http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18651

You realize you you can legalize drugs and counsel against it, right?

The same way it's legal to eat twenty hamburgers a day, but

Also, @Brad, you're against socialized medicine, so you're against providing mental healthcare to people who are homeless or predisposed to homelessness. You can't be against providing shelter because you could better spend it preventing homelessness, and also be against providing benefits to at-risk groups.

Pretty sure I'm going to mute Brad soon. He's just too fucking obtuse.

@Condescension, you've both had wonderful points supporting either side of the argument. I loved your comparison of the economic situation related to homelessness and the economic situation related to slavery (The main problem with slavery wasn't that some people chose to own slaves, it is that the economic situation was predicated on slavery.) I also liked when Brad (kind of) proposed that rather than fixing the problem currently at hand, as far as homelessness, we should try to prevent the problem. A lot of the problems that led to homelessness, according to Brad's sources, involved heavy drug use and job loss, which lead to the inability to pay for housing (also leading to the need for rental assistance which they claim they weren't provided.) So my point is.. Even though Brad is "just too fucking obtuse" you both have wonderful points that have helped make things click for me.

Here's a speech I typed up for school arguing the neg of this argument.

President John F Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Every citizen of the United States has the ability to fairly earn their living, while contributing to the development of the country, however, there are those that don’t contribute to the development of the US through paying taxes, and are provided for by those that do, so, with this in mind, I seek negation of the resolution, resolved, that the US ought to guarantee the right to housing.

For the purpose of the debate I’ll give the following definitions from Dictionary.com

Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.
(According to Dictionary.com)

To Guarantee: A promise or assurance, especially one in writing, that something is of specified quality, content, benefit, etc., or that it will perform satisfactorily for a given length of time.
(According to Dictionary.com)

The Right/Rights: That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
(According to Dictionary.com)

Housing: The providing of houses for a group or community.
(According to Dictionary.com)

The value I wish to uphold in this debate is “justice.” Aristotle defined justice as giving each man what he is due. When Aristotle defined justicre, he used the phrase, “Giving each man what he is due” to show that each man should deserve what they get, whether it be a punishment or a reward. As an example, those that work to pay for their own housing, and all other necessities, should not have to pay taxes to provide these same necessities for those that don’t work to provide for themselves, as, with Aristotle’s definition in mind, they don’t deserve this support, while those that work to provide for themselves, shouldn’t be punished by paying for non deserving citizens. My value criterion is that we must ensure that all money collected from US taxpayers is not used to support those that don’t contribute to the country to the same, or a similar degree, such as the 13.2 percentage of UNEMPLOYED people in the United States on Welfare.

My first contention to support that the US ought not to guarantee the right to housing is that if the US government heavily supports those unable to provide for their own housing, it will only be taken advantage of, meaning that the almost 5,000,000 US citizens (coldwell banker prime) using federal rental assistance will only continue to rise, as well as US citizens living off of government subsidies.

My second contention is that if needs, such as housing, are provided to someone that is unemployed or unable to work, they will become dependent upon their provisions, and will need continued support from the government, while they are unable to provide anything. This would mean that those working to pay government taxes, are, in a big way, paying for the non-working, non-providing, government-subsidy dependent, citizens of the United States.

My third contention is that the US is already twenty-trillion dollars in debt, and a total of more than one trillion dollars has been used for welfare spending. To guarantee the right to housing would massively increase the amount of people that received this same money from the government.

In summary… If the right to housing isn’t guaranteed to non-abiding citizens of the United States, the amount of people heavily-dependent upon government support will not increase, while the latter would happen if the right to housing was guaranteed by the US. There will always be people that take advantage when they feel that they can, so why would we continue to open up that opportunity?

I note that you do not explore the potential negative outcomes of the position you are taking. What of people in genuine need who are unable to "fairly earn their living", for example because they have serious physical or mental disabilities?

You presume that every person who is unemployed is unemployed through choice. This is not the case.

I faced the same manor of argument when I gave this debate. Since the resolved is based on only the right to housing, I argued that only providing housing would not guarantee that those that were previously homeless would not guarantee that they would try to find jobs, seeing as they could continue taking advantage of government provisions. However, it is very true that wish housing provided for someone, it would be infinitely easier to go into a job interview and get a job.

oops. *only providing housing would not guarantee that those that were previously homeless would try to find jobs*

In reality it is people like condensation that are the problem. their solution is always for someone else to take care of the problem, a government, taxpayers, anyone but themselves. they are busybodies placing the blame on others while not seeing how their attitude contributes to the very issue they attack other for. the reason is that they want to 'feel good' because they 'care'. well caring does nothing and that is what they do: nothing. but they 'care'. sad

I am a taxpayer. I work in local government. I want government to serve society by helping those in difficulty, and I do not regard that as calling for "someone else" to act.

I enjoy paying taxes. With them I buy civilisation... as a great American once said.

I think you're missing some of what Condecension what saying. Many people have a problem with paying taxes that go towards other people that don't "provide" to a similar degree.

What's your solution Brad?

No i am not missing the point. never has any of condensations postings give any indication of what he would do. it is always someone else to do. as for me i have provided a nice apartment one block to the beach at half the going rental rate to a a single parent woman for over twenty years. the previous tenant was also a single parent living there five years. i actually prevented homelessness to two women. i wasn't assisted by the government (section 8) and forsook thousands of dollars of income in the process. i contribute to charities that support the poor and i pay a lot of money in property taxes. i have also done service work helping seafarers from poor countries that make very little money. i taught in a parochial school for two-thirds the salary that a public school teacher would make and without benefits educating inner-city high school children. i adopted foster teenagers from the LA county foster system. i can go on; i have before; it bores others. but the point is that i actually do something about these problems and not just complain like condensation does.

you can do more, Jamiet, much more yourself. put some skin in the game. be more than a scrooge:

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Scrooge paid taxes to support the workhouses and prisons

I wish there were more people like you.. I'm afraid the Captain Brads of the world are dwindling.

if you want more generous people in the world start by becoming one yourself. that increases the number right away. perhaps someone would copy you. become successful and then employ others. no person has more dignity than when they can provide for themselves and their family. give to others until it pinches your lifestyle' and live below your means. you can be more generous that way. and pray, one needs more than good intentions, you also need divine assistance.

That's curious. You believe that divine assistance is key to a more generous lifestyle?

Legalize all drugs. The benefits by a long shot out weigh the negatives

divine assistance IS the key to a more generous life.

"Legalize all drugs"

We would all die ssssssoren.

Yeah. Some would but not all

FIEDLER YOU'RE A GENIUS. If everyone dies... no more homeless people. Bam

It seems to me like Capt Brad is stuck with a model of the poor being composed of the deserving poor ( a minority) and the undeserving poor ( the majority ) and only the deserving poor quality for token assistance. The undeserving poor can starve. He also seems to think that poverty is chosen.
G Bernard Shaw satarises such "Victorian era" pomposity in his play Pygmalion.
I sponsored young girls in Moslem communities in Thailand and other Asian & middle Eastern communities through well run, transparent, good governance standards, charities... Doesn't give me any rights to vilify, abuse women as a consequence.

^ mmmm, straw man utterly annihilated. WEw lad.