avatar
47 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @benmouse42 @debateme13 Thanks for a great debate!

    Winner will be determined as the best of 5 i.e. community votes + 2 judges or 3 judges. You confirmed judges so far: @marisa_noelle @tara_kade

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @tara_kade Great analysis all around. Thanks for comparing the points and showing how they measured up against each other and how that lead you to your decision. Even if you had voted against me, I would have appreciated this decision because you showed your thought process and impact calculus. But of course, I like it even more because you did vote for me :D. Thanks so much for the decision!

      • 2 years ago

        @tara_kade Two points -

        You kept saying 'home' or 'house' ...not housing. Housing could be apartments, condominiums, etc.....and the term 'housing' is 'inclusive' of either ownership OR renting of many different 'things'.

        You said PRO made a good point...(2:20) about a 'right' being unalienable. Your comment immediately before re: CON position were accurate...then you argued AGAINST CON's position and supported PRO's position. This is really confusing. Everyone has a right to housing. As CON states...like guns - you can rent or buy a gun or obtain housing. In fact, efforts to block this (such as in housing covenants to prohibit renting or selling to minorities) are illegal and un-Constitutional. BUT - the very debate was to elevate the right to something much MORE....the 'guarantee.' We don't have a 2nd amendment 'guarantee' to a gun; we must buy our own...and we must not engage in criminal activity that could result in our being denied the opportunity to exercise that right. Re-check the logic of your statements before and after 2:20.

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @marisa_noelle Thanks so much for this judgment! I agree with everything you said here, and I agree that my explanation of why "guaranteed housing" has lead to increases in homelessness could have been expounded on. That was actually what I thought the debate was going to be about and I was really ready to have that discussion, but since the round was so contingent on topicality I didn't get to say some of the stuff I had prepared. It probably would have been clearer for you and others if I still had explained that stuff though. Thanks for the decision and the feedback :)

    • 2 years ago

      This is a first one on QallOut...

      @debateme13 Congrats for advancing to the Finals and be the first one to actually win against our 2 times Champion!

      @benmouse42 No words.. :-) Good luck in October's tournament!

      • 2 years ago

        Cheers for the debate @debateme13 , although I think the wording of the topic made this one quite confusing :/

        • 2 years ago

          @benmouse42 @debateme13 Note that though I am designated as a resident judge, unless someone tells me that this will count as my official comment, this will not count as one of the RJ votes. I will attach two videos. An unbiased rendering of the round and reason for decision, and a short commentary video on clearing up some of the confusion and some light argumentation on both sides as well.

          • 2 years ago
            • 2 years ago

              I forgot to mention, but another large part of my decision was that countries with a right to housing had increased poverty after it was ratified. That went largely unresponded to by the Pro.

            • 2 years ago

              @josh808 Hey josh, appreciate the feedback.

              I'd like to ask a few things, given that the Con doesn't actually provide the key mechanism (ability to sue) until ~27 minutes into the debate, how can you weigh any of those claims. It seems to me like I was given a straw-man at the start of the debate and asked to defend policy outcomes that were never detailed until it was too late for me to respond.

              I get that debates occasionally hit definitional problems, but I laid out all of my definitions pretty clearly at the start of the debate and the bulk of the contests from the con came at the very end.

              I would also ask why my points about the incentives of politicians and how they would actually react to the threat of being sued never featured in the RFD. Ultimately all of the con's harms are contingent on a particular type of response from politicians and my analysis on politicians responding to this well was un-responded to.

            • 2 years ago

              @benmouse42 I’m just gonna clarify something here, not really looking to redebate the round, but the point about suing was in no means a new argument. That was the same argument I had been making all round, which was that “guaranteed right to housing” equals, and has always equaled, “free housing” which is why every country that enshrines a right to housing in their constitution has to then give free housing to the homeless.

              None of your points about “politicians making bad policy” had anything to do with the the actual issue. A right to housing means anyone has a right to be housed, which means the government has a responsibility to guarantee housing to the citizens, and if they don’t, the citizens can then sue because their constitutional right was not recognized.

