The Instigator
vardas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Can spending $3.3M on a watch ever be justifiable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 37010
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

vardas

Con

Is it ever justifiable to spend extremely large amounts of money on luxuries?

Watches come in all shapes and sizes and vary in price from a few $ to millions of dollars. Functionally the most expensive watches offer no more than those for a fraction of the price. However for some people watches are an important statement of style and/or status. And to be seen with a watch that has clearly cost a lot of money is important to them.

But when $1000 can save a child's life in a third world country, how can it ever be justifiable to pay obscene amounts of money on something which does little more than tell those around them how rich they are.

Although I think paying $3.3M for a watch is totally obscene I am not sure I know at what price point buying a watch is acceptable. I expect this varies from person to person. I recently bought a watch for $150. I am sure some would think that is too much and that my money would have been better used in other ways. They may well be right.

I am though interested in what percentage of people think that $3.3M is unjustifiable.
Mikal

Pro

As Con on this Topic you are claiming that this is not justified, I being pro will provide reason for justification.


Contention 1

Paradox

If people make money they are allowed to spend it on what they wish. If you say (x) amount of money is not justified, you can make the same argument for someone who makes only 20,000 a year. The reason someone can spend that much is because of the their total income. If someone where to make 100,000,000 a year then they would be allotted to spend what ever amount they want on luxuries.

The cost of the luxury is irrelevant. If you are telling the person that makes that much money that they are not allowed to pick and chose their luxuries, then you would have to tell the same thing to the person who makes 20,000.

Example : Instead of going to redbox, he must give that dollar up to food organizations.

Actually this would be the same across the board, and for it to be set up fairly and equally you would almost have to do a charity tax on peoples incomes. That way it is fair and equal to everyone. Just because someone makes more money, does not give us the right to limit what they purchase.


Contention 2

Big Spending Stimulates the Economy(billionaires spending money)

This speaks for itself but is proven to be true. Often people with this type of money will invest in upcoming business or just drop the money into the economy itself. This is almost a free market type of system in a way, and promotes competition among Companies. The more money being dumped into the economy, the better it is for us. The more individuals put money into the economy, the more it will growth and can even lead to new jobs. Basically we want them to spend their money here because it will boost the economy.

http://www.americanthinker.com...




Contention 3

It is their money

Literally this is a simple argument, but they work for it so they can spend it on what they want. This ties into contention 1 but if you told them different, it would have to be across the board. Anyone who works or makes money, is allotted to spend it on what they chose as long as it is within the lines of the law. That is reason a lot of people go to schools for years, is because of this very fact. They want to be able to afford the luxuries that they want. That is why they will stick through school for 8 years. That way the can life the life they want.


Contention 3

Anything is Justifiable

Anything can be justified. If someone where to spend their money on a TV, rather than put it into a company that gives food to the needy this is still justified.

The context in which we would have to gauge "justified" is what is within the means of the law at the time we are discussing this.

If you stated is it morally correct you would have a better time defending this argument, but you would still lose because of moral subjectivity, or moral relativism.

The most logical assumption we can make is that as long as they are not buying drugs or doing something else illegal, they are allotted to spend the money on what they wish and it is "justified".


In Closing

My adversary must show why spending this type of money is not justified. I have given reasons and examples as to why it is justified. It is on him to show and explain, that people are or should not be allowed to spend this kind of money.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas

Con

Of course people should be allowed to spend their money any way they like and it is true that money spent helps boost an economy. What interests me though is the idea that their is an amount above which nobody could reasonably justify spending.

There are children dying from malaria whose lives could be saved if the money spent on watches over $1000 were spent instead on providing nets.

How can anyone justify self aggrandizement, vanity, and vulgar display over helping save lives?

This debate may well, or may well not, apply to other luxuries, but I think it helps the debate if we just focus on the $3.3M watch.

The person buying the watch may well justify it by 'stimulation of the economy'. That is a good thing but stimulation of the local economy does not save lives. And buying one very expensive watch is not the most effective way to stimulate an economy. Most of the wealth from the purchase remains in the value of the watch.
Mikal

Pro

I am going to say extend all arguments because I believe you missed the main points I was making.

Your main thing is how or why could someone spend thae much money when they could save lives instead? That if they took that money and sent it to Africa or some other third world country, it would have purpose behind it.

If you were claiming that there are better uses for the money that was used to buy the 3.3 million dollar watch, then that would be an accurate assertion, but you are asking can spending that much be justified.

At this point we must ask, justified by who? Maybe to you and your worldview it is not justified, because you believe the money could be better spent. To the person buying the watch it is entirely justified though, or they would not buy it. They may feel the have no moral obligation to help other people. Where as I think the desire to help others, is engraved in us, it misses some people.

You are asking can it be justified and I have presented causes and shown why it could be justified.

Where you may not think it is justified, this is only your perception and you are not accounting for the perception of the person buying the watch.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas

Con

vardas forfeited this round.
Mikal

Pro

extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
vardas

Con

vardas forfeited this round.
Mikal

Pro

extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Why does it say Round 4 has not been posted yet?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
vardasMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
vardasMikalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
vardasMikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ff.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
vardasMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF