Bitcoin is a bubble
A bubble is when a large sum of people buy into something because they think it will be sold for more later on, a bubble is nearly impossible to stage without fiat, take this for example, say the ratio of a bag of Starbucks coffee to a dollar bill is 1:10, you need to put down 10$ to equal the Starbucks, then say the Fed decides to make th were be 2x the amount of $ in currency, then it's half the value, you need to put down another 10$ to equal the Starbucks, 1:20, then the Fed just starts issuing $ like crazy, the value of the dollar goes down, the amount of $ needed to equal the Starbucks goes up, but from the dollars perspective the value of the Starbucks is going up, so people buy into it, eventually there isn't enough money to equal the value assigned to the coffee, no one can buy it, by now the coffee is cost 100$, it crashes to 10$, this is how you start a bubble, bit coin is a bubble, it's proper value is 5$, (that's how much it is capable of being valued) and it pops at 250$, meaning that there is only enough buyers and people who accept bit coin to support the bubbling until this price, people keep trying to get back into the bubble, they keep overhauling it, raising the price, and it pops.
Pro claims that bitcoin's price is in a bubble. There are two insurmountable issues with this claim:
First, this is based on Pro's claim that bitcoins true value is 5$. However, this is just Pro's subjective value for bitcoin. Obviously, since bitcoin is trading at around $235, these current buyers subjective value is at least $235. Pro would have to provide some information that, if announced publicly, would immediately cause all bitcoin buyers and sellers to bid the price down to $5.
Next, knowledge of bubbles can only be known ex post facto. Pro cannot really win unless the price of bitcoin falls to $5 before voting ends on this debate.
2. It doesn't have to, it already did, it went from 5$ to 250$, then restarted 4 times since 2010.
2. The price of bitcoin prior to Sept 12, 2015 is irrelevant. As I explained in round 1, bubbles can only be identified ex post facto (which you just proved).
Whether bitcoin has been a bubble in the past is irrelevant. Pro must establish that bitcoin is in a bubble now. Even if voters side with Pro on this detail and allow that the term "bitcoin is a bubble" may include it's past performance, Pro has established no objective criteria to measure this. When did this occur? What was the starting and ending price, and how much of a fall must occur before the term "bubble" is applicable. These details must be defined because Pro's resolution must be answered either "yes" or "no". The burden of proof is on Pro, and "bitcoin is a bubble" has not been established.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|