              All my points were questioning whether or not that is good policy, (it isn’t).

            • 2 years ago

              @debateme13 I realise that it was the point you trying to make. But here is how it honestly came across to me in the round

              First 25 minutes of the debate: "you have to support the worst examples of this policy, which are xyz, so you lose"

              Last 5 minutes of the debate: "here is a reason why this stance inevitably leads to the worst example of this policy, reason given: Sueing"

              Any assertion needs to be warranted or it ought be ignored and until the very end I hadn't heard any reason as to why the policy had to look like the vision you had other than 'well thats the way it is in france.' It would be the same as me saying 'here is a country without the right to housing and it's not working there, so you have to defend that.' Well no, you can defend any policy you like and analyse if the right to housing helps or hinders the policy, all I ask is the ability to do the same.

            • 2 years ago

              @benmouse42 @debateme13
              When analyzing a resolution such as this, your advocacy, your model, has to match what a guaranteed right to housing is contextually defined as in the real-world. I think that is the fairest, most predictable standard for any debate (note I am coming from an perspective where if you aren’t affirming the proper interp of the resolution, you aren’t actually affirming. The con can’t abuse this but I felt in this round, it was a fair argument) You have full authority to choose your model, but if con points out that’s not a topical rendering, I can’t vite pro. Your examples like loosening rent controls, preventative measures are good, but they in no way guarantee a right to housing by the US (the US has a negative right to housing but not positive- that’s what the topic is focused on). About suing- suing wasn’t actually a large part of my decision at all. I voted con on the interp of the “RtH” because it was the interpretation that best fit real-world enactments in other countries constitutions that were derived from the UN declaration of human rights. This challenge was outlined in the 2nd or 3rd speeches but you didn’t fully engage with WHY your interp was good or real-world, you only said his was “strawmanning” when he gave clear context as to why it was not. (There are plenty of ways to persuasively argue for this- look to Utah, Wichita, and how they’ve basically eradicated chronic homelessness by giving free houses. It costs more to have the homeless on the streets than to house them.) On the “politicians will respond argument”- it did go unresponded to directly. However, Con mentions how an unconditional right would be bad, and although they can take other measures (rent controls, social work, job creation, etc), that doesn’t change the unconditional nature of the right, which is the link to the problems about dependency. I needed analysis on why specifically what these responses would be and WHY they would alleviate he harm that comes from unconditional right (con tells me why unconditional is bad but conditional provision of housing is good- which is thereby fair ground for con in the same way that you can’t consider getting a job if you attend school via work study a “(guaranteed) right to a job”.

          • 2 years ago
            • 2 years ago

              Actually - everyone already has a right to housing. It is right there with a right to food. The person has to get a job, earn a living, and then the person can buy food and rent or buy housing. Nothing to it.

              OTOH - those who believe that our country should re-distribute earnings from workers to give to those who don't want to work...well - that is socialism. Yes - we can have a majority who 'vote' for such a scheme...but does that make it moral? It would be illegal for me to take money out of the pockets of dozens of people and then give it to a homeless guy and say ...'go rent a room somewhere, here is money provided by lots of people.'. Why does a 'majority vote' to empower the state to do the same suddenly make it moral?

              Look at the 'good countries' that have huge social safety nets. They also have very high taxation. In the US - the top 20% pay 95% of the federal income taxes. The remaining 80% pay little in federal taxes, and sales taxes and property taxes might be considered 'reasonable', and middle class people (and even lower class people) can afford cars and such. BUT - the 'good countries' have very high taxation on incomes for everyone, and high value added taxes (sales taxes that are added on at every step of fabrication). This results in far less discretionary income for these people. AND - try to afford a car (which might have taxes greater than the cost of the car, and gasoline is 2 or 3 times greater than in the US.

              TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. This 'housing guarantee' comes with a BIG price....

