The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Anti-homelessness legislation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Dr.Franklin has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2020 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 253 times Debate No: 124004
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




If you accept this debate you accept debating with the 'spirit of what I intend by this argument.
This meaning that to either side, Definitions are a bit more fluid, Not set in stone, A bit more free to come and go. The voters, If any shall judge whether the 'spirit is kept.
Voters are free to vote however they like without having to make some intricate argument to justify their vote, Although I would appreciate it if they are good sports and honest about it.

I saw another debate about this, And felt somewhat interested, And somewhat disappointed that the person who made it didn't bother to finish it.

Going by the first part of Wikipedia that I read

Anti-homelessness legislation can take two forms; legislation that aims to help and re-house homeless people, And legislation that is intended to send the homeless to homeless shelters compulsively, Or criminalize homelessness and begging.

Since this particular definition includes carrot and not only the stick, I don't really see what could be argued against.

People with homes don't generally like or trust the homeless (I assert without evidence), And since cities/communities are made up of homeowners. It seems logical enough to say that Anti-homelessness legislation would be in their interest.

I suppose I'll leave this up for a bit, Take it down if no one accepts.
But if they do, I'll bring up more arguments.


I gootta be honest, Homelessness is pretty cool
Debate Round No. 1


Though I suppose there may be many circumstances in which people can find satisfaction/acceptance/enjoyment,
homelessness looks like one of the more difficult ones to me.
In large part, Because I doubt that most people 'choose it,
Or the cold wet rainy nights,
The fear of being alone or among strangers,
Difficulty in providing for your friends or family in times of need,
How others view you,
Being marginalized and discriminated against by society,
Unable to afford proper food and health,
List goes on I imagine.


Capitalism is all we need

not laws

For example, The percentage of American households below the poverty line who have basic appliances has grown steadily over the last few decades, With poor families in 2005 being more likely to own things like a clothes dryer, Dishwasher, Refrigerator, Or air conditioner than the average household was in 1971. And consumer items that didn"t even exist back then, Such as cell phones, Were owned by half of poor households in 2005 and are owned by a substantial majority of them today.

Capitalism has also made poor people"s lives far better by reducing infant and child mortality rates, Not to mention maternal death rates during childbirth, And by extending life expectancies by decades.

The competitive market process has also made education, Art, And culture available to more and more people. Even the poorest of Americans, Not to mention many of the global poor, Have access through the Internet and TV to concerts, Books, And works of art that were exclusively the province of the wealthy for centuries.

And in the wealthiest countries, The dynamics of capitalism have begun to change the very nature of work. Where once humans toiled for 14 hours per day at backbreaking outdoor labor, Now an increasing number of us work inside in climate-controlled comfort. Our workday and workweek have shrunk thanks to the much higher value of labor that comes from working with productive capital. We spend a much smaller percentage of our lives working for pay, Whether we"re rich or poor. And even with economic change, The incomes of the poor are much less variable, As they are not linked to the unpredictable changes in weather that are part and parcel of a predominantly agricultural economy long since disappeared.

Think of it this way: the fabulously wealthy kings of old had servants attending to their every need, But an impacted tooth would likely kill them. The poor in largely capitalist countries have access to a quality of medical care and a variety and quality of food that the ancient kings could only dream of.

Consider, Too, That the working poor of London 100 years ago were, At best, Able to split a pound of meat per week among all of their children, Which were greater in number than the two or three of today. In addition, The whole family ate meat once a week on Sunday, The one day the man of the household was home for dinner. That was meat for a week.
Debate Round No. 2


Britain 100 years ago, The 1920?
What was it like to live in the 1920s? The 1920s, Also known as the "Roaring Twenties", Was a decade of contrasts. The First World War had ended in victory, Peace had returned and with it, Prosperity.
historic ukHistoryUK HistoryofBritain The 1920s in Britain
They had a war victory boom, Though a depression came at the end of the 20s I think.

I'd rather look to the industrial revolution of Britain,
Specifically the child labor in industrial Britain.
I'd sooner look to Teddy Roosevelt of the USA,
Specifically his efforts to allow Unions a voice, And to not allow monopolies to run roughshod over the people.

What do both of these examples have in common?
They were situations 'improved by 'laws.
Capitalism 'without laws?
How strange a concept to me.

Laws in societies are older than the Bible.

There are 'still Kings in todays society.
If everyone lives better, It's due to advances in technology more than anything else. For society has long existed amongst humans. Trading and private ownership as well.

But, Advances aside, Do you deny the existence of homelessness?
It's nice that many people are afforded luxuries,
But what of the tent cities?
And block beggars?
What of sidewalks and public places?
city journalsan Francisco homelessness
americanlibrariesmagazine give them shelter library camping bans

Is this a problem that can be handwaved with
Capitalism is all we need?
And people in general live better today?


I conceed
Debate Round No. 3


Ah, Right then.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
https://fee. Org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
I'm not feeling optimistic that will happen, But perhaps.
Posted by Kirii 2 years ago
Since I was the one who originally responded to the homelessness legislation question and didn't get a response back, I hope both sides of the debate bring out good points and are able to shed light on new points of view of this issue
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.