In post
#445 I stated, "Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition."
In post
#446 Your Star replied with, "Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that."
In post
#447 you replied to my argument, "Do you have any data to support this assertion?"
In post
#448 Your Star asserted, "Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die."
I responded to it in post #449
#449, "Will this suffice?" with a link to the Philanthropic Society's history section.
In post
#452 you replied, "No because it does not address the real question. Yes there have been examples of philanthropy throughout time, what I want to see is that if it is enough to take care of everyone in need."
You moved the goal post there since that was never my argument, but Your Star's.
In post
#461 you moved the goal posts again by using an invalid comparison to prove that charity was ineffective and reliable from 1700-1919 by posting up an article about prostitution during the 19th century. In post
#471 you demanded I back up my position with data and I did on the argument I made originally. Afterthat, you have misattributed Your Star's argument to me. By doing so you have moved the goal post again by letting Your Star slide on not providing proof of her argument and moving it onto me.
Since Your Star and you have failed to provide any proof that charity was unreliable and ineffective, I did not need to provide proof of my own under the rules of debate. You and her both used rhetoric and opinion, so I replied in kind with opinion.