              Here is a challenge ....name a country that has improved its standards of living by being 'statist' (either Socialist (including Democratic Socialist)) or a country with a nominal free market - but a very big nanny state and large taxes to pay for it.
              https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/a-two-question-challenge-for-supporters-of-intervention-and-big-government/

              • 2 years ago

                Pro tries to weasel word the resolution...somehow there must be a 'guarantee' of housing....yet he says he isn't calling for it to be free. He correctly points out that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms - but the government doesn't have to buy them for us. Nice try...but it is a frivolous argument. The RKBA has been (even at the time of the Constitution) a hotly contested issue. Governments in Europe did NOT permit people to keep/bear arms, but in America- the decision was that people, as the 'owners' of America - had the right. OTOH - there is nothing in the Constitution that says I have a right to a lot of other non-controversial things....should we add to the Constitution I have a right to go to stores I want to buy things I want? Should we add to the Constitution that I have a right to date whom I want, marry whom I want? PRO has elevated ONE particular item to be a 'guarantee' - over plenty of other basic issues that he presumes are non-controversial....then he claims that there is no 'mandate' for the government to actually do something to enforce the 'guarantee'. LAME!

                • 2 years ago

                  @mvineyard I don’t think Ben was intentionally trying to weasel the resolution, but I absolutely agree with you that you can’t offer a guaranteed right and then charge for it. If the “right” costs money and/or could be removed, then it isn’t a right, and it isn’t guaranteed. This is why every country that enshrines a right to housing in their constitution is then legally bound to provide free housing to the homeless, which doesn’t work because it just masks the real issues.

                • 2 years ago

                  @debateme13 I would disagree with your last statement. The USSR had a 'wonderful' Constitution that provided MANY guarantees. "Legally bound" - hell no. The document was vacuous meaningless sounding words designed to give the country good standing. BUT -who would enforce it? (NO ONE!)

                  AND - if you have a 'guaranteed right to housing'? Who defines what is adequate? Do you get a right to a house, a small apartment, a temporary shack? Where is it located...near your job, in the desert, in a small community where there are no jobs? Does the housing have to include furniture, stove, etc?

                  No - leftists are starting to demand more and more 'guaranteed rights' - free college, free housing, a job with a livable wage (but don't expect the precious snow-flake to be required to study in a STEM field and actually learn skills that make them employable. No- they want a guaranteed free college education - maybe in LBGTQWTF studies...and then they want a 6 figure income because, after all, they have a B.A. degree in some worthless area from a college that sheltered the students from opinions that hurt their feelings.)

                  AND - see that here in QallOut - 2 out of 3 people who watched this debate voted for PRO...not because he was more persuasive and made better debate points...but because they are leftists who want free stuff. Our society as we know it is doomed because they will vote to take stuff from other people rather than work for it themselves.

                • 2 years ago

                  @mvineyard As always I appreciate your political and social views and values but I feel that your generalizations and labelling can be unfair..
                  Assumptions like everyone is a leftist, leftists want t free stuff (!!!), take stuff from other people.. I worked hard in my life to have a comfortable life and paid everything from myself. I would be more than happy to pay my fair amount of taxes as long as the government or any other institution makes the best use of my money (maximize social and economic ROI) focusing on elevating the average life of my country men/ women. So I work for myself and still happy to give to the less privileged as long as there is a clear impact. What does this make me?

                • 2 years ago

                  @gigi "What does this make me?" - ANS: - A kind and caring compassionate individual. Great.

                  But - you act as if you can dismiss my comments because they are 'sweeping generalizations' ....as if my comments can be ignored. OTOH - I post actual things happening - and then the comments are dismissed as irrelevant because it is 'anecdotal'. BUT - I posted a link to an actual article that contains more data and analysis (saves me typing) - and there are plenty of hypertext links in that article to even MORE data and analysis. Dan Mitchell's challenge is to show where more and more socialism (or big nanny state safety net paid with huge taxes) makes a society better and more creative/innovative, etc.

                  AND - not every leftist wants free stuff...but enough do to make it untenable.

