The Instigator
Rafaat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
intellectuallyprimitive
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Money can get you out of almost every little predicaments

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 3 votes the winner is...
intellectuallyprimitive
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 63199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Rafaat

Pro

I feel it's right...I need to know how it can also be put otherwise...
intellectuallyprimitive

Con

Thank you Pro.

I, conversely, am compelled otherwise that money has no impact in resolving predicaments in a multitude of scenarios. Below I will provide examples of an ample number of predicaments that do not involve the influence to money to decompress the problematic situation:

Bear attack- If you are alone in the woods and is suddenly approached by an aggressive, and larger, mother brown bear, money will not deter the bear from ferociously attacking the individual.

Baseball rundown (or colloquially referred to as a pickle) - When in baseball the runner is in between bases and becoming out is at jeopardy, two opposing members of the runners team are attempting to tag the runner out, but the runner has two options, either head to the advancing bag, or return to the original bad without becoming tagged out. Money does not also influence this predicament in any fashion.

Parachute malfunction - If an individual decides to skydive and experiences a faulty parachute, he/she is experiencing a predicament. During the malfunction, money has no influence of the outcome of the unfortunate situation.

Repugnant gas emissions during a date - You are currently on a date with another and are experiencing relentless and repulsive flatulence and wish to cease the gas at once. Money has no direct result in solving the predicament.

Weight room accident - You are bench pressing and happen to be feeling exceedingly confident, however your exorbitant degree of confidence has blinded your rational and you load the bar excessively in comparison to what you normally press. To your astonishment, you are unable to lift the bar to the original position. Two other gym patrons rush to your attention immediately. Money had no impact in solving the predicament.

Shark attack - You are swimming of the coast of Miami when suddenly you feel a faint brush at your feet. Startled, you commence your return to shore however, you are shortly after dumbfounded to observe a large fin traveling directly in front of you about 20 - 30 yards ahead. You panic and reach for your wallet to perhaps offer a bribe to the robust and powerful shark, but you realize the shark probably possesses no cognitive comprehension of the concept of currency. Money did not resolve this predicament. A distraction or weapon of some sort may have provided some utility.

I can continue supplying examples similar to the ones above, however I will allot this next segment to further discuss my contention.

Is it implied that the predicaments Pro refer to are socially, because money is a social concept enacted for various reasons, prominently economic reasons. Most of the examples I provided above do not pertain to a social environment or a social interaction between two or more individuals. However, If we examine societies that have established trade (barter) as a means of economy, we will notice that money had no prominent impact on the lives of the society. Rather the method of attaining goods and services were established via trading resources and services. The reason I mention this is to enhance my position by highlighting that any predicaments encountered in that particular society were not resolved via money, but probably bribes for services or goods. For example; if an individual accused of theft wants to elude the indictment, he/she may employ a means of extortion via a service or goods. Money at that time serves no purpose as a method of influence, ergo would not resolve the predicament.

Moreover, Pro offered no arguments, other that the dubious claim from conviction, in round one, so I anticipate arguments in round 2 so that I may offer a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Rafaat

Pro

Rafaat forfeited this round.
intellectuallyprimitive

Con

My opponent forfeited their round. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Rafaat

Pro

Rafaat forfeited this round.
intellectuallyprimitive

Con

Pro has forfeited again. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Terminal cancer..contentment. Joy,friends. These things and many more have nothing to do with money.

God says that prosperity will ruin the fool.
Posted by VelCrow 2 years ago
VelCrow
@ludicrousmedal3 you argument may be valid if it is constraint to human causes.
Posted by Ludicrousmedal3 2 years ago
Ludicrousmedal3
I believe money can get you out of anything. Just take a look at celebrities who have gotten into trouble. They get little to no jail time. Or if not, take a look at the news. You don't hear your local millionaire being convicted of crimes. It's mainly middle class or lower that get the legal punishment. It's total bs and everyone who has their eyes open know it's true.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
RafaatintellectuallyprimitiveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Intelligent arguments from Con, and poor conduct from Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
RafaatintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by VelCrow 2 years ago
VelCrow
RafaatintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit