per person per day -- grew [9]. Here's an illustration from this same paper: Next, is my opponent forgetting about the attacks on social programs under Ronald Reagan's term -- including efforts to define ketchup as a vegetable in order to cut school lunch programs [10]? How about Republican efforts to cut food stamps recently? They've made several attempts to this end, at one point demanding a 5 percent cut in the farm bill legislation [11], while at the same time supporting subsidies to affluent corporate farmers? How about the sequester started which booted 57,000 children off Head Start [12]? My point is that it is a lie that the federal government has simply been throwing money at anti-poverty programs. To the contrary, the federal government subsidies affluent farmers, the Big Five oil companies, and affluent investors, such as Mitt Romney, who was able to pay about 14% of his income in taxes on millions of dollars in income. The system is inherently rigged in such a way that it allows the truly affluent -- many of whom made it there themselves, but still some by a rigged system -- to avoid taxation, whether it be by offshore tax havens or inordinate tax breaks, and slams the poor and those struggling to make ends meet. But let's move back to the premise of our last debate that you challenged me to. For those who don't know, the debate was on the impact of Reaganomics over the past 30 years [13]. My opponent chose the title, which meant that he accepts that the core principles of Reaganomics [14] -- lower taxes, less regulation, lower inflation, less spending on social programs, more spending on the military -- have been policy for this period of time. And to a large extent they have, as I have just shown you. Therefore, we have a case study on whether these policies of ensuring that the very rich do well, with the aim that their wealth will "trickle down" have been effective. Here are our results: 1. Productivity has nearly doubled, while wages have stagnated and, since the Great Recession, fallen. Here's a chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [15]: 2. Tax rates are near historic lows for affluent people -- thus we have in fact had policies where the rich had most of the money -- yet people are still very poorly-off [16] -- largely because of the ability to ship jobs overseas to avoid taxes, or to hide one's money in offshore bank accounts: 3. While median wages have fallen, 95% of the gains since the recovery have gone to the top 1 percent [17]. 4. Beginning around the late 1970s -- and from thereon spiraling out of control after Ronald Reagan took office -- distribution of income thoroughly refutes trickle-down. Let's look at another graph from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality [18]: What we learn from this graph is that the top 20% of income earners have done better, while the bottom 60% have not. It demonstrates that we already have the system that Pro has been advocating, and yet it has not made everyone better off. Let me now offer my alternative. Following WWII, we had tax rates between 70 and 91% [19], including in the 1950s under Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, and yet the economy boomed--growing 37% [20], which can be attributed to investments in the Interstate Highway, science and technology, and the G.I. Bill. The point that I'm going to introduce now, and expound on later, is that my opponent's gravest misconception is not in his world view. I have no doubt that he wants most people to prosper and views his proposed economic system as the most utilitarian. However, he is overvaluing supply and underestimating demand. Corporations and high-income individuals are not suffering from a lack of productivity, and thus due not need tax cuts. Rather, they are suffering from a lack of demand for their goods and services. We know that because studies, such as this one from the EPI that I encourage you to read [21], tell us that the issue is lack of sales, not lack of "regulatory certainty." Even business surveys (chart shown below), the Wall Street Journal, Ben Bernanke, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Bruce Bartlett agree with this view [22]. As for the business surveys, here is the chart I spoke of [23]: Here's another one [24]: And I have another one, this one from the National Federation of Independent Businesses [25]: And I'm out of characters. Back to you, Pro. 1. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com... 2. http://www.federalreserve.gov... 3. http://money.cnn.com... 4. http://www.princeton.edu... 5. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... 6. http://www.investopedia.com... 7. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... 8. http://usgovinfo.about.com... 9. http://www.npc.umich.edu... 10. http://abcnews.go.com... 11. http://www.slate.com... 12. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 13. http://www.debate.org... 14. http://www.investopedia.com... 15. http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com... 16. http://static5.businessinsider.com... 17. http://money.cnn.com... 18. http://www.stanford.edu... 19. http://www.salon.com... 20. http://www.shmoop.com... 21. http://www.epi.org... 22. http://mediamatters.org... 23. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org... 24. http://mediamatters.org... 25. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org...