                  Too many millennials think that socialism will work; that is why Bernie got so many votes. It is an interesting ideal, but they have never actually studied socialism and the corrupting influence it has on many people. The Pilgrims actually tried it...they would all work hard and everything would go into a common storehouse, and everyone would draw out what they needed. They almost starved, because too many 'free riders' found occasion to not work. The governor (William Bradford, in his 'diary' - "On Plymouth Colony") wrote that their attempt was actually arrogance, to think everyone would be so noble and all work hard. The next year, they divided up land and each person would keep what they grew...(you work for it..you keep it...you don't work, you got nothing)...and as a result - they had an abundance! That is the natural lot in life. Too many people 'covet' what others have, and they feel that they have a right to have a government 'share' the benefits (but not to have government 'equalize' the work efforts!).

                  Ronald Reagan had it right: “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.”

                  What Reagan could have said it...the closer to socialism a country gets, the closer it gets to resembling hell. Venezuela would be a current example. The Plymouth Colony's experiment in 1620 would be a decent example - especially since the people realized the error of their ways, and in changing them, they prospered.

                • 2 years ago

                  @mvineyard I didn't mean to dismiss you arguments, only address the labelling and generalizations. I don't really have data but I have a quite big and diverse sample to base my assumption that actually quite a lot of "leftists" think and are like what i described i.e. highly educated, open minded, wealthy, and happy to share their stuff as long as there are effective programs to help others.
                  I think political terms such as communism, socialism, capitalism are and have evolved over time and that's why I avoid using them cause immediately your mind will go in the cases that you presented.
                  Free stuff (call it communism or socialism) by themselves do not solve social issues, they actually create more. But rather than dismiss the whole idea of sharing, I decide to actually improve the way it happens rather than eliminate it. Creating strong institutions that will develop and effectively implement programs for the less fortunate will benefit the whole country, increase the number of productive individuals, GDP etc.
                  So yeah socialism doesn't work if you do it in a crappy, free for all way but then no other system will work if you implement it badly

              • 2 years ago

                Not sure if I missed it, but why is the number of homeless people incresasing in France and other counties if they have housing provided as a right? Why aren’t these people living in the houses provided to them? @debateme13

                I understand they lose incentive to work , but at least they have a guaranteed house from the government, no?

                • 2 years ago

                  I’m pretty sure I missed you explaining taht somewhere in the debate but can’t find it again

                • 2 years ago

                  Ok just heard you mention it again about not solving the root cause
                  I agree with you on that , so if you guarantee a right to housing or might see income levels decrease as well as other indicators , but homelessness itself should decrease... because no matter the lack of incentive to make money, you have a house. so I’m a bit surprised the homelessness rate increased in these counties

                • 2 years ago

                  @yaz I’m glad you ask that, this is what I thought the debate was going to get into. When people have a sense of self ownership and responsibility, they provide more for their investment. But when they are just given something, they tend to take it for granted. So in public housing, the homes wind up getting trashed by the inhabitants, the crime in these areas goes up significantly. The formerly homeless people wind up leaving these places, because they actually feel safer away from these public housing.

                  South Africa has extensive public housing and shelters, but their homeless people are either becoming dependent on government handouts and just living off the government in crime/drug ridden public housing, or they go back out on the streets. France has ghost towns because public housing inevitably causes these problems. In the US, 50% of those who are given a house are back out on the streets within 3 years.

                  You can give someone a house, but that winds up hurting them in the long run. If you work with them and help them get off the street by viewing them as people rather than just throwing a gift at them, it helps them believe in themselves as people. If you make them feel that their home is an investment that can be taken away, they start to feel a sense of pride in that home, and so they start to take part in the process of rehabilitating themselves. US programs are focused on helping them get jobs and sometimes psychological treatment, so that they can address the underlying cause rather than just guaranteeing them a right to a house.

                  If you guarantee housing, all of that progress is undone, because now there’s no incentive for the homeless to better themselves. Regardless of what they do, they’ll have the house anyway. But that doesn’t help them.

