The Instigator
IceClimbers
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Malacoda
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

House/Apartment need to be cheaper ?

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...
Malacoda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 56939
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

IceClimbers

Pro

make sure its not too long
no rules in the way you should argue
Accept and start off with opinion
ill respond
Malacoda

Con

You are Pro and have BoP. In formal debates, pro goes first. Also, you need to explain what you mean by this statement. For these reasons, I will use this round solely for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
IceClimbers

Pro

well there isn't nothing to explain really i just feel like it will help a lot of people by making property lower....

now you can tell me why you disagree with this statement
Malacoda

Con

Alright, it really doesn't make too much sense that I'm going first because I have no idea the context in which this question takes place, but whatever.

DEFINITIONS
1. Need: a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation
2. Cheaper: at a lower cost/price

My opponent posted a small "statement" as he so calls it in round two that goes as follows:

"i just feel like it will help a lot of people by making property lower...."

I can't disagree with this statement of course. Yes. If the costs of property were lower, many people would be financially aided. However, this isn't really what the debate is about anyway. Just because something would help people, doesn't mean that it is "needed." It is not a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation that property cost be lowered. The resolution is not proven (I know this is a weak argument, but I don't have a lot to work with.)

Now, I will go on to some of my own arguments. In an economic system, such as the U.S.,(which I will be using for the debate) there are always two sides to every coin. If all property owners were to for some reason lower their costs all at once, which I am assuming what my opponent believes needs to be done, a huge portion of the population would lose money, i.e. all property owners. Lower property costs would only help those without property, everyone else would be negatively impacted. This is not how capitalism works.

Off to Pro, I guess.

(Something about this debate is just kind of miserable.)
Debate Round No. 2
IceClimbers

Pro

Well it does make sense, even if it makes little sense
i do not need the definition but thank you, i know what i posted you did not have to repeat what i had posted you could of just went straight to the point.
However you said its not needed ?
p1; I Disagree with that answer many people live all their life working really really hard just to afford a studio this is needed because many people are home-less not because they do not have jobs, its because the jobs aren't paying enough.. but is this the job fault ? in some cases yes but then again no because if we can have affordable rent it will make people be more grateful and not desperate to do anything just to maintain in a house
p2: I Disagree because there are people who are living on some type of government benefits such as retirement and disability with serious issues,most cases people with low income can not really found anything but to have to beg other people to live with them or split the house with complete strangers which is very difficult to live with and also dangerous
p3: i disagree because what about college students who do not live on campus,? you have to make a fat loan to keep up plus pay expenses plus live with other people and if one person who do not come up with the money it can be very dangerous if you NEED an education you NEED a place to stay and many people cannot afford this because they already paying for the school itself, then have their parents paying all the stuff which put the parents in a bad situation
p4: i disagree because alot of sacrifices have to be made for alot of single parents who have 1 or more kids even if you make a decent amout of money after taxes taken away paying bills leads to be struggles

this causes a lot of things to happen and people have to do what they have to do just to keep an house as far as doing jobs you would never do as far as doing illegal stuff to make enough money

my other round will be about the property owners as well as your statement
Malacoda

Con

Thanks for your arguments, Pro. Definitions may be more important than you think and I didn't re-post your argument for your sake, but for the sake of the audience and future voters.

Since my opponent has really rebutted any of my arguments, I shan't advance my own, but rather pick apart and dismantle his argument.

REBUTTALS
P1. "many people live all their life working really really hard just to afford a studio"

That's the American dream my friend. Not everyone can be completely successful or rich. Plus, what about the people who initially owned that studio or are renting it out? Those people also worked hard to purchase that property. Why should it be taken away from them for less than it's worth? That hardly seems fair either.

"many people are home-less not because they do not have jobs, its because the jobs aren't paying enough.. but is this the job fault ? in some cases yes but then again no"

Raising minimum wage has the same problems as lowering all property costs. If property costs are lowered, property owners get unfair treatment. In reality, what these homeless people need to do is to find higher paying jobs, a.k.a. non-minimum wage jobs. But that is an issue for another time.

"if we can have affordable rent it will make people be more grateful and not desperate to do anything just to maintain in a house"

What is that supposed to mean?

P2.
I don't really think this second point is a very prevalent problem. I'm not even sure of it's relevancy to the issue at hand. You'll need to elaborate and un-jumble your text, Pro.

P3."what about college students who do not live on campus,?"

