CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
9
true false
Debate Score:19
Arguments:14
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 true (6)
 
 false (7)

Debate Creator

atypican(4873) pic



If it's against the law to be homeless, the government must provide housing.

true

Side Score: 10
VS.

false

Side Score: 9
2 points

Being poor, or homeless should not be illegal in the first place, and hopefully, it isn't any more illegal than it already is in the future.

With that being said, no one in the US should go without a roof over their head. We are supposed to be the best country in the world. The fact that we have millions of suffering, poor, starving, sick people wandering the streets, or living under newspaper should embarrass all of us. Lady Liberty says: "give me your poor, your huddled, your tired masses." She did not say, "come to American and see all the poor, tired and huddled masses in our filthy streets."

Side: true
4 points

We have consistently lauded our hypocrisy as an accomplishment. Extensive poverty and homelessness are not especially new to the fabric of this country; what is pathetic is that by some indications our current abysmal state of affairs represents an improvement upon our earlier history.

Side: true
1 point

I agree. The government has no heart for poor and homeless people.

Side: true
2 points

That's not a sound argument. The government deems a lot of things illegal, but that doesn't necessitate legislature to support the converse. We don't have government provided projects for most anything made illegal.

Side: false
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

That we do not currently provide support to encourage positive behavior does not in any way mean we should not be, nor that there is no legitimate basis from which to argue a legal (or at least ethical/philosophical/pragmatic) imperative.

Side: true
1 point

It's illegal not to put your kids into school of some sort, yet it can be extremely difficult to meet those requirements. Some kids have to take several buses just to get to school everyday. Even homeschooling is difficult. You have to provide all the materials, and your children still have to be able to meet certain academic standards based on what you're teaching them. Our government sure doesn't make it easy to school all the children in this country, but they still demand it. I don't expect it to be any different for anything else.

Side: false
2 points

Uhhhhh.... well if it's illegal then toss their sorry asses in jail. Bingo! Government provided housing.

Side: false
Wikimedia(1) Clarified
1 point

Please Clarify Your Response As it is unclear.It should please include more details.

Side: true
Hellno(17718) Disputed
0 points

Screw you.

Side: true
1 point

I don't know. I instantly thought "If it is against the law to kill, the government should kill those we feel deserve to die" but I don't know how similar they are.

I do know this though, the government does not always do as it should, and sometimes it does what it should not. Passing a bill to make an unfortunate situation like being homeless a crime, is one of those things that the government probably should not do. Passing a bill to provide free public housing to those in need is one of those things they probably should do, in general not just in case of the previous bill. Though would it pass said law? Probably not.

Side: false
1 point

Well, for something to be illegal there has to be causation between the persons actions and the crime. In some cases this can be due to negligence - something occurring as a result of you not taking reasonable care. If you ascribe to the idea that everyone is responsible for their own situations in life (very common in cultures in the USA), then being homeless can be said to be a result of bad choices or generally not taking reasonable care not to become homeless.

Side: false
1 point

Well, for something to be illegal there has to be causation between the persons actions and the crime.

Nah. I just magically pronounce it to be illegal.

Side: true
1 point

Neither option works for this question because there are some VERY big differences in how different people came to be homeless.

Most homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to illegal drugs. The rest made some poor decisions, did not plan ahead, etc.

Only the first groups has a problem they cannot address themselves, and need the government's help to solve it. In the case of people who are mentally ill to the degree that they cannot run their lives, yes, that is a situation where government intervention is appropriate, including housing and psychiatric care.

In the case of drug addicts, they alone can solve the root problem, and until they do, government housing is just a warm, dry place to get high. Taxpayer-paid housing is just a waste of money that will not solve the problem.

In the case of those folks who did not plan well, and hit some bad luck, they tend to be able to get off the street reasonably quickly without more help than being left unmolested.

Laws against homelessness are too unspecific to be useful. I understand it being illegal to trespass, defecate or urinate outside of a toilet, start a campfire outside of a designated firepit, block a sidewalk, etc., but outside of that, anti-homelessness laws tend to be unreasonably intrusive, and merely make it unreasonably difficult to solve the problem of being homeless. There is no benefit to a society by making it illegal to sleep in your car UNLESS YOU ARE DRIVING while sleeping.

Sane adults should be held responsible for supporting and caring for themselves, but they should also be left alone to run their own lives.

Side: false