                • 2 years ago

                  @yaz also, In those countries, when the right to housing was first put into their constitutions, the governments did provide free housing and so there is always a temporary drop in homelessness. But it doesn’t solve the actual issue, so homelessness winds up going back up again after time passes. Contrast that with the current US model where homelessness has decreased every single year. So we have a contrast between a temporary feel good solution that doesn’t actually work long term, vs. a solution that understands and addresses the real causes of homelessness, and has been tremendously successful.

                • 2 years ago

                  @yaz @debateme13 From what I've read, many of the homeless people in France don't make use of emergency shelters for two main reasons: poor hygiene and security reasons. Also, I'm trying to find information on France providing free houses to people and, quite frankly, I can't. Debateme13, if you have a link or something, I'm curious to read more about it. From what I can see, they offer emergency shelters and subsidized assistance to low-income people. That seems wildly different than what several countries have done in terms of actually providing permanent housing to homeless people.

                • 2 years ago

                  @debateme13 Gotcha, I see the first link that pertains to the law. The articles you linked however, don't seem to draw the connections you do in this debate. Where in these articles do they attribute the housing issues to housing homeless people?

                  The first one is about housing policies having to do with the building of an excess of the wrong kinds of homes in the wrong areas (hence ghost towns). They also mostly talk about issues with the cost of living in France.

                  The second one also seems to be about the cost of living in France and why house prices are going up. There's nothing in here attributing that to housing homeless people who are taking advantage of the enforceable right to housing.

                  Finally, the last one is about whether or not right to housing is enforceable and doesn't take a particularly strong stance so much as it poses a bunch of questions.

                  So... I'm not seeing the connections to your argument here. If the problems in the article aren't attributed to the fact that France added housing as right in their constitution, then how are you basing your claim that all these "unincentivized" people making use of their right is the cause of those problems?

                • 2 years ago

                  @lina I don’t think I ever said homeless people are taking advantage of a right to housing. I questioned whether guaranteeing housing as a right actually helps solve the issue. In all the countries that guarantee a right to housing, homelessness is higher than it currently is in the US. In many of the countries that guarantee a right to housing, not only are their homelessness rates higher, they are also increasing each year, like France which has grown by 50% over the last 10 years.

                  Now I know it seems counterintuitive that if you guarantee a house, how would homelessness go up? But this is something you see everywhere it’s being tried. (Except a few isolated examples like “Housing First” policies in Utah)

                  I tried to simplify the reason why by talking about slums/crime/incentives, but of course that’s only part of the issue. Those are major explanations for why a lot of people leave public housing and go back to the streets.

                  Here’s the thing, homelessness housing integrates with other government policies on housing, so France’s housing issues aren’t entirely due to them adding housing for homelessness, it’s also due to the increased regulation on private businesses building homes. It’s a lot more complicated than one size fits all, since there are numerous regulations that impact the housing market and thus make homelessness policy difficult because you have to work around all the other housing policies. So that’s complicated but I’ll post some links about it.

                  The core of the issue though, is pretty simple. When housing is worked on by private charity and local governments, with oversight from a federal government, they focus on the root causes, and they consistently succeed in fighting homelessness. When a country puts a right to housing into their constitution, it has not lowered homelessness rates further than the US already has, and after a temporary reprieve, nearly always leads to homelessness going back up in the future.

                  Here are a few links explaining the problems with public housing as they correlate to homelessness.

                  https://fee.org/articles/entitlements-versus-investments-a-parable/

                  https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-public-housing-harms-cities-12410.html

                  http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/12/government-intervention-in-housing-has-always-been-bad-heres-why-today-is-no-different/

                  https://thesocietypages.org/trot/2017/03/01/the-problems-with-public-housing/

                  https://www.city-journal.org/html/we-don’t-need-subsidized-housing-11954.html

                  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1002-welch-affordable-housing-20151002-story.html

                • 2 years ago

                  @debateme13 Agree 100% with you that offering guaranteed benefits (housing, education, healthcare) cab be exploited - that's how human nature works. But I would focus more on implementing these benefits in a way that they actually work rather than eliminating the benefits overall e.g. you could offer the right to housing with specific contentions e.g. work somewhere, take care of the house, provide meaningful rehabilitation so that the ones who benefit can actually see a difference in their life.
                  I'm in SF at the moment and everyday I walk in the streets I'm shocked... it's not just the homeless people at the streets (I have never experienced something like this in any European country), it's the mental illness of these people, drug issues etc. So just by offering housing to them, you wouldn't change their lives really. They would probably end up in the streets immediately. However, if these people have a chance in life they DO need a house along with a proper rehabilitation program.

