The Instigator
cameronl35
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
xxx200
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,763 times Debate No: 18508
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

cameronl35

Pro

I believe greed is one of the most self-destructing behaviors of the American society. Greed is untrammeled throughout the American society and has caused an extreme negative impact.
The format of the debate will be:
1: Acceptance
2:Cases
3:Rebuttal to 2
4:Rebuttal to 3/Final Focus
Definitions:
greed-intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
negative-not desirable or optimistic
Sources:
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
I look forward to a fun debate.
xxx200

Con

greed makes america the richest country in world. because of their own selfish desire, americans progress more rapidly than any other race.
Debate Round No. 1
cameronl35

Pro

Even though my opponent did not accept my debate and the format, let's get this debate started.
Also I would like to say the topic refers to America's greed has had a negative effect on societies, not just on America, but only pertaining to American greed.
1) "America is successful because of their own selfish desire"
This is a common misconception. America's selfish desire is only a fraction of why America progresses rapidly. America progresses because of intelligence, freedom, and other factors. Without these, very few discoveries could succeed. Greed is merely what drives Americans to use these tools. This isn't necessary. For example lets take a look at China. Why is China so successful? Hard work, discipline, and cheap labor drives their success. Three simple but very potent things. Greed isn't required to be successful. Americans are just very ignorant and focus on money only, rather than making discoveries and finding ways of alternative energy to benefit our children and their children's children. Greed has drove a small percentage of Americans to be rich and technological advancements to be made, but greed shouldn't have driven America. A metaphor for this can be a woman who tans a lot. She went to tanning salons and spent hours in the sun. She had a nice tan, and many guys came after her. She ended up getting the guy she wanted, but her life ended early because of skin cancer. Short term rewards are blinding americans from long term dangers.
2) Wealth
It is obvious that wealth is not evenly distributed throughout America. The top 1 percent control 42 percent of financial wealth in the U.S.. Now, yes America is the richest country. 42% is controlled by 1 percent, is this not morally wrong? Was this country not found for everyone to prosper and have equal opportunity for everyone? Why do the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer? Greed is the answer. Greed has taken rights from people. America's greed has not just hurt America, but it is hurting the world. Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy. If every person consumed as much energy as the average American, it would take four worlds to supply enough resources. One American consumes the same amount as 370 Ethiopians and 13 Chinese. Again, China has more distribution of wealth, uses less energy, and has more people. It is apparent that greed has driven Americans to harshly damage the world. Greed has also led to our bad economy today.
3)Power
Greed for power has caused many countries to turn against the U.S.. Some countries include Chile, Iraq, Nicaragua, Iran, and Afghanistan. We used them for resources like oil and increased chances of terrorism/war. The greed for this power to win the war in Iraq. US military spending reached US $417.4 billion in 2003 — 47% of total world military spending. $417.4 billion dollars so we can kill millions of innocent people over oil. Greed for power has not only decreased America's safety but also has hurt many surrounding countries.
4) Food
Greed is also why America is the most obese country in the world. According to NY Times, 34 percent of Americans are obese. 17 percent of children are obese. 68 percent of adults are considered overweight. So with these statistics in mind, is it good that greed is leading to extreme obesity? Americans eat 815 billion calories of food each day - that's roughly 200 billion more than needed - enough to feed 80 million people. The average individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons. America's greed is wasting food for the world and is causing America to become obese.
Summary:
Greed isn't only reason why America is the richest country. America doesn't have to depend on greed to be a rich country because greed is unnecessary and has many downsides. A very small percentage of America is actually "rich". The rich get richer because of greed. Is it worth it to be rich if only a small portion can be and the wealth isn't distributed? If so what is the point of the advancements we have made because of "greed". Greed has cause many countries to turn against us and hurt other countries. Lastly greed is causing a depletion of food resources and many Americans to become obese. If all these can be avoided with hard work and discipline, is greed really a good driving factor?
Vote Pro

Sources
http://www.mybudget360.com...-

http://www.mindfully.org...
http://www.greenleft.org.au...
http://www.nytimes.com...
xxx200

Con

1] one point you mention very right,to which i agree, is that greed drives american to use technology, intelligence or other tools. ok thats correct. and you tell us that china is not greedy but also very successful. my dear opponent, what makes you think that china is not greedy? a country which occupied tibet from 1950s till now, using natural resources of tibet, threatning india every hour with millitary presence in indian border, is not greedy according to you? if yes, then i want you to rethink. greed is the driving power behind both america and china.without greed no country can be powerfull. greed is necessary even to live your life, let alone success of country. if you do not get anything from what you are doing currently, then would you find the motivation of doing that job?

greed is the motive power in human mind that runs human being on the ladder of success.


