The Instigator
Jboughey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PurpleDrink
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Do people in the low-class group financially have same opportunities as the people in upper class?

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...
PurpleDrink
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,269 times Debate No: 31478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Jboughey

Pro

People in the lower class financially do, in fact have the same opportunities that people in the upper classes financially have. People may say "Well, what if they don't have the money or the school or encouragement, or the tools?" The answer is simple: I believe that we should donate a little money to get them started whether it be for bus fair or gas money or tuition money, but they need to contribute themselves also. They need to work hard to achieve what wealthy people have. How do you think the wealthy got all that money? They work hard for it. And if the lower class says that they're family has always been lower class, than if they really want to move up, than they need to be the ones to start working hard if they truly want to change that. Anybody can do and/or accomplish anything. Recently I volunteered at a soup kitchen and even the poor and homeless said that they needed to get back to because if they wanted to be financially stable, than they needed to put forth some hard work.
PurpleDrink

Con

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Definition of OPPORTUNITY
1: a favorable juncture of circumstances
2: a good chance for advancement or progress

Assuming everything else to be equal, meaning if you had identical twins with the same looks, intelligence, ambition, etc., having wealthy parents obviously gives you more opportunities as a child (aside from street cred required to become a successful rapper or something).

Do you have an interest in astronomy? Cool, your parents can buy you a nice telescope. Want to learn violin? Learn from the best instructor in the city, courtesy of rich parents. Want to go to college while having full time to study or do unpaid internships? No problem, your parents have your back. Want a nice job after college? Your dad knows a guy he plays golf with.

Is it possible for a poor child to succeed? Of course. It happens. But with much greater difficulty and happens DESPITE having had less opportunity.

If success were to bake a cookie, which of the two would have the better opportunity to be successful?

1. You have to get a job for money to pay for half of the ingredients (half is donated), go to the supermarket (with donated bus money) and find all the ingredients and buy them, go back home, go to the library and find a cook book to learn how to bake cookies. Finally, go home and bake it.

2. All the ingredients are waiting for you in the kitchen. You have Gordon Ramsay there to guide you through the process.

A humorous and extreme example, but still a valid one. They both had opportunity, but one's opportunity, or "favorable juncture of circumstances" was clearly superior to the other.

Do they BOTH have the opportunity to bake that cookie? Yes. Did one have the better opportunity than the other to do so? Of course.
Debate Round No. 1
Jboughey

Pro

Like you said, both people, rich and poor, have opportunities. Now I agree with you that one may have it better than the other, but if the one who has it bad, than they need to buck up and "pull it together" to work harder. The easiest way to get out of this is to be lazy which most of them go to, but in reality if they want to get out of this situation, they need to work harder to get it. You can get anything through hard work. Poor or rich.
PurpleDrink

Con

I agree with you, but that is not the resolution. The poor's opportunity is inferior to the rich's opportunity. One requires significantly more work and luck going forward than the other to reach the same goals. There are obstacles one more climb that the other does not. One opportunity being superior to the others means the opportunities are not the same.
Debate Round No. 2
Jboughey

Pro

If they don't like it, than they need to work harder. It's not the riches problem that the poor isn't making more, and trust me, they won't apologize for working hard.
PurpleDrink

Con

That's not at question. Pro failed to prove that the opportunities of the upper and lower classes are the same and has failed to refute my argument that the opportunity of the lower class is inferior to that of the upper class, and therefore not the same.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO: "I believe that we should donate a little money to get them started whether it be for bus fair or gas money or tuition money, but they need to contribute themselves also. " PRO kind of concedes the debate here. The poor do NOT have the same opportunity, else they wouldn't need donations.

2) CON's example was spot on.

3) PRO's subsequent rounds were not relevant to the resolution.

Arguments CON, format and overall S&G was better for CON as well.
Posted by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
I agree with with PurpleDrink's comment. This sounds more like an attitude problem than an economic problem. Max Weber actually wrote about this explicitly in, "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". It's not a problem with capitalism itself. It's about how capitalism is managed.
Posted by PurpleDrink 4 years ago
PurpleDrink
Not part of my argument, but Pro seems to have contempt for people who are not successful in the lower class. While there may indeed be those who put forth no effort or have no desire for success, there may be those who put forth the same effort as those with upper-class support, but do not
reach the same level of success. You seem to attribute greater work ethic to the one who is successful with greater opportunity to be successful than to one who has less opportunity, may or may not be working just as hard and reaches less success.

This is like cheering for a marathon runner who gets a head start while sneering at someone who starts from the beginning for not doing as well.

If the question is whether all runners should morally be entitled to the same start, that is another debate entirely, and I am uncertain of which side I would take in that debate (when it comes to economic/social policy of course). However, that was not the question in this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
JbougheyPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically agreed with con. The debate was " they have the had a SAME opportunity" Pro agrees with con that it is not the SAME and thus fails his own resolution. On a side note: Pro, your philosophy is flawed, the poor work infinitely harder to get much lower play due to their lack of opportunity. Those without college education that have to work at McDonalds do manual labor for minmum wage versus the wallstreet guy who does white collar work at a desk for 100 million a year. The McDonalds employee does more work for less. The wealth gap is not due to hard work from the rich and laziness upon the poor but rather due to a flawed system that causes families which are impovershied are forced to stay that way due to a simple lack of opportunity. But, my own opinions are not related to my vote, pro failed to prove the resolution and thus loses the debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
JbougheyPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to forget his resolution in round two, and more or less conceded the rich have better opportunities than the poor: "I agree with you that one may have it better than the other." The semi-concession was not necessary, as Con provided plenty of examples (telescopes, violin lessons, connections, etc.) Con also cited an appropriate source in support of her points.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
JbougheyPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
JbougheyPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't understand the difference between quality and quantity, between similar and same. Merely having an opportunity doesn't mean you have the same opportunity. Con understands the value of difficulty.