That people should have to pass drug tests to receive welfare

whiteflame
Alright, so here's the decision I came to: I decided this is not worth the drama we're creating, and I want to be done with it. As such, just a minute ago, I had Lars delete the vote. I hope this is satisfactory to Csareo, as admittedly, I did not know that banning me from his profile was also supposed to ban me from voting on his debates. Much as I feel that's unfair, I can understand why he'd be upset by it, and I'm not going to belabor the issue.

However, as I did spend 2 hours pouring over this debate and crafting the RFD and feedback, I'm loathe to let that work go to waste. I don't mind if either or both of you find my decision problematic, and if you want to take the time to discuss it, as Darth Vitiosus has, you're more than welcome to send me a message so that we can discuss it in private. I'll post it here to provide my feedback on the debate without any point value, and whether either of you does anything with it or it affects you in any way is entirely up to you.

Reasoning:
RFD:

While this was an interesting debate, the most problematic aspect is the lack of weighing mechanisms. Both sides are winning arguments, so it's really a question of which impacts are most important, but I don't really get that analysis out of either side. So that falls to me to some extent – I can work with what you've given me, but I have to make those comparisons.

Before I launch into the arguments, let's talk about the elephant in the room: what is this debate about? By the end, I'm still scratching my head to a certain extent. It's definitely about people being required to take a drug test in order to receive welfare, but each side seems to have very different perceptions of the context. Pro argues that this is just a broad principle debate, and that we should embody certain principles, though only two of these are clear – money comes with expectations, and drugs are bad. Con argues that this is a policy debate and that the devil's in the details, mainly focusing on economic impact. I think both arguments apply to this debate, despite Pro's attempts to make Con look non-topical. Pro is arguing a plan of action, even if it's just stated in the broadest sense, and whether it applies to just the U.S. or every country that provides welfare, the impacts to the U.S. and these other countries do factor into the debate. The broader principles may be the only things that truly factor in every single case (and Pro probably should have made that argument), but that doesn't mean that the problems with implementation are not relevant to the debate.

So, let's get into the points.

Pro is winning the principle debate. I don't think Con ever really attacks Pro's analysis here, essentially conceding the “money comes with expectations” aspect. The “drugs are bad” aspect is somewhat contested, but only in that Con asked why drugs are bad, which I think got at least some response from Pro. Con spends most of his time on the more practical issues of implementation and how people would respond, so that's where the debate goes after the first round. The only problem is that I'm not really sure what they do in the debate. The drug issue really doesn't get any weight until Pro starts arguing about reduced drug addiction rates, but how do I weigh enforcing a principle against cost harms? This becomes a problem as the debate goes on.

I buy that this will have some impact of removing drug users from the welfare rolls. I don't know how many people that comes to especially as the 1 in 800 statistic comes from a single state and is being broadly generalized, but even if I accept it, that's 0.1% of the welfare population. It would have been nice to provide some amount of spending that's recovered from ensuring that this small group is removed from welfare, especially as this could have been a strong counter to Con's financial argumentation.

Con's arguments on solvency really suffice solely as mitigation. The fact that drug abusers can plan ahead mitigates some benefit, as they can always start back up afterward. The fact that it seems to only catch such a small portion of the population mitigates some benefit. However, none of this really affects Pro's principle arguments. Even if his case fails to provide any meaningful, real world impact, the principles themselves still stand (though the mitigation fails to completely erase any such impact).

I buy that drug testing is costly. Pro's point that Con had only impacted this in the final round is relatively moot at the point where he's providing new impacts there as well (2 weeks coincides with recovery rates), so I buy that there's a substantial financial loss that accompanies this. However, while the monetary impact is made, Con never weighs this within the debate. Why should I care most about the monetary issue? From my perspective, a good reason would have been to show that the whole reason we're having this discussion is because we're worried about money being wasted on people who will proceed to spend it on drugs and ruin their lives, so at least a large part of the reason this debate is happening is because we're upset that welfare dollars are being spent on deadbeats. If the response to this engenders higher costs, that's counter to the basic purpose of implementing the plan. I can infer this to some extent, but lacking that explanation hurts Con's case.