2] according to my opponent greed is the reason of inequal distribution of wealth. is that so ? i don't think so. i think the reason of inequality is inequal amount of money generated by different jobs. different jobs generate different pattern of cash flow. thats why inequal distribution of wealth prevails. if a janitor gets paid the same amount as the CEO of a top corporation, will there be any inequality?
but why jobs generate different cash flow? because we value jobs differently.so our value system causes inequality in cash flow from different jobs which in turn create inequality in distribution of wealth.greed has nothing to do with inequality of distribution of wealth. it is a common misconception.

3] america use oil resources of afganistan, iraq, chilie. this is its greed for power. thats why these countries turned against us. but do you have any alternative sources of oil resources? the answer is no. alternative fuels are still questionable. in this situation what you can do except using their resource? it is not greed for power. it is necessity.

4] america is greedy, because they consume more foods. then india, china and all obese countries are greedy.

greed is the motive power which will drive all the human being earning more money and more comfort in life. it has no negetive influence in american society but positive influence.
Debate Round No. 2
cameronl35

Pro

1) What makes me think China is not greedy? I would first like to address that China does have some greed, but this is not the driving factor of their success. China's labor is a lot cheaper than American labor. Chinese consume 1/13th of the energy Americans do, that's another way I know China is not as greedy. The cost of Chinese factory labor is a paltry 64 cents an hour. With the vast population, cheap labor, and discipline the country is able to have a thriving economy. Your Indian and Tibet examples are fallacies. Tibet is a bordering country, and India is a country very close country. It is natural in nature for different species to compete with each other if they live in a similar area and use the same resources. But the amount of countries U.S. takes advantage of is what sets it apart. U.S. uses Central America, South America, and Southeast Asia. These locations are not nearby the U.S.. It is a much better example of greed due to the fact that U.S. takes advantage of countries across the globe vs China who takes advantage of nearby countries. Although, China hasn't invaded India. Look at how many troops we have in the middle east. My opponent confuses desire and greed. In a thesaurus desire and greed are not synonyms for a reason. Greed is an excessive or rapacious desire, basically desire times 10. My opponent never brings up any direct examples of how greed has advanced our society. Many of the inventions were to fix problems, such as the telephone. The inventor, Alex Graham Bell, didn't want to make huge profit off of an invention. He wanted to make life easier so he and other people can communicate and unite the world more. Companies wanted to buy the invention to make profit. This is where the greed comes into play. So my answer is yes, to solve problems is an extreme motivation to do a job.

2) This is a common Anti-Communism argument, which is not what I am debating about. I do not believe a janitor should get the same pay of a CEO. I believe the richer should be taxed more, but who are the people who fund laws? Rich people fund laws. So, why would a rich person want to fund a law that taxes them more? It's simple logic why the rich get richer. Just because we value jobs differently is not a justification for 1% of America owning 42% of the wealth.

3) Your logic here is invalid. So it is a necessity because we do not have a research, we terrorize another country to get the oil resource we need? There are other ways of energy, such as solar reflection. In solar reflection we can reflect sunlight against water, which would turn the water into steam. Scientists are smart enough to invent new ways just like we have in the past. Just because we don't have enough of it doesn't mean we should take it. This causes the power of countries to become more unbalanced. Maybe one country will benefit, but how does this have a worldly benefit? This is a perfect example of how America's greed has a negative impact on the world.
4) This argument is an obvious fallacy. Does my opponent not realize how much more food America consumes more than India and China? China has 1,346,580,000 people, India has 1,210,193,422, and the U.S. has 312,325,000according to the most recent census. America has way less people than India and China and consumes way more food and wastes more than both the countries per person. Putting the three countries next to each other in food greed is an obvious fallacy due to the dominant amount of food American people consume.