Workers should be paid baed on performance, not affilliation with a company, , biological sex, and so on. Saying otherwise is pure socialism, and while I am a Berniecrat, I revile pure socialism for being too far left.

Hi there! Welcome to Debate.org, I can see this is your first debate. The law that you are proposing is unfair because if a person earns 10k a year, for that person to pay 2.5k in taxes is a lot of money and that person may have problems to buy food or to pay the doctor, but for a person who earns 10M, 2.5M is a much comfortable sacrifice inspire of paying more (he still can pay the doctor). From the point of view of the government, a flat tax that every one can pay may be insufficient to maintain itself, not that governments have the duty to preserve the happiness of their citizens by redistributing the wealth, making sure they don't suffer from hunger of illness, they can get education, etc. There is no doubt that the USA government is dysfunctional in many aspects, and this law is likely to make it even more dysfunctional by collecting less taxes and damaging the re-distribution. By the way, a flat tax means everyone pays the same no mater what is your income (but we will not debate about this). pd. I would prefer is you replay by making a youtube video.

In my argument, I'd like to lay out the multitudes of ways in which a Universal Health Care system, which we can see in countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan, and pretty much every other industrialized nation in the world, is superior to the health care system we have at this time or at any time before. C1: More people get more affordable coverageAs it stands right now, 12.9% of the United States' population is uninsured. [1] The main reason for this surprisingly high number? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "In 2013, 61% of uninsured adults said the main reason they were uninsured was because the cost was too high or because they had lost their job. " The simple fact is that people don't have the money to pay for the extremely high costs of health care in America. Staggeringly. medical bankruptcies account for 57.1% of all bankruptcies in the U. S. , and a 2013 study estimated that 56 million Americans would have trouble paying their medical bills. [2] As it stands, the United States pays $2.9 trillion a year on health care. The solution to this problem is Universal Health Care. A study done by Health affairs analyzed 26,000 low income individuals before and after enrollment in a community health program in Richmond. After three years, total costs per capita dropped from $8,899 to $4,569 with concurrent drops in the number of ER visits (25%) and increased primary care visits (50%). [3] The reason for this is quite simply - prevention. When a patient has no health insurance and suffers a serious injury, a hospital is required to treat that person whether or not they can pay their medical bills - this is the cause of the extremely large number of medical bankruptcies we see in the United States. By providing government subsidised healthcare to those who are unable to buy it on their own, money is actually saved through a decrease in medical debt and ER visits. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the Universal Health Care system implemented in Taiwan in 1995 concluded that "Taiwan’s single-payer NHI system enabled Taiwan to manage health spending inflation and that the resulting savings largely offset the incremental cost of covering the previously uninsured. Under the NHI, the Taiwanese have more equal access to health care, greater financial risk protection, and equity in health care financing. .. Evidence from the first half-decade of universal coverage in Taiwan suggests that overall costs do not rise because of increased use of services. " [4] As the study concluded, the protection given by Universal Health Care completely offsets any cost of subsiding insurance for those without coverage, and provides financial risk protection and equity in health care financing. More people are covered and the government doesn't lose any money. It's a win-win. C2: Universal Health Care saves and prolongs livesAccording to a 2009 study from Harvard researchers, "lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year," which translates into a 40% increased risk of death among the uninsured. [5] Another study found that more than 13,000 deaths occur each year just in the 55-64 year old age group due to lack of health insurance coverage. [6] A 2011 Commonweath Fund study found that due to a lack of timely and effective health care, the United States ranked at the bottom of a list of 16 rich nations in terms of preventable mortality. [7] In Italy, Spain, France, Australia, Israel, and Norway, all countries with a right to health care, people live two to three years longer than people in the United States. Additionally, a study done by the OECD found that the United States ranks 42nd in life expectancy, behind almost every other industrialized nation the world, despite paying more money in health coverage per capita then all of them. In comparison to countries that have implemented Universal Health Care, the United States definitely falls far, far behind. C3: Universal Health Care benefits economic productivityA