Well, I would tell them to live on campus where there is affordable housing. Or study hard in high school to get scholarships.

P4."because alot of sacrifices have to be made for alot of single parents"

That's how a capitalist economy works. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. That doesn't justify the lowering of all property costs.

Short arguments due to limit.
Debate Round No. 3
IceClimbers

Pro

they can read, they know what i have done you do not have to say things that are unnecessary its a limit and your just wasting characters.
Your rebbutals response

1.this is not about being rich or successful this is about having things affordable and trying the best way possible to at least not struggle really hard,in some cases some property owners do not work hard for it, but i can tell you why it can be beneficial for owners to

2.Nope min wage is way different then cheaper rent, when min wage go up that makes the cost of living go up when home owners find it harder to live they will make the rent go up ( even with rent control )

3. This is because your not thinking about others this problem is bigger then what you think http://theddnewsblog.blogspot.com...
why should elderly people who work 50 years of they life live like this http://www.nytimes.com...

4.This is where my point can be proven "Sacrifice" !

Do not judge off just them two sources there are many other sources about problem number 3 many people that are on retirement have to start living with their kids again because of this !

This can be beneficial for home owners as well because most home owners have jobs and since they income are still the same with cheaper cost living for them selves, also if they had a property that took them 10 years to finish off they can buy other property that will only take them 5 years with a head start because they already have property they can sell or rent out and i think this sacrifice will benefit the world in the long run
instead of making sacrifices on taxes the richer you are which is unfair to them but hey sacrifces rite ? !
i shouldn't never had put a limit because this isn't the way i wanted to explain it and you had so many flaws i couldve broke down and really explain
Malacoda

Con

Well, I suppose it is my duty that I do my absolute best to sort out my opponents jumbled, gramatically-challenged response. Here goes.

1. It doesn't have to be about being rich. In our economy, people have to work hard, they have to struggle. You don't seem to understand that. It is naive to say that property owners don't work for it. they also had to work hard and struggle for their wealth and property. Just because they aren't actively suffering doens't mean they aren't good, hard-working Americans.

2. You should of explained why raising minimum wage makes the cost of living go up. I will not simply take your word for it. You are making plenty of allegation, but providing no proof or logical reasoning. I never said they were the same thing. What I said was that they can both have similar problems when implemented. Minimum wage can get employees fired or raise the cost of goods. Lowering property costs can make owners unwilling to sell and just generally screw over property owners.

3. The two links my opponent presents don't even deal with the lowering of rent. One is about how SSI should be raised and the other is about how Social Security should be raised. These sources don't consider rent the problem and neither do I. I thank my opponent for his help in supporting my case.

4. Wait, what? Why would a home OWNER be positively affected by the worth of his home going DOWN? That is extremely illogical. And you say property that took them 10 years to "finish off?" Do you mean pay for? This is ridiculous. So you think this would be beneficial to home owners because now they can sell them home (for cheaper than they bought it for mind you) and buy another for less than it's worth? This doesn't make sense. My opponents argument is so convulated and illogical that I find it hard to rebutt properly. The last line made no sense.

Conclusion
This has been..well..a debate I guess. Well at least my opponent and I agreed on one thing. Character limits can be quite annoying. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
some people cant help but to get those min wage jobs..... but i dont even see how someone would think your argument is more convincing but i guess
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
The reason I said this is because minimum-wage jobs can't support an adult lifestyle. They are ideal for teens and college kids, but they cannot support a family.
Posted by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
well like me rephrase that " at these homeless people need to do is to find higher paying jobs, a.k.a. non-minimum wage jobs. "
if you do not think people try this then i do not know what to tell you lol i assume you think people do not work hard on trying to get higher pay jobs people are crying their tears out everyday driving walking around trying to get something !
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
When did I say "get a better job?"
Posted by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
your so lucky i couldn't explain everything you miss understood a lot of stuff but its okay
good job the struggler's will continue to struggle and your answers it
" Get a better job " ha ... so ignorant to say but okay
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
The character limit is so restrictive!
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Round one sources. I defined "cheaper" myself.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
I understand, but maybe you should read others' debates before starting a lot of your own. It would give you an idea of how this all works.
Posted by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
i apologize im new
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Alright, alright. Next time you want your opponent to go first, put yourself in the con position please.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
IceClimbersMalacodaTied
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: Pro had bad spelling and overall weaker arguments
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
IceClimbersMalacodaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: spelling