I need your help~ (school project)

Well, I was wondering if you guys (and girls) could help me out. I have to form a debate for school (due tomorrow). I need to have three points to support my argument. My argument is:

The state (aka province, country, whatever) should not financially support mentally or physically disabled people.

Yes, I know this topic is mean, quite asshole-ish. I didn't choose it though, I was given it. Anyway can you guys think of anything to support the argument? It would be cool if you could post points with proof...

Thanks, all.

ahahaha, this sounds like something out of south park. its such a cartman topic lol

I'll be honest with you joker, you're pretty fucking screwed. Kinda hard to justify screwing over the physically and mentally challenged. Its like trying to say kids shouldn't get health care. But on that note, you can take a page from president bush's book, and do what he did when trying to explain why he vetoed the S-CHIP plan (subsidized health care for poor kids). Just go up there and be like "physically and mentally disabled people first"

Well the first step in taking the Devil's Advocate side of the debate is to fulfill that title role. Make your opponent's stance look like the asshole one. Twist it.

- Start with mentioning that the physically and mentally disabled are people too, and as such, don't want to feel belittled. The kicker: The mentally disabled don't want [and don't need] to feel pitied and coddled by being given a free ride. They want to work for a living, be treated with the respect that comes from hard work, not handouts. This goes hand in hand with saying that some of them are even more qualified and harder working than the non-disabled in many fields.

Now that's an asshole move, but it's what politicians and pundits do every day. Spin. You need to say the above in an even more schmoozing manner. I didn't do too bad, but that was written on the spot. A little more prep makes it even more convincing.

The key to playing devil's advocate is to think up everything that your opponent would say, and make it look like the terrible thing. You don't have to come up with your own arguments, just knock down each of theirs. Why? You can always one up them with this next point.

- Funding not spent on financial support mentally or physically disabled people can be spent elsewhere, as the disabled are more than capable of earning their own, on other projects such as general education, disaster relief, etc, etc (other things that no one denies are useful).

Try to segue into each point, making all three of them related. It makes them even more solid. I can't think of a third one right now, but those two are a good start.

Thats a very good point ryllharu...but you have to be careful with that though, cuz you need to consider those that are incapable of supporting themselves, and have to rely on relatives, or government programs. If the opponent brings up this point, he'll get massacred.

But you could say that instead if 'financial support' (which is demeaning), they money should instead go towards organization create to help them in thier day to day lives. That way its unbiased, and the disabled are still free to support themselves financially (if they are capable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Assassin

But you could say that instead if 'financial support' (which is demeaning), they money should instead go towards organization create to help them in thier day to day lives. That way its unbiased, and the disabled are still free to support themselves financially (if they are capable).

---

That would be financial support, one way or another. I know what you mean though. I assumed that joker would be going second. Yes, you do have to be extremely careful with the wording.

joker really got screwed with this one, but if you say it just right, it does work out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryllharu

joker really got screwed with this one, but if you say it just right, it does work out.

---

Heh. Screwed is indeed the key word here. Kind of reminds me of how I had to defend inequality between men and women in some school debate assignment... But this is even much worse than that. Unfortunately it's very hard to defend a stand from an obviously much lower moral point of view when all the audience is by default against you. No choice but to bring out even outrageous points, because in the end you can't win, no matter what. So, even if you start with Ryllharu's suggestions (which were really good, I've to say), they might not last until the time is out.

well since he can't possibly get the moral high ground, the key here is to provide irrefutable logic. Make arguments that may be completely vile, but that make sense from a financial/political/economical standpoint.

You should really watch the movie Thankyou For Smoking, as it kinda fits your situation. To paraphrase the main character, "you dont have to convince them that you're rite, just that your opponent is wrong"

you should take the route of purely economical argument. You're never going to convince people that not helping the handicapped to survive is a moral or humanitarian cause... You've already lost the battle of ideals when you chose this position.

You should start by collecting the following data:

How much money is spent on the mentally / physically disabled?
Is this amount rising or falling?

Once you know how much money the state will save by not helping the disabled, you show all the other things the state can and should do with the money. In short, your argument is that "yeah, we're not helping the disabled, but we're helping all these other people".


Points you may have to concede:
that the disabled give back to the economy via their large medical and health expenses.

Counter to that:
even though they give back as consumers, they often do not as producers, especially the mentally handicapped.

