The rich should take out the welfare recipients in a preemptive strike.
There's a precedence in communist countries where the poor took out the rich. The rich should thus take out (not the poor but rather) those who have no jobs in a preemptive strike in order to prevent them from taking over.
I know that some of you will claim that this wouldn't be a fair fight because the poor outnumber the rich, but the police force and the military are there to protect the status quo. I would argue that the situation in Syria is a stale mate which suggests to me that both sides are pretty evenly matched. The only question is, who is going to fire the first shot? But as far as some people are concerned, Obama has fired the first shot with Obamacare.
Disclaimer: This debate has been modified to protect the debate administrator (i.e., help him win an argument ;)
True.
Side Score: 0
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
3
points
The rich cannot exist without the poor. Nobody gets ahead without somebody being pulled behind. Look at the most basic level, where everyone is responsible for growing/raising ones own food. For any individual to elevate themselves to higher aspirations and influence than running a farm, somebody else must produce more food to feed them. If the poor are removed, the least rich just become the new poor. Without workers in basic low income positions, the higher positions don't function. Without hands on farms, no matter how wealthy you are, you don't get to eat. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
2
points
IT IS UPON THE BACKS OF THE POOR THAT MOST OF THEM GAIN THEIR RICHES'' THEY DON'T NEED A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE ON THE POOR'' UNLESS OF COURSE THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT A LOT OF THE RIGHTS ,PROVISIONS THAT ONCE PROTECTED THE LEAST AMONG US. BEING TAKEN AWAY IS NOT DOING THE JOB FAST ENOUGH ,, THEN BY ALL MEANS .... Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