                • 2 years ago

                  @gigi right and that’s what current US policy is doing, which is preferable to “guaranteeing” a right to housing. I certainly don’t think we should eliminate benefits, but we also shouldn’t “guarantee” them as a constitutional right.

                  Here’s the current US policy on how to fight homelessness, it’s really comprehensive and a great policy overall

                  https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_OpeningDoors_Amendment2015_FINAL.pdf

                • 2 years ago

                  @debateme13 that's really interesting, i must say, i'm still shocked at the correlation... but it seems Lina also came across a similar- finding..

                  @gigi and I see homeless people in SF all the time (there are no homeless people whatsoever in Dubai where we lived, even Jordan where I was born and raised, but there are lots of beggers in Jordan)... and it really baffles us when we see SO MANY homeless people on the streets in a city like SF.. I guess I can't imagine what can be worse than being on the street, where do u shower or use the toilet, let alone sleep... But if these public houses end up being worse than the streets, then yes, i can see how that would actually increase the rate...

                  I'm voting Con on this debate as this is an angle i didn't expect and it seems to hold in countries that can i think can be considered comparable to the US... Pro didn't argue against the correlation provided by Con..

                  But if this correlation is true, and if such public housing cannot be provided without also providing it with adequate security, sanitation and minimum maintenance (I can see how impossible that task can be in such a place), then Con wins this debate in my opinion.

                  P.S: I'm definitely not a Resident Judge so please take my analysis with a pinch of salt. I may be unable to select a winner based on a thorough framework, it's just my personal opinion on this debate after watching it, having entered it as curious, undecided and uninformed on the topic

                • 2 years ago

                  @yaz I had seen the numbers in Venezuela and Zimbabwe, and I figured that it was probably just because of their crappy governments, but then I went and calculated the rate of homelessness in each of the countries that had guaranteed a right to housing.

                  I was actually just doing that so I’d know for reference how far behind the US is, but when the numbers came out I was really shocked to see we were ahead of them all.

                • 2 years ago

                  @gigi If you want an example of how things might work...go back to the Clinton Administration time frame. In 1995, Congress was now (for the first time in 40 years) controlled by Republicans. They passed a welfare reform bill (Clinton vetoed twice, then signed on the 3rd go-around because his political advisers told him he would lose the 1996 elections otherwise). That welfare reform had WORK requirements, had a 5 year limitation on receiving benefits, plus other 'reforms' that made it tougher for people to sit on their ass and draw a welfare check. (AND - having more babies wouldn't increase the take home welfare check by single moms...the 'brood mares of the welfare state' ..). The leftists shrieked at how mean it was, how many would suffer, etc. But - plenty of people looked at the requirements to go in and do 'workfare' (20 to 40 hours of work per month if able-bodied), or other requirements...and they decided it would be better to just get a job. The welfare rolls shrank significantly. Big savings when someone goes from taking from the taxpayer to being a worker, earning money - and paying a little in taxes. This 'tough love' actually was very helpful to these people; they got up off their asses and actually started working and earning....and they would typically be more responsible for their own actions.

                • 2 years ago

                  @mvineyard This totally makes sense, love it! Especially for the ones who are healthy and just looking to pocket benefits.
                  Unfortunately, there is another group of individuals who are either mentally ill or drug addicts etc. For these ones, this wouldn't work. They really need to be taken care of in a proper rehabilitation program if the ever have a chance to have a life.. Really sad honestly and I wish I knew how it could be improved..

