CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
15
Government Church
Debate Score:21
Arguments:18
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Government (5)
 
 Church (10)

Debate Creator

mechanic(66) pic



Who Should Be Responsible for Taking Care of the People in Poverty?

We are doing a debate about this in history class, and honestly government is winning, I'm on government team, and we are winning by a lot. Your opinion?

Government

Side Score: 6
VS.

Church

Side Score: 15
1 point

The short answer is government, because if you depend on churches and charity to do it then:

1) The inconsistency of charity means some people fall through the safety net or even the net itself collapses from time to time.

2) The risk of religious or sociopolitical reasons causing the church to not aid a person is real. I'm sure there are some Christian churches which would refuse to help a gay person, for example.

3) Some areas are overserved by church charity and others are underserved.

The longer answer, on top of all I already said includes:

4) In a Western Society with Civil Rights and respect for all I'd say any good citizen who loves their country and society would help when and where they can to make a difference. This doesn't have to land solely on church, or even solely on government. It should be multifacted.

5) Ultimately the policies of the government set the stage which results in many (not all but many) of the people in poverty getting stuck there. If your policies helped make the problem then you need programs to help people survive it.

6) The absence of a government safety net on poverty is akin to boldly declaring in that country it's every man for himself. Indeed there are countries that operate that way, but that is not something a modern Western society with civil rights should be trumpeting proudly.

Side: Government

Bronto should be responsible. The government should take everything off him and give it to the homeless.

Side: Government
1 point

The government sent out a memo stating that as soon as nomenclature gives up his white privilege to a minority and gives what he has to the poor, putting his money where his mouth is, then we can talk. But? That'll never happen. You'll never give your job, place in college, or money to a minority. Why? You're a liberal. You have lots of pretty words, and put on a big show, but at the end of the day, you won't do shit. Pretending to care, and paying lip service is what libs do best. But when you bring the donation can around, libs magically disappear...and then you suddenly see conservatives writing checks, paddling boats through floods, and religious groups showing up with food and goods. Isn't it a daisy how it always works that way?

Side: Church
1 point

The government are in charge of how the country's money is used. It should be up to them to make sure everyone has enough money and support to live.

Side: Government

People fund the government mandatorily with the hope of developing the economy to improve upon their lives in the future(physical needs.. school, food, etc.).

You can get arrested for not paying your taxes.

So it is the mandatory responsibility of government to look after it citizens.

That is why government is not responsible for foreigners in some other country who do not pay tax to it.

People fund the church voluntarily hoping to improve the church's physical needs....bills, rent, printing of banners, reaching out and planting of new churches.

You will not get arrested for not contributing.

But since the church preaches about love, it is good exampleship to use it's excess funds to help fund the needy(voluntarily).

Exampleship is not oblligation, there is a difference.

Side: Government
0 points

Where is the church going to get enough money to care for thousands? Especially after a disaster that wipes thousands more out? Besides, how are those really BIG "men of God" going to pay for their mansions, drivers, limousines, gardeners, etc. if they have to give all the money to the poor?? How will they EVER get those YUGE cathedrals built!? Gold costs MONEY!

Are we going to force people to be under the denomination of a certain church if they are "different" from the local one? Do we build a bigger church when we have large numbers of poor in an area? You can't make much money in a small church! Besides, conservatives don't like to spend THEIR money to care for poor people, give them health care they can afford .f they are blind or have a "condition" that keeps them from getting a good paying job. Small government? That would be just like a small church, spending more to bury Americans than helping to care for your mother, your sister, etc.. You can't have a strong nation without teamwork! Without a strong government!

Side: Government
1 point

Besides, how are those really BIG "men of God" going to pay for their mansions, drivers, limousines, gardeners, etc.

They'll ask for it from those rich liberal, Hollywood elites and CEO's?

Side: Church
0 points

Besides, conservatives don't like to spend THEIR money to care for poor people

And yet statistically, they outgive the left, and it isn't even close. Google it.

