Argument: It is unjust to make welfare conditional

Welfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless.

Candidate 1: "The purpose of welfare is not to better society per se; it is to support those who have fallen into bad times and need extra help. Expecting people to render a service in exchange for help is demeaning and it undermines the purpose of welfare which is to help people get back on their feet versus tell them what they have to do to be considered beneficial to society."
Candidate 2: "But the program in Brazil is biased towards rural communities versus cities. In the two largest cities in only 10% of families are enrolled versus 41% in the rural areas of Brazil [1] . To consider the program effective it needs to work equally with all members of the poor, which it does not.

[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887"
Candidate 3: "There is nothing that says the two are mutually exclusive. Linking welfare to school attendance could be instituted next to other reforms that overall would create greater incentives for children to do well in school."
Candidate 4: "Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel1. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school? 1 Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011]."
Candidate 5: "If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011]."
Candidate 6: "It is perfectly just to ask people to adjust behavior in exchange for funds. In fact, if the tax payers' dollars were being poured into an unchanging situation that would be unfair and unproductive. For a long time the US, and countries around the world, have struggled with making welfare a program that can lift people up. Connecting it to schools can help children."
Candidate 7: "If families have incentives to send their children to school, and raise their children with a value of education, stressing the need for them to go to school they are more likely to finish high school and lift themselves out of these environments. The reason why some children would rather work then go to school is because they have been raised in an atmosphere that does not stress education and the necessity to finish high school. This type of program would push parents to change their children's values as they grow up. Additionally, a child's sense of duty to their family because of welfare payments being connected to their school attendance would give them further reason not to drop out, even if they do not like or value school."
Candidate 8: "Yet if kids aren't going to school anyway it doesn't matter if the schools are inadequate. Getting kids in schools is the first step to improving the education situation and the dropout rate. As long as we look at the education system in the US and around the world as dismal and overwhelming, nothing will change."

It is perfectly just to ask people to adjust behavior in exchange for funds. In fact, if the tax payers' dollars were being poured into an unchanging situation that would be unfair and unproductive. For a long time the US, and countries around the world, have struggled with making welfare a program that can lift people up. Connecting it to schools can help children.
