EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That we should remove all benefits from those deemed fit, but unwilling, to work

0 points
3 points
PovskiPovski (CON)
Bla bla
 This round is to be shorter because Pro didn't get to post his with all the site issues. I will just briefly comment on some areas of the topic, and point out how they contradict it.
 At first I thought that this topic is rather boring, but thinking about it I found ideas worth exploring. So i hope we can get on with this debate, rippedpantsatberkely, and I hope that you will post in the future rounds of said debate. This is no offense to the fact that you forfeited 1st round - the site was slow, i get it- i genuinely care for the topic and would like to discuss. Think of it as a good chat.

”That we should remove all benefits from those deemed fit, but unwilling, to work
 It sounds like a serious topic, but i think this deppends on what all benefits means and how are we to deem  someone fit, but unwilling.
 The topic applies to situations where someone benefits from another. And reversably, where somebody makes a service to another. Examples include families, school classrooms, cities, countries etc. In general, it involves communities and social interactions.
 There are several reasons for which removing all benefits is not the best choice of actions in these situations:
  • work effectivenes is not the main point
  • imediate or quantifiable results are not the main criteria for assesing ones own work
  • there is little or no value in opposing an act of benevolence
  • the community is to support the individual and not the other way around

(as a sugestion, we could also take a look at behavioral psychology further on into this debate)
I take the word fit to mean capable of working - both physically and mentally. In other words, fit people are able to accomplish at least one job/task. When someone is unwilling it means that he is refusing to do any of the tasks that he is able to complete. Perhaps he has made a conscious decision not to work. Is this wrong? Some people have to refuse work in order to focus on other important matters and not get distracted. If, on the other hand, someone is to lazy to work - he knows he should be working, but he just does not do it- then he should only be helped and not punished. It is suggested that lazyness comes from the fear of failure. Then what good is to add the threat of removing all benefits? 

Finally (and perhaps most importantly), I think that work alone and measurable results is not what people should strive to accomplish. Abstaining from work is also important. And I do not mean mearly to take a break - vacation- so as to rest only for more work. More on that in future posts :)

Return To Top | Posted:
2017-07-14 21:07:32
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2017-07-25 22:15:27
MharmanJudge: Mharman    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Povski
CON was the only one to make an argument
0 comments on this judgement
2017-08-06 05:59:48
Rationality-RulesJudge: Rationality-Rules
Win awarded to: Povski
CON was the only side to present an argument; PRO forfeited.
0 comments on this judgement
2017-10-09 15:23:20
ustoca0522Judge: ustoca0522
Win awarded to: Povski

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29