Mar. 2012 study by researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania showed that workers with health insurance miss an average of 4.7 fewer work days than employees without health insurance. [8] According to an Institute of Medicine report, the US economy loses $65-$130 billion annually as a result of diminished worker productivity, due to poor health and premature deaths, among the uninsured. [9] Universal Health Care gives workers the ability to treat small problems before they become big, and as research has shown, reduces sick days and increases worker productivity. Additionally, a study from the Council of Economic Advisers found that health care reform would benefit the economy in multitudes of ways: "Slowing the growth rate of health care costs will prevent disastrous increases in the Federal budget deficit. " "Expanding health insurance coverage to the uninsured would increase net economic well-being by roughly $100 billion a year, which is roughly two-thirds of a percent of GDP. " "Reform would likely increase labor supply, remove unnecessary barriers to job mobility, and help to "level the playing field" between large and small businesses. " [10] The evidence points to the fact that the lower health insurance costs and the more people who are health and covered, the better an economy performs. C4: Universal Health Care creates jobsHealth care costs in America as is cost more than 17% percent of the GDP. Most of that money -- about 54 percent -- comes from the private sector. That's $1.13 trillion dollars that American companies are spending on health care each and every year. This is more than the national budgets of France, Canada and the UK combined. With a universal health care system, companies would keep that money and would have a healthier and more productive work force, along with other economic benefits. For example, job lock occurs when people stay at their current job solely for the health care benefits paid by their employers. One study showed that, in California alone, in 2002 job lock affected 179,000 people, with $772 million in foregone productivity. [11] Not only does universal health care stimulate industry, but it creates massive amounts of jobs in the health care sector. The growth in jobs produced through the health care industry has been astonishing in recent years, adding 2.6 million jobs. [12] Conclusion: Universal Health Care has innumerable benefits over our current health care system. These being: Providing more people with insurance coverage Lowering public and private spending on healthcare Increasing economic productivity through preventative coverage and removing unnecessary barriers to job mobility Increasing societal health and life span Saving lives Creating jobs in the health care sector Lowering the federal deficit Sources: . http://kff.org... [1]. http://www.nerdwallet.com... [2]. http://www.truth-out.org... [3]. http://content.healthaffairs.org... [4]Andrew P. Wilper, Steffie Woolhandler, Karen E. Lasser, and Danny McCormick, et al. , "Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults," American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 2009 [5]J. Michael McWilliams, Alan M. Zaslavsky, Ellen Meara and John Z. Ayanian, "Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality among the Near-Elderly," Health Affairs, July 2004 [6]Kimberly J. Morgan, "America's Misguided Approach to Social Welfare," foreignaffaris. com, Jan-Feb. 2013 [7]Allan Dizioli and Roberto Pinheiro, "Health Insurance as a Productive Factor," tippie. uiowa. edu, Mar. 2012 [8]Board on Health Care Services (HCS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM), "Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America," nap. edu, 2003 [9] . https://www.whitehouse.gov... [10]. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [11] . http://www.theatlantic.com... [12]

Pro has his first argument, it claims that capitalism causes economic inequality. That is true. Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated. Therefore, if some people are wealthy than they deserved it. You also state that "Since their is a very limited amount of money in any economy's circulation if a few people hoard a lot of the wealth that means there is very little to be shared with the multitude of masses." as if to say that is a bad thing. If you have money, you get to decide what to do with it. You want to share it, go ahead. You want to save it? Go ahead. Wanna spend it on a Starbucks coffee? Go ahead. Your money. Pro goes on to how the economic inequality from capitalism causes poverty. That is also true. There are poor people in this world. A larger number of people living in poverty commit suicide than normal people. Here is why: if poor people don't contribute to society, that's why they don't get a paycheck. Pro explains how poor people have it bad. I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live. Pro claims that socialism helps people in poverty. That is because poor people will be able to have access to goods and services that normal people do. Basically, everything will be public except for clothes, watches, etc. Now, if this was capitalism then it would be better because things would be privatized. This is a genuine question: why do you care about the poor?

