The Instigator
PARADIGM_L0ST
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
jimmylovestoshimmy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abolishing currency (money) will ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,392 times Debate No: 12743
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

=== ABSTRACT ===

A proposition inferred by several members of DDO is that abolishing current forms of currency will either ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime. I disagree that money is the root cause of human greed, and believe that eliminating currency will not stop human greed. Concurrent to this position, I feel that such a proposition attempts to naively and artificially remove an internal struggle (greed of the human heart) through external means.

Money is essentially an abstraction that we have arbitrarily assigned a universal, or near universal, monetary value to. By eliminating currency, I believe that humans will intrinsically resort to other forms of currencies in the absence of currently accepted forms of money. For instance, many native American tribes used goods as currency in which to trade. Natural items, such as seashells, the hides of animals, and/or ornately crafted objects were often used as a form of currency. By eliminating an universally accepted form of currency, people will simply revert back to more archaic forms of payment.

=== RULES & CLARIFICATIONS ===

Disclaimer: By accepting the debate, you infer total acceptance of the rules set forth. Any deviation from the rules will result in a forfeiture of the debate.

1. All DDO members may accept this debate, however, it is optimal that the accepting challenger actually believe in the PRO position.

2. Excessive use of semantics is strictly forbidden, however, what constitutes as "excessive semantics" will be at the discretion of the voters, although any debater may feel free to point out the alleged overuse of semantics.

3. Any round can be used to present any argument applicable to the debate. (For instance, some debaters posit that using the Final Round to present an argument that cannot be rebutted against is disingenuous. I do not ascribe to this philosophy).

4. The debater accepting the challenge may NOT vote on their own debate. I am barring myself the ability to vote for this debate as well. Voting either for or against yourself will result in automatic forfeiture.

5. Have fun, and give the audience a good show!
jimmylovestoshimmy

Pro

I dont think there is much logic here. Greed is a human emotion. You'll strugggle to eliminate that one without equality. As for crime there wont be any ponsy scheme's but there'll still be the occasional sheep snatcher, and dont forget the more vile forms of crime such as tinned fruit.
Debate Round No. 1
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

I was really hoping someone who believed in the resolution was going to take this debate. Instead, I have apparently received someone who is echoing my own claims.

PRO states that there isn't much logic here, yet seems to not only agree with me, but also briefly touched on one argument I was reserving for another round. I seriously question why he chose to accept the debate.

If PRO does not put forth an argument that supports the resolution, I scarcely see how that would not constitute a forfeiture.
jimmylovestoshimmy

Pro

Easy tiger. I've supported the wrong argument, yes. But why did you even post an argument which you didnt believe in. Usually a person would argue passionatly for something, instead of against it. I'd also take a look at your writing style as you do seem to come across rather anti-social; the guy people try to avoid talking to at parties, etc.
Debate Round No. 2
PARADIGM_L0ST

Con

PRO asserts that I am posting an argument I do not believe in. He is mistaken, not that it matters if I did take a devil's advocate position. Some on this site have alleged that if we were to get rid of commonly accepted forms of currency, crime and greed would be reduced or eliminated altogether.

I am taking the CON position because I do not believe this proposition to be true and then give supporting details to further explain why.

Lastly, PRO states that my writing style gives him the impression that I am anti-social; the guy people try to avoid talking to at parties. How he's deduced so much from my writing is anyone's guess, but a few things are certain.

1. PRO introduces irrelevancies in to the "debate."
2. PRO uses ad hominem for no apparent reason.
3. PRO made no substantive argument.

For these reasons, sensible people vote CON.
jimmylovestoshimmy

Pro

You're taking this way too seriously; its a poxy debate site, not a criminal trial in court. Anyway's, why argue, I agree that abolishing currency wont eliminate those things. I'm surprised you didn't grasp this at the beginning. You should be put at a heavy disadvantage for not realising this.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheNewSSA 5 years ago
TheNewSSA
Don't know what a DDO is. But I will take the PRO position.
Posted by Esuric 6 years ago
Esuric
I'd like to take the con position.
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
If its not money (currency) it would be something else that takes it place. (land, probably)
Posted by Rob1Billion 6 years ago
Rob1Billion
The wording is fine for me. The comments are ripe with harbingers for my success but hey, I'll just create a bunch of fake accounts and vote for myself. Game on!
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
BTW, I voted CON in the debate (obviously) since PRO concedes that he's wrong and is just in general a douche.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I'd agree with PRO and argue it with you if I had time (though I probably won't). However, I don't think you're really framing this debate fairly. Nobody just says, "let's get rid of the dollar for the hell of it and see what happens" (or maybe they do, and I'm mistaken) but most people who will disagree with you trace the root of greed, crime, corruption, etc. to private property and ownership in general of which capital or currency is a crucial part.

In reality, the question here is moreso capitalism vs. no capitalism than currency vs. no currency as there isn't really a sane argument for just getting rid of currency and not capitalism. You're arguing why cap + currency is better than cap - currency which is going to get you nowhere when your opponent isn't defending cap in the first place.
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
Innomen, that reminds me, isn't there a third person too on DDO that believes the PRO position? Regardless, thanks for those two names.I knew I wasn't crazy. People on this site have actually made this claim.
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
Thanks innomen!
Posted by Spaztoid 6 years ago
Spaztoid
@jimmylovestoshimmy

This is a debate site, why would you join if you didn't want to debate?
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Tomblikebomb and Rob1billion would take this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
PARADIGM_L0STjimmylovestoshimmyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
PARADIGM_L0STjimmylovestoshimmyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
PARADIGM_L0STjimmylovestoshimmyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70