And why is that? Liberals say they want to help. Conservatives actually pack the food to you and save you in boats.

Side: Church

It's the peoples' job to help the helpless. As for those in poverty with two working legs and arms and a brain? Take care of yourself like a grown adult.

Side: Church
2 points

Those who wish to donate money to support those who incapable of providing for themselves should do so by way of a special, properly regulated fund.

It should not be assumed by government, or anyone else for that matter, that all taxpayers want to have their hard earned dosh doled out to life's losers/work shy idlers.

If Stephen Hawking can work, then so can everyone else.

Side: Church
1 point

"Church" is defined by merriam-webster as a "congregation". Congregation is defined as "an assembly of persons: gathering".

Depending on what you think of "government", the government can be a church.

Those who are well off and able should give opportunity to those who are not as well off, and do what they can to help guide them into better life practices. If you look at them in such a condemning manner, why don't you instead look at them as children who need guidance? Indeed, some do, and they have wicked intentions.

But you know what the poor could really use? Those who are well off and willing to do their part to give opportunity for others to work. It doesn't have to be much. Just figure out something you don't want to do, and pay someone else to do it. Treat them right. Be kind, patient, and charitable with them. Trust them with as much as you are willing to sacrifice, and trust them with what they are competent at. Consider that you want the best for those who work for you. Having people work for you even when you don't really need it is a real form of charity. It is a noble charity that gives dignity to both the one giving and receiving charity.

Everybody has to work together. People should not rely on the government. The government is not going to do a good job by nature of how the government does things. Am I calling for the government to stop helping those in poverty? Absolutely not. I do, however, believe that people in a community with genuine love and concern for the well being of each other and even strangers should not neglect the responsibility of being charitable. There are ways to perform charity that give respect and dignity to all parties involved.

Side: Church
1 point

When people think the government will take care of everything, society on the whole becomes less charitable.

That makes sense to me.

Side: Church
AlofRI(1835) Clarified
1 point

Nobody I know wants the government to take care of everything. We want the government to use our tax money, collectively, to "insure" that we get the most for OUR INVESTMENT! We want a government FOR the people OF the people and BY the people .... not just the privileged FEW! THAT makes sense to ME.

Side: Government
TzarPepe(305) Clarified
1 point

What people want and what people get is a completely different matter though.

I'm not going to knock people who get government assistance. I'm not going to call them the type of names I've already seen them called. I don't believe that is right.

I don't believe it is possible for the government to be an effective charitable organization. Charity requires relationship.

Side: Government

God told people to help the poor, but he also said that the lazy man will go hungry.

Do you see the difference between the poor and disabled who are incapable of helping themselves, verses able bodied people who simply choose not to work when it is easier to let tax payers support them.

When you say Government, you are saying Tax payers. We are the Government. When a bloated corrupt Government keeps taking more of the earnings of hard working Americans, to buy votes, those hard working Americans get tired of working hard to get ahead only to have their hard erned money stolen from them by corrupt politicians buyng votes.

Liberals never get it! They are either mindlessly stupid, or Sociaist activists pushing their ideology.

We are 20 Trillion in debt, and Liberals refuse to cut spending on social programs. Under Obama, the food stamp roles balooned even though our economy had 2% growth most of his terms. When you make it easy for people to live off others.....THEY WILL!

The final result of this no fault welfare mentality will be America's bankruptcy.

You are living in a ponsey scheme, but if you are still alive when it all comes crashing down, there will no longer be a solvent Government to help the poor.

Charity should be freely given, not stolen by corrupt politicians with an agenda. The Liberals on this debate site are either politically connected, or morons.

Side: Church
1 point

The church should fulfill the mission of Christ by helping people and proclaiming the Scriptures in Yeshua's name.........................................................

Side: Church
1 point

Who Should Be Responsible for Taking Care of the People in Poverty?

People are responsible for themselves, regardless of their income.

Side: Church