                • 2 years ago

                  @debateme13

                  These are the problems associated with public housing according to these articles:

                  (It is important to note that NONE of these articles make issue of the right to housing)

                  - Keeps low-income areas from growing into wealthier neighborhoods
                  - Persistent Government Involvement Leading to the 2008 Housing Crisis
                  - Racial segregation
                  - Government needing to review existing policies that are ineffective before trying new methods of combatting homelessness.

                  So none of these show a correlation with homelessness. Which, to me, suggests that in some countries where free housing may correlate to more homelessness, the cause is likely something other than the actual right to housing. Those issues should be addressed so that the model can work properly.

                  I also take issue with his because you rely heavily on blaming the housed as dependent moochers who lose all incentive to work or contribute to society, which I think is a ridiculous claim that I continue to hear without a warrant that reflects human psychology. People do not aspire to be locked up in their homes with nothing to do all day. While there will always be the few who take advantage of a program, most people actually have ambitions in life. Those ambitions usually manifest themselves in careers or work of some kind. Many of the issues with assistance programs are not due to laziness.

                  Utah is not an isolated instance. It has also caused massive decrease in homelessness in Finland, Denmark, Singapore, and Canada.

                  "I questioned whether guaranteeing housing as a right actually helps solve the issue."

                  No... you haven't questioned if it helps solve the issue. You actively assert that it causes more homelessness. I think the conversation could have been more interesting if you raised the question in an effort to explore why the correlations exist but you pretty definitively attribute it to guaranteed housing. That's a pretty strong stance to take based off evidence that is not causation and is contradicted in other parts of the world.

                  "South Africa has extensive public housing and shelters, but their homeless people are either becoming dependent on government handouts and just living off the government in crime/drug ridden public housing, or they go back out on the streets. France has ghost towns because public housing inevitably causes these problems. "

                  You are ascribing a cause without evidence. That's my issue. Especially when there is much more concrete evidence proving the opposite. Shelters are not the same thing as being given a house - which is the way you seem to understand the resolution. Yes, people are much more likely to end up back on the streets if they're in temporary shelters or public housing that are in the worst areas of a city. I doubt this is the model anyone is advocating for. Permanent housing with supportive services works.

                  In fact, the most successful model in the United States has been housing first so your claim that whatever other things we do work "well enough" is disheartening. If we find something that works better than what we are currently doing, then it should be the new way of doing things. Not to mention the fact that public housing isn't the only kind of assistance needed to combat homelessness. You focus a lot on that one aspect.

                  I also think that the logic behind having it be a right so that the government can't defund the problem when they are satisfied with low numbers is reasoning you fail to counter.

                • 2 years ago

                  @lina haha you really do a lot of judge intervention when you vote. Many of these topics could have been addressed had they been brought up in the debate. But none of them are relevant to the central question.

                  Does guaranteeing a right to housing in a countries constitution create a better solution to homelessness than the one the US has currently adopted?

                  The answer is no. Not one country that guarantees a right to housing has a lower rate of homelessness than the US. Most of these countries experienced a temporary drop in homelessness, which is now going back up, and we can quibble about why that rate of homelessness is going up, (I offered an explanation, you see a different one, whatever) it's actually irrelevant. The point is, the US model has a lower rate of homelessness than the countries who guaranteed housing as a right in their constitution, so it has not been shown to be better.

                • 2 years ago

                  @gigi Here - I agree with you. In the 1980's - courts made it very hard to 'institutionalize' those with mental problems. Much of the very serious problems we see - the people refuse help, they want to camp out under freeways, they want to use drugs, etc. There are charitable shelters that will admit and help people - but the people must be willing to be drug free and stay off drugs. They might be admitted once while trying to get off drugs...but the shelters usually have zero tolerance for those who sneak out, use drugs, then come back in. They get bounced. The shelters will focus on those who are trying to get help.

                  Unfortunately - we see things like city governments using taxpayer dollars to set up 'safe injection sites' so homeless druggies can shoot up illegal drugs 'safely' (there is an oxymoron) under the supervision of a tax paid nurse.