The remaining two issues appear to be jail time and drug usage, which are inextricably linked by the end of the debate. I buy that, in countries that jail people who take illegal drugs, those who fail the tests will be jailed, increasing costs for those countries. I don't really buy the justice response Pro provides, since he doesn't give any reasoning for why jailing people is good beyond a general “justice is good” statement. I do, however, buy that people are unlikely to go to jail as they're unlikely to surrender themselves to these tests in order to get money if they know that the punitive measure will follow.

I also buy that some countries use rehab clinics, though Pro fails to prove that this is common, simply asserting that to be true in the final round (a little late for such a broad assertion). The concept that Pro brings up in the final round of a 2 week dry spell leading to recovery isn't supported by his link (it says 90 days, not 14), but he's right that it sets a start. I just don't know how meaningful that start is, especially when they're receiving money that could be used to further that usage. Nonetheless, I do buy that some people may get off of drugs or at least use less, so that presents a counter to the jail time issue. The decision between drugs and money may not be all or nothing, but at least it's requiring some measure of choice on their part.

By now, you guys may be able to see my problem. Here's what I've got:

Pro – upheld basic principles that he argues are important for society and reductions in drug addictions, albeit among a small subset of the drug-taking population that receives welfare.

Con – saving countries that would do this a lot of money and ensuring that fewer people rot in jail, thus harming their economic prospects.

I'm not sure how to weigh these impacts. Each of you garners a weak-ish impact that applies to everyone (principle vs. monetary), and each of you garners a stronger impact that applies only to much smaller subsets (weaning off drugs vs. jail time). The strengths of each of these arguments balance out, as does their likelihood. Both sides spend so much time emphasizing what the drops in the debate and preferring their own logic that I never see any real impact calculus, which would be fine if either of you were coming out way on top, but I'm not seeing it.

So, then, how did I decide? On the basis of how much of a role these arguments actually played in your concluding rounds. Three of them do, one of them doesn't. I see arguments on the monetary outcomes and jail time from Con, but only the drug argument appears in R3. That's a problem, especially since Pro's entire first round was centered on a principle that goes practically untouched throughout the debate. If he had spent practically any time here in the final round, talking about the importance of money coming with expectations and relating that principle to its effects on how people regard welfare, my vote would be going to Pro. Lacking that, Pro's argument loses its teeth, and can no longer counter-balance Con's arguments with regards to monetary costs. As such, I vote Con.

Feedback:

Both debaters:

Impacts, impacts, impacts. Explain them, make them as clear as possible. Both sides assumed harms. A debate on principle needs to be couched in what makes that principle important to society, and specifically how society is affected should that principle be substantially altered. It's not enough to assume that the principle is good, you have to state why it's necessary for society to adhere to it. A monetary debate is only as good as that money is. You need to explain why costs are detrimental to society, and not just based on debt. One could easily provide dozens of worthy causes for those tens of billions of dollars. It seems like some other impacts, like justice, go completely unexplained.

Some of the impacts for the various arguments did come out, eventually, but all of them seemed incredibly delayed, some even appearing in the final round (on both sides). That really weakens your case, since voters are much less likely to buy a new impact that appears there than they are to buy an impact that's been effectively defended throughout the debate.

Links, links, links. Again, it just seemed like many of the arguments were missing here to link to each debaters' major impacts. It's pretty much just assumed from the outset that drugs are bad, and the only support it gets is more assertions, leaving the argument with a solid impact, but limited link structure. Similarly, the story behind how people get jailed is bizarre. I recognize that some unknowing or uncaring individuals might get caught through this, but I don't see any reason to believe this number is substantial.

Plotinus:

From the outset, this debate lacked clarity, and I'm not sure why you left it so open to interpretation. If your case is focused on the principles involved in all drug testing for welfare recipients worldwide, then make that clear in R1. In many types of debate, this kind of vagueness is viewed as a breach of conduct, and it doesn't help your case to confuse voters as well as your opponent. It's not conducive to an educational debate with a reasonable level of back and forth.

Darth Vitiosus:

Remember, low impact isn't no impact. Plotinus often capitalizes on the fact htat much of your rebuttal is mitigation, using that to show that he still achieves his impacts, albeit with less strength. It's important to recognize when the link structure or the impacts are the weaker targets, and hit those specifically. Posted 2014-11-01 14:14:02

Blackflag
Let me just say, I'm embarassed with the amount of grammar mistakes in the final round. I was in a rush to make my arguments, because new plans with my family came into motion. Posted 2014-10-30 02:33:45