Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5715
Any citizen that does not contribute to society financially (i.e taxes) should either be deported or given work by the state.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1432
rating
379
debates
43.4%
won
Description
This is a debate on whether or not people that do not contribute to society should be forced to. This would NOT be the end of social programs however, people who have not monetarily contributed to society will be forced to work until they have found another job or left.
Round 1
I will start this debate with a definition of society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members (1). If a goal of a nation is to grant the most citizens the highest attainable amount of protection, security and continuity. Then stopping those that hamper the population from attaining these goals is a must. We see this in the form of militaries defending the citizens' rights from other nations, or police defending the average citizen’s rights from one another, yet the idea that those who are leeches on societies progress, who take away resources that could be allocated to make more citizens happier, shouldn’t be allowed to continue this behavior is shunned? People who, not only do not add to society, but take away make the average citizen’s life worse and should be treated like the cancer they are, slowly damaging the average healthy society.
2.3 Trillion USD in the form of social services are spent in the US every year attempting to fix our crisis of uncooperative members of society (2), yet the numbers of homeless, and jobless people have only risen over the years (3). There are millions of hard working, yet poor citizens whose quality of life could be greatly increased with an extra 2.3 trillion dollars worth of help. Not only that, but the potential billions of dollars that could be made by supplying work to homeless people could also help millions, as well as bringing homeless people out of poverty and giving them important skills which they can use to help the society they used to hurt.
Finally, the rate of violent crime committed by homeless people is 40% more than the average person, the incarcerations rates are 10x higher (4). Homeless people damage the very safety of the average person, which any competent government cannot stand for. While reading this I’m sure that you have judged me, the writer, with hating people who do not contribute to society. This is not the case, while homeless people pose a threat to the average person, they also pose a threat to themselves. 98% of homeless people have been victims of a violent crime, that is a disgusting statistic (5). 1 in 30 kids face extreme poverty and homelessness. These people are still citizens and still should be given the same rights of security, protection, and continuity as anyone else. A state program in which people who do not have jobs and stable, and taxable, income are given jobs where they earn a stable living. The aforementioned threat of deportation is simply a way to force the homeless population into actually working.
In conclusion, unemployment hurts EVERYONE and is a sickness that needs to be healed in the most radical way possible, a decisive binary choice between treatment or long-term quarantine, away from healthy, happy citizens. Thank you.
"Any citizen that does not contribute to society financially (i.e taxes) should either be deported or given work by the state."
I tried to read over what was stated carefully in case I missed the preface for "any citizen".
So my position is not for "any citizen".
Who gets excluded?
-Minors under 18 or the age by law
-Leeway may be granted to those over 18 but under 25 sharing a residence with guardians still that are the main contributors to society.
It works the same way with medical insurance.
By the may this may include in this age group college pupils.
-special needs or mentally challenged people
-elderly feeble demented individuals
-severe physical disabled folks
-comatose; vegetative individuals
-patients in hospice care; terminally ill folks with a shortened life remaining
-individual subsidized payment assistance folks
Many of these groups, society or the government has to contribute to them.
Now onto the homeless. There are non profit organizations and shelters that are subsidized so this would make destitute or vagrant individuals possibly excluded.
However, for the working class, middle class and those with suitable income contribute to society.
No disagreement there but it does eliminate the "any citizen" stipulation.
Some last minute exclusions.
-recent naturalized immigrants
-unemployed people
-no fault terminated folks
-job seekers
-penal prisoners/convicts
-mentally incapacitated folks
Mentally incapacitated includes non sound minds, amnesia victims and poor cognitive ability.
The legally insane and psychotic.
I yield .
Round 2
Perhaps I am not understanding you, are you agreeing with me, or making the point that the people that fall under the categories you mention should be exempt from this law?
Regardless I disagree that all people that fall under these categories should be exempt, those who are convicts should under this new law be forced to accept work from the state or be sent out of the country. However, I admit the topic should have been more refined to exclude those who are minors, special needs, or those who have had a history of contributing to society and have reached an age where work become difficult and unproductive.
I'm making the point that the people that fall under the categories I mentioned not "should" but are exempt from contributing financially.
I would challenge you to challenge any one of those points.
"those who are convicts should under this new law be forced to accept work from the state or be sent out of the country. "
You can work convicts but it's in benefit of the prison system. Their payment to society is being removed from it. Being that they're removed from it, why do they have to pay for roads they don't use, land they don't dwell on and tolls and any other government services?
It's society that must contribute cost to fund the prison systems just as any other line of protection to keep the security of society.
"However, I admit the topic should have been more refined to exclude those who are minors, special needs, or those who have had a history of contributing to society and have reached an age where work become difficult and unproductive. "
I thank you for conceding to my position.
I like to read your closing statements, thanks.
Round 3
I believe I understand now,
Sadly, I meant to create this debate in a form which con would argue that those who do not contribute to society yet are able too should NOT be given work or be deported, however I understand what con is saying and couldn't, in good faith, argue against the point that those who are unable to work should NOT be given work or deportation. I am new to this site and might tweak this topic to make it a better debate topic! Anway for reader that are reading this and believe that "who do not contribute to society yet are able too should NOT be given work or be deported" I would love to talk about that.
Thanks Mall!
Regardless of this site, I suggest even in everyday conversation to always be very specific and exact when it comes to words.
I know in casual or in informal dialogue we get laxed with language and have habitual vernaculars along with common phrase usages.
This is similar to another topic I have about the paradoxical language that society uses. When dissecting it logically, we can argue in opposition to using it for the sake of consistency and accuracy.
I conclude.
We can do a short version instead.
Just imagine every reason you can come up with, and then imagine me disagreeing with each of those reasons.
Wanna debate it?
I dont contribute to society in any way, but I dont think I should be deported or forced to work.
Good catch!
The main problems I suspect people will throw at you are morals of indentured servitude, retirement, and the creation of much needless busy work.
Tbh yes technically this would apply to the super rich that don't pay taxes, but they would just find a way to pay a small amount of taxes so it wouldn't really matter.