                  If we want government aid/assistance - maybe take an old abandoned building and renovate it...with the aid/assistance of the homeless that will live in it. It would have some basic supervision....and people in the facility would be expected to work to maintain the building, to cook and clean (on a rotating basis), attend job placement training classes, babysit each other's kids....and in general - do the things, with some government help....to get on their feet and get a job. Unfortunately, the vast majority of homeless want to get handouts and not be forced to work for anything. If the government help dried up except for a 'workfare' program, and the homeless were told that vagrancy laws would be enforced...either move into some sort of shelter, or move out of the city, stop using streets as a urinal ....or be put in either jail or a mental institution.

                  Unfortunately - too many courts have adopted extreme leftists positions on allowing people to be vagrants, sleep under overpasses, use drugs, hassle citizens looking for handouts, drop home or business values where their 'camps' are located, etc. The insane asylum is being run by the patients. Crazy.

                • 2 years ago

                  @lina I did not insert any of this bias when doing my judgment. However, after debating this topic 10-15 times in high school LD debate which lasts about 40 min/round, I learned a lot about the issues. First- on aff I did utilize the persuasive examples such as Utah, Wichita, Denver, Quincy which substantially decreased chronic homelessness and doing so was cheaper than not housing them. On neg, when people ran those examples against me, my argument was 1) those statistics refer to chronic homelessness, another article stated that the housing first solution wouldn't be economically viable or beneficial for non-chronically homeless (the aff response to that argument would be that non-chronically homeless people are able to get out of homelessness by definition so the debate should center around chronic homelessness) and 2) the most foundational link worth solving, poverty, is not solved and further entrenched via dependency (the aff response here is that certain things like a job or medical care require a house first). There were a lot of back and forth arguments I had prepared for so I found it a very interesting topic. The example of France was utilized- but refugees play a huge role in the increase in homelessness. Therefore I researched examples and ways to argue for and against them.

              • 2 years ago

                Well with those judgements I'm conceding to @debateme13

                It's a shame in some ways this debate devolved into a disagreement about the definition haha. I still don't quite understand this guaranteed vs non-guaranteed right distinction as it isn't in the US constitution in any other area. But hey, that's debating , sometimes you get a curveball! Well thrown Daniel!

                Best of luck in the finals!

                • 2 years ago

                  @benmouse42 you’re a class act man. Yeah that wasn’t how I expected the debate to turn out either, but as always, you’re a formidable opponent and I look forward to the re-re-rematch lol

                • 2 years ago

                  @benmouse42 I hope I can clear this up. All the Bill of Rights are negative rights or extensions of negative rights- liberties of the citizenry that government or other people cannot violate- free speech, freedom of religion, your ability to bear arms, your ability to be secure in your persons, papers, effects (privacy). Guaranteeing a right to housing BY the US Government is a positive right (I.e. something the government actively gives and guarantees to someone rather than the government or populace not violating it). Does that make sense?

                • 2 years ago

                  Right, a negative right is something that can't be taken away from you, whereas a positive right would be something government would have to give you. For instance, "access" to guns, religion, property, etc. is guaranteed as a negative right. The government can't take away your property, your guns, or your religion once you have them. Life, Liberty, and Property are negative rights, things that cannot be taken away from the people, because to do so would be abusive and a violation of the individual's negative rights.

                  We already have property rights, which are negative rights. Everyone already has the right to have a house/apartment, just like everyone already has the right to have a gun. But not everyone has a gun, and not everyone has a house.

                  For the government to ensure that everyone has these things would be a positive right. The government could try to enshrine a "right" for everyone to always have guns, and if they did, they would be constitutionally obligated to give a gun to anyone who doesn't have one. That would be a positive right.

                  Enshrining a right to housing in a constitution would be the same way. If it is made a constitutional right for everyone to have housing at all times, then government would be obligated to give housing to people, and if the recipient can't afford it that means it's free housing.

                • 2 years ago

                  @debateme13 @josh808 this appears to prove my point.
                  You have the right to property but you still enshrine the right to bear arms anyway. I had conceived of the debate in exactly that way.

                  You guys are reading positive right into the motion, which is fine, but I dont think its unreasonable for the pro to define it as another negative right given that the US does that already