My opponent has completely disregarded how greed is causing a depletion of resources in America. A good example is how a coyote consumes a rabbit population. If the coyote consumes too many rabbits at a time, the rabbits will become extinct. If the rabbits become extinct, the coyote will become an endangered species and will try to look for another prey, but will interfere with the new prey's predator. This will cause a corruption in nature and a possible extinction of both species. This is exactly what America is leaning towards. If we keep consuming the amount of food and resources there will be very little left and who knows how many countries we will attempt to take from to feed our people? Recycle, distribute money, use alternative sources of energy, consume less sources, and don't take other resources from different countries by force and this corruption greed has created can be avoided.
Vote Pro

Sources
http://visualizingeconomics.com...
http://www.businessweek.com...
xxx200

Con

the defination of greed is an intence selfish desire for wealth , power etc.

1] you say that tibet and india example are fallacies because they are nearby country. it means invading nearby country is not greed but invading faraway country is.i have never heard such a fallacious logic before. invading any country, capturing its resources, destroying its culture is greed. the distance is irrelevant and immaterial.china invaded tibet, destroyed tibet, used its natural resources forcefully. china invaded india, captured aksai chin and parts of arunachal pradesh, used their natural resources and now it becomes an ally to pakistan. this is greed. both us and china are greedy.

you said alex graham bell did not make any profit from telephone. but if companies did not market telephone then the GDP of amrica would not rise. american economy never prospered. america will never become a financial power. invention like telephone must be marketed in order for economy to prosper. the law of economics say so.the profit making selfish desire is what makes america financial super power.china is not yet a superpower in any dimension.



2]1% of american own 42% of wealth because they have a burning desire in their mind to become wealthy. they have the brain to become wealthy. most people do not have such thing.this is probably the explanation why 1% owns 42% of wealth. if you study the lives of rich people, you will find out that few of them inherit their wealth. most of them earned it or make it.less tax for rich people is a motivation for becoming rich. if rich people have to pay more tax, then nobody will gain any wealth and there would be no point of becoming rich.


3] i have already mentioned that alternative sources of energy i.e. soler power, water power etc. is questionable. scientists do research on it. till they come up with a solution,america needs fuel.Based on data from BP at the end of 2009 the highest proved oil reserves including non-conventional oil deposits are in Saudi Arabia (18 per cent of global reserves), Canada (12 %, mostly oil sands), Venezuela (12 %, mostly tar sands), Iran (9 %), Iraq (8 %), Kuwait (7 %), UAE (7 %) and Russia (5 %). so you see america do not have any oil researve. what would it do in the meantime ? please understand my argument before disproving it.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org...

all of the above points are example of selfish desire for wealth and power called greed that makes america a financial superpower.now you see how greed has positive impact over american economy.
Debate Round No. 3
cameronl35

Pro

1) I would first like to say that I proposed the topic and you can not change the definition of greed towards the end of debate. The definition I proposed was " intense and SELFISH desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food." Again my opponent is confused with desire and greed. Greed is a selfish version of a desire. If you believe greed is good, you agree with selfishness. So we should all consume as much resources for ourselves and leave everyone else in the world with nothing? This is totally logical.

2) Rant as much as you want about how China took control of a fraction of India, but do you know what China did in Tibet? The Chinese abolished slavery in Tibet. They also reduced taxes, unemployment, and beggary. The reason China destroyed Tibet was because of a religious war. This has nothing to do with greed. Regardless, the number of countries and global domination of the U.S. makes China invading Tibet a tiny incident. From killing millions of people in the middle east to child labor across the globe. My opponent never gives evidence showing China consumes a lot of resources or arguing how China is greedy. He merely refers to a religious war and taking over a small portion of India. I already agreed that China has some greed, but this is not at all the driving factor.

3) Telephone Company
The telephone prospering had nothing to do with good marketing. It spread by word and companies viewed it as a way to get money so they marketed the phone. People wanted the phone because they wanted a way of long-distance communication, not because companies marketed it well. If somebody today created a genius alternative energy source, it would get out because of the discovery, not marketing. Marketing has a small impact and is impossible without the invention, which is not caused by greed. My dear opponent, do you believe that a one country superpower is morally correct? This is an extreme fallacy, this is exactly what the world isn't suppose to be like. One-country domination...most absurd thing I have heard. This makes me question your logic.

