Liberals should take care of people the same way as...
Liberals should take care of people the same way ranchers raise their livestock (chickens, cows, pigs, lamb, veal, etc.).
Ranchers has a vested interest in their animals and will do anything to protect them, take care of them and keep them safe. They provide food, housing and health care. Similarly, the government should use this model and take care of its citizens. We should receive food stamps, government housing and nationalized health care for all. And when we get too old or too sick, they should...., uh...., assist us in our journey to the...., uh...., other side.
True
Side Score: 8
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
I would LOVE to be raised for slaughter! I'd get to eat the best food all day. I'd get to exercise and prove my manliness to the other guys. I'd also get to have sex plenty of times because of my awesome super-food genetics. Then, at the end of the peak of my life, I'll have a spike driven through my neck and I'll instantly die, saving me the pain of spiraling downhill from the best days of my life. Then people will get to eat my awesomely manly flesh. And enjoy it. And enjoy even more the fact that I had children which will once day be equally tasty and manly/beautiful. How could you not love that? Instead of worrying so much about death, you'd worry all the time about not living your life enough! That sounds a lot better, considering you'll pretty much get whatever you want as long as it will make you more awesomely tasty. Side: True
2
points
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
Putting aside the fact that this obviously isn't the most serious debate in the world for a moment, let's discuss the issue in a little bit of depth. I would normally side with the True argument for this debate, but the problem is that the rancher analogy simply doesn't fit. If a rancher isn't doing his job satisfactorily, it's not as if the cows can just kick him off his high tractor. Okay, well, maybe they could... But they certainly couldn't elect the NEW rancher(s). But I do agree that the government has a certain responsibility to its constituents to supply some basic needs when the constituents are unable to supply themselves. That's what government's for: to help the tax payer when they need it. Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
What if we were to substitute private organizations to these tasks. For example, let churches and charity organizations take care of some of that stuff. Mainly because I think that the government is really bad/incompetent at handling this kind of stuff. For example, politicians took the money out of social security and replaced the funds with worthless I.O.U.s I understand that private organizations would probably be just as corrupt BUT, we can put them on trial and send them to jail. Like we did with Goldman Sachs and friends ;) Side: Wait..., What? No!
|