As usual, this argument will begin with me refuting my opponent's opinions.Now. I believe my opponent does not understand some of the various points I am making, due to the nature of some of his "rebuttals". He says all in the course of one sentence that it is true we can pay for universal healthcare, but also says that "we can't afford to pay" for it. My opponent doesn't seem to realize that these are synonymous statements, and he has contradicted himself. If we can pay for universal healthcare, we can by definition afford it. With all due respect, maybe my opponent should review his argument before clarifying what he is trying to say.My opponent's statement that the study by the CEA has hurt my argument is false; even if it has not strengthened my argument, it still has done nothing to disprove it. I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited, however the spirit of the statistics remain true (for example, even if the plan proposed by that study was not exactly a universal healthcare plan, it WAS a reform which would help provide coverage to more Americans for a reduced cost, thus slowing the rate of growth of insurance cost, a result that would also be achieved and even amplified by an entirely universal healthcare plan paid for by redistributed taxes. So the increase in GDP and benefit to our economy would theoretically be higher than what was proposed in that plan). I have provided several new sources that all support the statement that Universal Healthcare would benefit our economy (1, 2, 3). Please look them over at your leisure, and do some fact checking before you incorrectly attack the fact that a Universal Healthcare plan would benefit our economy. Furthermore, on the subject of sources, my opponent's only cited sources in his last argument are broken links to a Google search, not actual sources. He also provided Wikipedia as a source for his previous argument (a notoriously unreliable source due to the fact that anyone could edit its information, even my opponent). I neglected bringing this up before for the sake of keeping this debate on topic, and avoiding petty arguments about details, but since my opponent decided to take this debate that direction, I thought I should point it out. Perhaps my opponent should check his own sources more carefully before attacking mine. I would like my opponent to expand on his statement that implementing an effective Universal Healthcare system would be close to impossible in America; so far he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up. Now I will address my opponent's accusations about taxes and the Billionaire class. My opponent bases this entire argument on the assumption that my plan would involve "an extremely strict tax policy" on the wealthy; I challenge my opponent to find a quote in any of my arguments where I propose this plan. Never did I say that the wealthy should be taxed an extreme amount more than they already are. MAYBE they should be taxed a slight bit more, but nothing that would come close to causing this so-called "war" between the upper class and the government in America. About conflict of interests, it would be a simple matter to draft preventative measures into a bill for Universal Healthcare. In the examples my opponent provided in the second round, the bill could include a statement that the government cannot leave an insurance company from being paid, or run the healthcare system for profit. Both of these situations seem like common sense and should be easy to avoid. However, as I said before, this debate is not actually about how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. It's in the title. My opponent doesn't seem to understand this, despite being the one who instigated this debate. If we could stay more on topic, this debate might be more productive. When addressing health as more than healthcare, my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate. If you are going to ignore my argument that Universal Healthcare would benefit the economy, then you cannot expect me to take your argument seriously after citing the same source. Now, I already said I agreed with my opponent that the government should do more to make our food and environment healthy, and yes, I believe educating the people of America about healthier lifestyles is also beneficial. However, neither of these issues address the topic of Universal Healthcare. Yes, health IS more than just healthcare. But Universal Healthcare is just a subset of that issue. Universal Healthcare IS healthcare, and nothing more: a plan to provide insurance for free or a low price to all Americans. It is not a plan to force Americans to exercise more. This debate is about Universal Healthcare specifically, NOT the whole subject of health. Again, it's in the title. Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to. They would not actually be part of the plan. So yes, they are irrelevant to this debate. My opponent's next statement, that "whether or not you should do something doesn't just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it" is, again, false. In round 2, my opponent used a rather poor example and said "do you think that we should press a button and make all issues be solved? We shouldn't do this." This statement is based around a misused word; my opponent says "shouldn't" when he really means "couldn't". SHOULD we press that button to solve all issues? Absolutely we should! Who wouldn't want to do that? The problem is, we CAN'T. My opponent should review his phrasing on statements like this. He also says, "if you can’t do something then you shouldn't do it." Again, he is confusing himself by misusing "shouldn't". If a loved one is dying but you don't know how to save them, should you still try? Yes! However, using his logic, my opponent would say that you shouldn't. The same applies to this debate. My opponent demands that I propose a fool-proof plan for implementing Universal Healthcare in order for him to admit that it SHOULD be implemented. But I am not a politician. Once again, I'm not here to debate how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, but if it SHOULD be. I will say again, it's in the title. If my opponent could stick to the topic of this debate instead of repeatedly straying into the land of legislation, then that would be fantastic and we could reach a more concise conclusion. About healthcare being a right: I am not saying that an actual constitutional amendment should be put in place, but I believe it should be something that everyone has access to, because of how essential it often is. My opponent simply misinterpreted what I said. I look forward to the next round, and I hope we can both continue to enjoy ourselves throughout this debate and reach a civil agreement by the end! (1) http://www.bloomberg.com...(2) http://www.demos.org...(3) https://www.quora.com...

