The Instigator
Hellvisse
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Charity is a bad thing

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 2 votes the winner is...
DudeStop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 870 times Debate No: 41830
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Hellvisse

Pro

Charity is a bad idea that hurts the poor protects the privileges of the powerful.

Prove me wrong.
DudeStop

Con

Accepted... BOP's on pro because he is making a claim.

Because everyone can develop different ideas on what good and evil is, please post the definition you will be using in the comments or with in next round. I'd say a practical definition for this would be pain and suffering! but please tell me how you're defining it.

I'm assuming next round we start arguments, then refutals/conclusions. Good luck Pro!

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Hellvisse

Pro

Charity is a bad idea that hurts the poor protects the privileges of the powerful.

Definitions: "Pain and suffering" is an acceptable definition of "Bad". My argument is that charity perpetuates what it purports to eliminate, which is consistent with saying that charity perpetuates pain and suffering.

A'ight.

Fact: Market economy creates inequality.

Not quite a fact but more like my opinion: Inequality is not a bad thing as long as work and intelligence is rewarded.

Also more like an opinion: When inequality becomes structural and it is no longer possible for someone at the bottom to work him/herself to the top, it becomes an injustice, i.e. causes pain and suffering, i.e. is bad.

How does a society reduce inequality and prevent it from becoming an injustice? A free and open market, a level playing field with clear simple rules for all, minimum wage, affordable education, public transportation, affordable health care, protection from discrimination, protection of the right of labour to organize.

Another way is charity, a process by which those with money reduce inequality by transferring some of it to those who do not.

Charity does (temporarily) reduce inequality, but it cannot eliminate injustice. Charity is a patch job that prevents a broken, unsustainable system from collapsing by providing quick fixes to the unacceptable consequences of itself. Ivy league scholarships to a few poor kids hide the fact that elite higher education has created a cast system in America. Food Banks keep unsightly starving families of the street.

Last november a Wal-mart in Ohio organized a food drive for it's own poor employees who wouldn't have enough to eat on the holidays. Now, Wal-Mart is a notorious oponent of minium wage--the most straightforward way it's employees could get enough money to buy food--and of organized labour--the most straighforward way their employees could get a fair wage. Yet Wal-mart has no problem with charity.

Why? Because Wal-Mart knows charity will never ever ever eliminate the injustices that creates it's vast pool of customers and cheap labour: the poor.

Hit me!


DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Hellvisse

Pro

To make the concise case: Charity prevents the powerful from having to confront the casualties of injustice.

That's it.
DudeStop

Con

Pro actually admits that charity is not a bad thing:
"Charity does (temporarily) reduce inequality,"

Pro later says that it does not destroy injustice. Why is it charities job to eliminate injustice?

Pro never *proves* all charity is evil. Only that he *thinks* Walmart charity is. Pro never says exactly how he knows this, only that he thinks Walmart uses charity instead of payment. So charity is still good. It's an argument that Walmart is bad.

1. Pro did nothing to prove that all charity is evil. Only that Walmart is.
2. Pro ignores the fact that charity of Walmart is not all charity.

Let's say I think you're stupid. You're stupid. You're debating. Does this mean all debates/debaters are stupid? Well no, just maybe this one.

I could concede to his point, and it still goes unproven that all charity is evil..

Bye.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
*Band
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
I'm so sorry. I had a Ben concert and that took up most of my time for this night. I shall post my arguments in the next round. Please automatically giv e the conduct to pro.

Yet again, apologies mate
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
Sleezehead
I can't wait to hear about the evils of philanthropy... lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jesusfreak22 3 years ago
jesusfreak22
HellvisseDudeStopTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really give an arguement. Wish he had touched on how people will take charity for granted, will rely on gov. money for income. Con didn't really have arguement either. Had a good reason for FF, will overlook. However, only rebutted, did not introduce own points.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
HellvisseDudeStopTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's claim that temporarily reducing injustice is somehow a bad thing was a very retarded argument to make, and pro seemed more intent on denouncing wal-mart and pitching his idea for what america should be like rather then give actual arguments. Arguments to con, conduct to pro since con forfeited quite a bit