In short:
Money that the state spends on the mentally / physically disabled is ____, and should instead be used for ___, _____, and _____. These three alternate uses will result in Benefit A, Benefit B, Benefit C.

You can also argue that instead of spending all that money to essentially sweep the problem under the rug, the state could be putting it to better use by giving it to medical and research facilities, who are working towards eradicating such disabilities.

With that point you can actually kind of gain the moral upper hand (if you do it rite, and if your opponent isn't too smart) because then you can claim that your proposal is a more permenant solution, and what the opponent is arguing is actually just a stop gap, a very expensive christmas card, that the state sends out each year hoping to avoid the problem until next christmas.

Use the christmas metaphor and bitchslap your opponent with his own morals.

Wasn't there already a Have Gotwoot do your homework for you topic?

I guess you don't have time to, but why just don't look at the different state policies on the subject and seek for the less helping one in that area... I'm sure they have reasons you could use.

You could also use the segregation ideas, they work with any difference beetween people.

You may start by singling out every one quickly... (there was a scene in "Dead Poets Society")
Either if it's fat, being a loser, from another country or whatever, your schoolmates will have points were they have high segregation... Use that to single out the "weak ones" and say they do not have more rights to be helped than those segregated in other cases.

You can use the subprime examples too... people working hard, giving they max to the nation... spoiled of their houses just because interrests in their mortgages has gone so high they can't reimburse each month... Why taking them down while they are helpful, and help weak ones who never help...
Find any example of things not just at all... there are many of them.

Use fear, can mentally disabled people be a threat to society? Why should they be out of death penalty (still existing in the USA by the way....)

You have to show that being smart doesn't mean you protect "justice"

Edit:
Other point: Try to evaluate the costs of helping those people nation wide.
Describe the standards that should apply, the costs and so on. They have
to be dealt with minima that are quite higher than a great deal of people...
Then break down the cost for each living american...

Oh, and you're screwed because such a work can't be done the day before
you have to debate it... But I did the same at you age and sometimes was
really screwed :D

Shit, homework...

To answer the point (note I DO NOT support this):

Why should the state support disabled/mentally ill people? The role of the state is to merely provide law and order for an otherwise free market. Everyone in society has a different set of skills and capabilities, why should we feel sorry for those who have arguably less than most others? The presence of such individuals merely reduces the efficiency of a robust economy, siphoning away resources which could otherwise be used as investment to benefit the able bodied. Though disabled people would spend that money in an economy, able bodied people are capable of providing a greater return on this 'state investment'.

It is not the job of the state to make moral judgements on societal life. To subsidise the existence of disabled humans is to contradict not only the function of the state but also the process of evolution. We should have no qualms of allowing disabled people to fend for themselves. Those that will be able to survive will feel proud and be able to take their place as productive members of society who have earned the right to their existence. Those who can't survive without state handouts will die, but this is better to carry on living as they will not suffer the ignomany of sponging off society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryllharu

Well the first step in taking the Devil's Advocate side of the debate is to fulfill that title role. Make your opponent's stance look like the asshole one. Twist it.

- Start with mentioning that the physically and mentally disabled are people too, and as such, don't want to feel belittled. The kicker: The mentally disabled don't want [and don't need] to feel pitied and coddled by being given a free ride. They want to work for a living, be treated with the respect that comes from hard work, not handouts. This goes hand in hand with saying that some of them are even more qualified and harder working than the non-disabled in many fields.

Now that's an asshole move, but it's what politicians and pundits do every day. Spin. You need to say the above in an even more schmoozing manner. I didn't do too bad, but that was written on the spot. A little more prep makes it even more convincing.

The key to playing devil's advocate is to think up everything that your opponent would say, and make it look like the terrible thing. You don't have to come up with your own arguments, just knock down each of theirs. Why? You can always one up them with this next point.

- Funding not spent on financial support mentally or physically disabled people can be spent elsewhere, as the disabled are more than capable of earning their own, on other projects such as general education, disaster relief, etc, etc (other things that no one denies are useful).

Try to segue into each point, making all three of them related. It makes them even more solid. I can't think of a third one right now, but those two are a good start.

---

If I ever go to court will you be my lawyer?

Well thanks people. I've got a couple points from your posts. Much appreciated.