I need your help~ (school project)

[Assassin]

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.

[Assertn]

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

[David75]

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

[DB_Hunter]

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.