4) What??? Being smart is NOT at all why people get rich. Jay Zagorsky, a scientists who studied this correlation said, "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth. Those with low intelligence should not believe they are handicapped, and those with high intelligence should not believe they have an advantage." Being rich takes a lot of luck, good marketing ability, and/or inherited money. According to the results of a study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, super-intelligent people are only as good as (or as bad as) people with average or below-average intelligence, when it comes to better management of finances. With higher taxes on the rich, wealth will still be gained, but the money will be distributed evenly. Family income of people from the top quintile grew 52%, while the bottom quintile only grew 18%. Inherited money is a big factor. The government will have more money to put into other things and more jobs can be created, thus helping the economy.

5) Scientists are progressively coming towards a solution. It is a problem, I agree, but we have made incredible technological advancements in the past and who says we can't do it again? Not having enough resources in our country is our fault, and doesn't justify taking it from another country at all. It causes more of a negative impact on the world. Well one thing it shouldn't do is cause a negative world impact and turn people against America that is for sure. Scientists should focus on an alternative method, such as the one I proposed. Taking oil from other countries doesn't at all help the world.

Dropped Arguments:

1) Long Term Danger
This goes unanswered throughout the debate. My opponent never even took into consideration the negative impact of Greed. I supplied sufficient evidence and examples but he merely ignored them and continued ranting on how great it makes a superpower country. I suppose my opponent supported Germany's rise of the third reich as well?

2) Evidence
My opponent supplied a minuscule amount of evidence. He listed one source, Wikipedia, which is not a good source as proven in the past. My opponent never supplied direct evidence that greed led to success. He couldn't provide evidence that greed was necessary to take advantage of sources properly, rather than to intensely and selfishly abuse them. Even if he decides to bring up new evidence and arguments in the last round, this will be pointless since I can not refute the evidence/argument.

3) Energy Consumption by America
My opponent did not bother to respond to how much energy we consume. This has an extreme negative impact globally and within the U.S.. Does he not know about the resource depletion in America? Scientists are trying to find alternative ways of energy for a reason. Give it time rather than to immediately take everything from everyone around us. You never know who will finally get fed up with the U.S. and bomb an extremely populated area. Don't say it isn't possible, 9/11 is a perfect example. If we upset enough countries, we will suffer immensely.

Summary:
Greed and desire are two totally different things. Natural desire is good, greed is the intense and selfish use of this desire. "There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed."-Mohandas Ghandi. Greed never works in nature. When we want more and more, we run out of everything, such as what happened in the coyote and rabbit example. Throughout the debate my opponent provided virtually no evidence saying that greed hasn't been eating away at humanity's resources. We must stop being so greedy and distribute energy and wealth more, and I'm not implying communism, but just more fairness for everyone. If we don't stop being greedy, nothing will get better and we can expect a drop in population because of lack of resources. The great philosopher Democritus once said, "It is greed to do all the talking but not to want to listen at all."
Vote Pro

Read more: http://www.finestquotes.com...
Sources
http://www.thetaoofmakingmoney.com...
http://www.economicmobility.org...
xxx200

Con

our topic is Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.

so here the following points are relevant to decide the debate:

1] greed

2] influence on american society negetive or positive.

all other points are irrelevant and immaterial.

all the instance of american greed ( tax on rich, war, profit motive, energy consumption etc.) shown by my opponent has prospered american economy and society.

so greed has a positive influence on american society except in obesity case.

decided.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
I forgot to thank my opponent for the debate, but my opponent never accepted the original debate so he didn't read the beginning of the second round where I said that I forgot to include the global impact. Since he didn't accept and he didn't start writing his arguments I had the right to put it in.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
aww i wanted con :(
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
I kind of want to debate this... but I would rather leave it to a Randian Objectivist

Good look though
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
cameronl35xxx200Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con once again shows a lack of intelligence and coherence
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
cameronl35xxx200Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Much better arguments and spelling from Pro.
Vote Placed by Sketchy 5 years ago
Sketchy
cameronl35xxx200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con disobeyed the debate structure, losing conduct. No capitalization and only one source (to wikipedia) causes Con to lose spelling and sources. Pretty obvious who had the better arguments.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
cameronl35xxx200Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, using capitals would have at least netted a tie on the spelling and grammar vote. Pro provided multiple sources, and better arguments which Con failed to counter.