The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Is Industrialisation good at the cost of economy?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,371 times Debate No: 5920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




I am new here and dnt know much...still

i am for the motion...pls start posting..


First, let me say that I am new too, and I am playing devil's advocate. I expect to loose.

Industrialization, at the current economic state, is bad for the economy.

Industrialization requires significant monetary investment, which always comes from a source. Because industrialization is development on a large scale (1) and not an individual development, massive investments will have to be made. And, probably, the result of large scale development will be increased debt as companies and individuals will inevitably stretch their funds to meet the needs of the new developments, weather a company is trying to get a factory to pay for itself or an individual is trying to pay for the new "it". There will exist many investors such that they borrow money from a bank to pay for the new movement in the economy.

There are two results of borrowing money from the bank. The first is that the individual has more funds for himself; this appears as a deposit of X amount in his bank account. The second is that, by signing a contract signifying the debt from the loan, the investor gives the bank as much as he borrowed, giving the bank X amount of money. This debt is currency; the credit from that loan may be loaned to another borrower.

Because X is transferred both from the bank and to the individual and from the individual to the bank, the net movement is 0. However, this will not be the case permanently; interest flows only in one direction. Because most money is, essentially, debt, the only way to pay the interest is to borrow more. This is illustrated by a simple equation: (let X_1 be read as X subscript 1) x_2=x_1+x_1*y where
- x_1 is the initial loan
- y is the interest rate on the loan
-x_2 is the value of the loan after interest has been covered

The significance of this equation is clear: the debt of the nation created by industrialization will lead to an exponential increase of debt that will quickly outweigh any benefits of industrialization.
Debate Round No. 1


mongaakshay forfeited this round.


Because no counterarguments have been presented, I would like to extend my previous arguments exactly as previously stated.
Debate Round No. 2


mongaakshay forfeited this round.


I would love to say that in a trying and exciting debate, my arguments had exceeded those that my opponent has posted, but this is not the case in this argument.

I have logically supported the position of industrialization being a burden on the economy from which we will never require and, as my opponent has not posted any arguments to the contrary, he has by default conceded to my arguments.

In short, I have won because my opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
With this system in effect, there will be no exponential curve of debt, although borrowing may occur because actual interest will be illegal, which will allow our economy to thrive. After this plan is enacted, large scale investments will be practical and beneficial to the economy. However, if this plan is not enacted before large scale investments are made, mass investment will cause exponential debt.

And now the responses/rebuttals.

1. My opponents claim that certain things "may happen" because of Industrialization."

First of all, just as a side notes, I am "opponent" and not "opponents."
The argument to which my opponent is referring was very poorly worded. I meant to say that certain things may happen and other things will. Allow me to rephrase the argument to which he is referring as "Large companies may borrow to invest in the industrialization, and individuals will borrow to invest in industrialization."

Also, if individuals' borrowing does not create a significant amount of debt, which it will because even the smallest debt will grow out of proportion in time, the chance that large companies will borrow money far outweighs the benefits of industrial investment at the present time.

2. "Simply put, there is no way of saying what will or will not happen."

There is a way of saying what will or will not happen. In the current state of the economy, there is not enough readily available money to invest in industrialization. Borrowing money at interest is the only way that mass industrialization can be funded.

Again, I am not arguing that there are no benefits of industrialization, only that the disadvantages are exponential, so they will outweigh any of those benefits.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
at the current time, we are faced with what is "the sharpest recession since 1938." (
Before we can advance, we must recuperate. If we follow my opponent's plan, we will inevitably borrow money.

To recuperate, I present the following counter plan which will ultimately lead to a situation in which investing in large scale industrialization will be practical and possible.