The only reason that people who have advanced degrees aren't getting work are because they're being beat out by outsourced people who are willing to work for more hours with less pay. So If you apply your "Tough Luck" persona, then they can go out there and decide to work for themselves. Of course the government wouldn't be paying for ALL of the college. Just the part of the tuition the family couldn't offord. Students for everything EXCEPT community college take only the top half and up. Hell, UCLA only takes the top eighth. So for GOOD colleges the competition would increase. And think of all the people who were penniless, but received education and became great americans? Like Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave, was taught to read, escaped, and read and preached and learned whenever possible. And the unemployment rate would not go up if there is still the same number of people. They would simply have a better education and thus have a better understanding of the world. And how on EARTH would this raise taxes more than they already are? Now, we're already in a massive deficit. We can pull ourselves out of it with QUALIFIED people to lead America to a brighter future. "However, your reasoning is that by throwing money at poor people, we can turn them all into doctors and lawyers." I must say that this doesn't make you look that sympathetic to the unemployed. Now, there is a lot of evidence that people who are in a better environment work and behave better. Thus, in your terms, throwing money at poor people would turn them into doctors and lawyers. I now leave you to th closing argument.

First of all, thank you for accepting this debate and I was actually referring to the UK welfare state but I suppose the debate can be applied to both nations. Now, I agree with some of these points that there aren't many alternatives but I believe as a nation if we were more collective then the welfare state could be adjusted. The main problem I see in the welfare state is that there isn't as thorough background search of the person applying for it as maybe there should be. This could easily be set up by looking at the census of everyone and medical history, wage etc. and applying data to a computer system and actually looking to see if some people aren't as in desperate need as some. I believe varying the amount of money given to these people is important as an old person isn't as in need of money than someone who has a life threatening disease e.g. cystic fibrosis. This would be the easiest alternative to ask of the government but going back to the idea of more voluntary work I think a reward scheme could be set up for doing a certain amount of voluntary work. For example "100 or $100 for 10 hours of service to the community. This would be cheaper than the current welfare state is and it would give people the incentive to give something back to their community. Welfare state can encourage people to not get better jobs who may be in school and barely able to pay the bills, even if they work. They may make just enough money to qualify for benefits, but not enough money to fully support themselves unless they live in a bad area. People apply for benefits if they are unemployed but surely even in this day and age getting a job would be a more efficient way of earning money and it is problems like this that make the welfare state so evasive. My final reason about how the welfare state is unreliable is it is people who work hard to make a living that are effectively paying for some people to not bother getting a job and get money given to them and them not earning it. These people are not playing their part to help boost the economy which isn't helping the UK out at all. In conclusion I will fire back a different question; Do the negatives outweigh the positives? And frankly I don't believe they do. The welfare state was better when it was first introduced in 1906 but I feel it has taken us a significant way forward but it is old and can no longer lead us in the right direction, it too needs a pension after its retirement.