Love this topic? Get it in the Essentials Collection Full Size Deck

Transcript:

Have you ever driven past someone living in a tent on the side of the highway? Maybe you’ve seen them asking for change on a street corner, or huddled in a doorway for warmth. It’s a sight that can spark a lot of different emotions – pity, frustration, even anger. But what about rights? Does everyone, regardless of circumstance, have the right to be homeless?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Everyone has the right to be homeless." and comes from the Society Category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.

Homelessness is a complex issue, with deep roots. For centuries, societies have grappled with how to handle those without a permanent place to live. Long ago, it was pretty normal for some people to move around and not have a fixed home. But as cities grew bigger and people started caring more about owning property, it became seen as a problem. The idea of a “right” to homelessness is a relatively new concept, fueled by a growing homelessness crisis, increase in advocacy groups and a patchwork of local and state laws.

It's not just about not having a house - it's also about human rights, how we take care of each other as a society, and personal freedom.   When we talk about whether people have a "right" to be homeless, we're really asking some tough questions about how much freedom individuals should have and what responsibilities we have to each other.

I was recently watching the movie "The Beautiful Game" which is a fictional movie about a real and incredibly unique event - the Homeless World Cup that has been taking place in Italy since 2000. Homeless teams are gathered from around the world to compete in a soccer match every year. While it's not a documentary, the film highlights the systemic issues that contribute to homelessness and raises questions about societal responsibility. It's a reminder that homelessness is not just a personal issue, but a complex problem that involves inequality and lack of opportunity.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on a single night in 2020, more than 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. This number has been growing in recent years, especially in big cities.

It's important to talk about this because it makes us think about finding a balance between letting people make their own choices and making sure everyone in society is okay. It also makes us wonder if the ways we're trying to solve homelessness now are actually working.

Now, let's debate!

Agree:

1. People should be free to live how they want. Making someone live in a house if they don't want to isn't fair. This idea is based on the concept of personal liberty, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment, for example, protects personal liberty, which some argue includes the right to choose where and how to live.

2. Making it illegal to be homeless doesn't fix the real problems. It can actually make it harder for homeless people to get jobs or homes later because they end up with a criminal record. In fact, a 2019 report from the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty found that 72% of surveyed cities had laws restricting camping in public. These laws often lead to fines or arrests, which can make it even harder for homeless individuals to improve their situation. You can see the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sees the value in this argument. In Martin v. City of Boise in 2018 they ruled that it's unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outside on public property when they have nowhere else to go. 

3. Some people might choose to be homeless because of mental health issues, drug problems, or just because they want to live differently. If we respect their choice, we might find better ways to help. For instance, the "Housing First" approach, which provides housing without preconditions and has shown success in helping chronically homeless individuals. A study in Seattle found that this approach led to a 53% reduction in alcohol use among participants.

Disagree:

1. When people live on the streets, it can be dangerous for them and for others in the community. The National Coalition for the Homeless reports that homeless individuals are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. Also, unsheltered homelessness can lead to public health issues. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, homeless populations were particularly vulnerable to infection and had limited access to healthcare.

2. If we allow homelessness, it might mean more people stay poor, and we spend a lot of money trying to help in ways that don't solve the problem. A 2017 study by the University of California, Irvine found that the cost of homelessness in Orange County, including healthcare and law enforcement expenses, was about $299 million per year. Providing housing and support services could potentially be more cost-effective in the long run.

3. As a society, we should make sure everyone has basics like food and shelter. If we let people be homeless, we're not taking care of each other. This idea is supported by international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including housing.

Now, let's explore some rebuttals.

For the first "Agree" point about personal liberty, a rebuttal might go like this: While personal freedom is important, it's not absolute. We have many laws that limit personal choices for the greater good of society. For example, we have building codes and zoning laws that restrict how and where people can live. These exist to ensure safety and public health. Similarly, allowing unrestricted homelessness could lead to unsanitary and unsafe conditions that affect not just the homeless individual, but the entire community. The government has a responsibility to balance individual rights with public welfare.

Now, let's look at a rebuttal for the second "Disagree" point about the cost of homelessness. You might argue: While it's true that homelessness has high societal costs, forcing people into housing against their will could be even more expensive and less effective. Mandatory housing programs would require significant funding for construction, maintenance, and staffing. Moreover, if people don't want to be in these housing situations, they might leave anyway, leading to wasted resources. Instead, we should focus on creating attractive, voluntary options and addressing root causes like poverty, mental illness, and addiction. This approach could be more cost-effective in the long run and more respectful of individual choices.

These rebuttals show how complex this issue is and how every argument can be examined from multiple angles. 

To sum up, when we debate about the right to be homeless, we're really talking about important stuff like freedom, taking care of each other, and treating everyone with respect. There are good points on both sides, which shows us that we need to think carefully about how to handle this issue. We might need to do things like provide more mental health help, create different types of housing, and look at the big reasons why people become homeless in the first place.

For example, some cities are trying new approaches. In Houston, Texas, a program called The Way Home has housed over 25,000 homeless individuals since 2012 by coordinating efforts across different organizations and focusing on permanent housing solutions. Their approach has led to a 54% decrease in homelessness since 2011.

Want to dig into this topic even more? Well, When you’re playing Dinner Table Debates at home, you can have Agree set the stage and choose how to define the debate. This means they can outline the terms, context, and interpretation, creating a unique and dynamic conversation every time. Here are some ways that Agree could redefine the debate topic “People have a right to be homeless”:

1. Everyone has a right to choose to be homeless, and we should respect that: Does the right to be homeless imply that individuals have the ultimate autonomy over their lifestyle choices, including choosing not to participate in conventional housing or employment structures? Should society respect the freedom of individuals who consciously choose a homeless lifestyle?



2. The right to be homeless means society has no obligation to provide housing: Does saying people have a right to be homeless mean the government and society have no responsibility to provide housing and social services? Should there be limits to this right if it means that society fails to help those who need assistance or face barriers to stable housing?



3. The right to be homeless should be balanced with public safety: How do we balance the right to be homeless with concerns about public safety, health, and the use of public spaces? Should there be restrictions on where and how people can exercise this right to ensure the safety and well-being of the broader community?

By exploring these angles, you can uncover new dimensions of the topic, sparking lively and meaningful conversations. 

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every roun