The government currently has a national debt of 10.6 trillion dollars, as I mentioned previously. However, almost all of the government's investments are in defense. The investments required for mass industrialization may include government investments, but the majority of investments will come from individuals. Investment by individuals will involve raising individual debt, which will ultimately lead to an exponential increase in debt, but this is only because the United States of America has a fractional reserve lending system. My plan is to pass legislation that will establish an electronic national currency to replace the Federal Reserve's dollar as the official currency. Locations will be designated by individual states at which dollars and cents may be converted to the new electronic currency at a predefined rate. For the sake of simplicity, I will say the rate is "$1->0.5 units of electronic currency." This will bypass the interest only currency and disband the federal reserve. Individual banks will still be allowed to practice fractional reserve lending, but the reserve rate will be increased and interest will be flat and immediate (this is not technically interest, but for the sake of simplicity, I will use the word anyways), not based on time lent. Instead, banks will lend money with the flat interest rate, and after a particular amount of time the money + "interest" will be electronically returned to the lender.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
Oh, sorry for the closing argument, Mongaakshay.
While industrial growth is fast, the exponential increase in debt to cover debt is exponential and will always, mathematically speaking, outweigh the benefits of a linear increase.
While industrialization is the "an essential process," the investments are impractical at the time. During the Clinton administration, the United States of America had a tax surplus. Recently, that had turned into a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. "As of November 18, 2008, the national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars. Suppose you want to spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow. The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on the loan. If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. The total borrowed is more than $9,000,000,000,000 and growing. Even when government officials claim to have a surplus, they still spend more than they get in. We pay interest on that huge debt." (
This is also true on an individual level; when we borrow, we must pay interest which, collectively, must come from debt because the United States operates a fractional reserve system in which most if not all money is lent out at interest.
When the nation's economy is strong, industrialization is a key investment but...
Posted by mongaakshay 8 years ago
Take an example of a piece of land. On an average basis this piece of land can bring in a few thousands through harvest. And this only if there are no natural calamities and the fields are fed with water and fertilizers at all times.
Whereas if the same piece of land is used for setting up of an industry, it would bring in larger employment, greater tax generation, provide better standards of living to those working there. It would also indirectly create various job opportunities.
Industrialisation also leads to development of townships, better health care facilities, infrastructural development, better educational facilities and also helps in growth of the outlook of those working there as it promotes free mixing between people and organisations trading with each other.
Industrialisation is an essential process that is needed for the country to grow and set it's mark across the globe. It is needed to move out of the segment of the third world countries and to rise above the rest. It is needed to strengthen the economy of the country. It is needed for the overall prosperity of the country and its people. Industrialisation, like growth, is a never ending process and there should be no law, no principle and no force hindering its path.
Even Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh, in one of speeches said," Without Industrialisation, one cannot provide new opportunities for those who are no longer able to earn their living out of agriculture. Industrialisation only can only help us find solutions to the development problems that the country today is facing."
My opponents claim that certain things "may happen" because of Industrialisation. Well, they may!! Things may happen, or they may not. Whether they do or not is a matter of the particular circumstances at the relevant time. Simply put, there is no way of saying what will or will not happen.
I hope that my opponents are not baffled after encountering the advantages that Industrialisation is bringing them and get
Posted by mongaakshay 8 years ago
The state governments inclination towards the so called social activist, NGOs having personal interest and the ill-informed population with deaf ears has led to the scrapping down of TATA NANO project in Singur and setting up of Special Economic Zone in NANDIGRAM. The project has been shifted to Gujrat state under the MODI government.
Another example can be taken from Uttarakhand state itself. In 2006, when there was hardly any industry here, a large proportion of the population had to relocate themselves in search of jobs but in the present day, there are more than 60 pharmaceutical units here providing employment to 10,000 people.
India is the world's second fastest growing economy after China, main contribution to this being of INDUSTRIALISATION, and still do you think that it should be kept at backburner so that Agriculture is not affected???
India's plans of becoming an economic global superpower are hindered by the obscure government policies and the fickle minded people. It has been 61 years since India gained independence but the state of government policies for Industrialisation is pathetic. Even though Industrialisation has opened cross-country trade paths which is booming but this sector still lacks the required attention. The ruling and the opposition party are always in conflict with each other that affects the country's development. They overlook their basic duty of upholding the country's interest at all times and work for the generation of their vote banks. This also affects the basic needs of the people, i.e., employment and better standard of living which can only be earned through industrialisation as it brings in greater monetary advantages in comparison to agriculture.
Posted by mongaakshay 8 years ago
I am extremely sorry. i wasn;t able to post my arguement. I will post it here as the debate is closed now. I had prepared it for my college -

What is the backbone of the country's economic growth? Industrialisation. Which sector has contributed maximum in the GDP? Industrialisation. What has provided employment to a large percentage of the country's population? Industrialisation.
Good afternoon honourable chairperson, respected jury members and everyone present in the gathering.
I, Akshay Monga, beg you all to lend me your ears as I strongly stand for the motion of the debate, "Should we GO FOR INDUSTRIALISATION AT THE COST OF AGRICULTURE?"
The lawyers of this theory that Agriculture should not be compromised for Industrialisation fall flat when they are enlightened to the unquestionable and unchallengeable advantages of Industrialisation that are beneficial for country's growth and development.
Let me draw your attention towards the previous fiscals GDP. It rested between 9-10% to which the contribution of Agriculture was only 19 % even after it being practised since beginning of the civilization, whereas, Industrialisation, at such a young age contributed d 26%. The growth rate of Agriculture is only 2% whereas Industrialisation grew by 10%.
As also said by Prof. K J Rao of Indian Institute of Science in one of his conferences that, "the percentage of population dependent on Agriculture has dwindled from 72% to 60%. And it may well fall to 20% in the next 5 years."
Let me throw some light on the employment opportunities Industrialisation brings for the ever increasing population of the country. If the TATA NANO project would have been finalised in SINGUR, it would have brought direct employment to about 150,000 people, a majority %age of which migrates to neighbouring cities in search of jobs. It would also have created indirect employment for a few thousands by creation of downstream projects.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
I sincerely hope that the Instigator will post an argument; I would love to actually debate this topic.
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
Resolved: Industrialization is good for the cost of the economy. Resolutions are statements

i.e. Resolved: Pro should use proper grammar and rhetoric.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Is x being A good at the cost of x being Non-A?

See also: Wut.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02