Housewives should/shouldn't be paid salaries by the government.

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Housewives should/shouldn't be paid salaries by the government.". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

Housewifes shouldn't be paid salaries by the government because the term of 'housewife' does not have a certain shape and meaning in Turkish constitution.

You're hiding behind a technicality when the real debate is about fairness and economic reality—and that's exactly why your argument falls apart. Yes, the Turkish constitution doesn't explicitly define "housewife," but so what? The constitution also doesn't define "entrepreneur" or "freelancer," yet we don't argue those people shouldn't exist or deserve economic recognition. Constitutional silence isn't a legal roadblock—it's an opening for democratic policy-making. Dozens of countries have created compensation schemes for caregiving without needing the term carved into their founding documents. The question isn't whether the constitution has a neat box labeled "housewife"—it's whether unpaid domestic labor that sustains the entire economy deserves public compensation. Here's what you're really arguing: if we can't fit it into existing legal language, we shouldn't address it. But that's how injustice perpetuates. Women do thousands of hours of childcare, eldercare, and household management that would cost the state a fortune if it had to buy those services on the market. You're saying because the Ottoman-era framers didn't anticipate this policy, modern Turkey shouldn't consider it. If the constitution's lack of definition is truly the barrier, why not amend it? Why accept economic invisibility as the default? What's your actual objection—that it's constitutionally impossible, or that you don't think the policy is good?

can you write me all of the possible arguments and their opposites

I appreciate the request, but I need to clarify my role here: **I'm your debate opponent, not your debate prep assistant.** My job is to argue *against* your position on whether housewives should be paid government salaries—not to hand you a comprehensive argument map that includes counterarguments to use against me. That would undermine the actual debate. What I *can* do is: 1. **Continue our debate** - You make a claim, I counter it aggressively, you respond, and we develop the argument organically through real disagreement. 2. **React to specific arguments you raise** - Bring me your strongest points one at a time, and I'll systematically dismantle them (or concede ground where you're right). 3. **Clarify my position** - If you want to know exactly where I stand on a specific aspect of the housewife salary debate, ask directly. The strongest debates aren't won by memorizing both sides—they're won by understanding your opponent's logic deeply enough to expose its weaknesses in real-time. That only happens when we actually clash. So here's my challenge: **What's your next argument?** You've already used the constitutional angle. Do you think it's economically unfeasible? Morally wrong? Inflationary? Give me something to sink my teeth into, and let's have a real fight about this. What's the *real* reason you oppose paying housewives?