The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Money can solve anything.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 63887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Saw a similar topic awhile ago and wanted to have my own go at it. CON must prove at least one example of a disaster (or misfortune) that can occur in human life that cannot be prevented or overturned by a person with an unlimited supply of money. CON is free to make his own arguments in round #1 but must not make any new arguments in the final round (only rebuttals).


Thank you Pro for instigating this interesting topic. I anticipate reviewing your arguments. I shall begin with my arguments as it was permitted by con.

The topic is, "money can solve anything," and my opponent favors this notion, while I am the opposer. If we examine the notion further, this indicates that money, as a medium, can resolve any conflict, andy predicament, any problems, etc.. as the term "anything" is ambiguous. The word solve is also ambiguous because solving has multiple connotations, in this particular instance, solve denotes finding a solution or an answer to fix or correct a problem or a imminent predicament.

I will supply an example of a scenario where money has no influence is resolving the problems encountered within the scenario, but first I wish to address one particular statement provided by Pro in this round. Pro implies that, during an individuals lifespan, any problem encountered can be resolved by an individual with an unlimited supply of money. As I will provide examples in attempt to refute this claim, I anticipate that Pro provides examples that supports it.

I will provide my example of a scenario that requires no money to solve it in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Basically I intend to refute any example that CON lists - through my own arguements and explanations. It will be up to the strengths of CON's examples and the debate judges critique to determine if my explantaions are convincing. CON may however, in the final round, may dispute my solutions and check them for factual error and practicality. CON must prove to the voters at least one example of an acutal life event that cannot be prevented or solved by someone with an unlimited supply of cash.

*Looking back now, I wish I would have included the words "in theory," but I'll leave the merits of my coming arguements up to the judges.

Hit me with your best shot, CON!


First and foremost, allow me to address what Pro stated in the previous round.

He states that I must provide at least one example of a scenario of an individual that has access to an unlimited supply of cash that will not prevent or solve a problem or disaster. He will attempt to refute any example I give. I will attempt to highlight my argument.

Cash is only a medium when cash contains value, for example in American economics we assign dollar amounts to certain denominations of cash. The reason why money has value is because of demand, I want it and my neighbor wants it. I can utilize money for services, goods, and products in return for the money. Now lets examine individual (A).

A lives in America, Dallas Texas, and has an infinite supply of money. A wishes to travel to Barcelona Spain, specifically a small town called, La Rinconada. The area is very rural and man farms and farmers. occupy the land. A brings his money of course. A wishes to purchase local food from the farms because he is hungry from his travels, and visit a local onion and cabbage farm. He wants to purchase one hundreds dollars worth of food. The farmer states that, unless he has a service to provide or other goods, such as produce, his money is worthless. This brings me to my first premise, Bartering.

Another example I wish to present is the social factor of money. As it pertains to social affairs, social concepts, and models, cash is a profound method of influence and power. However, as it does not pertain to social affairs, and is not limited to social constraints, cash would serve little to no influence. An example to exemplify this is to examine earthly phenomenon such as rogue waves. Rogue waves are waves that are spontaneous and abnormally large. They occur randomly and are extremely arduous to predict and impossible to prevent from occurring. There are areas in the ocean which can be deemed as likely places rogue waves can occur, but can not be prevented. My example of rogue waves is of of many phenomenon, inducing hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and numerous other events that money can assist in predicting and aiding in recovering from, but can't prevent from happening. All of the above phenomena occurrences have been documented to cause tremendous disaster and present problems to in human life.

As I stated above, cash is only used a medium if the cash has value, and cash has no value in a bartering system.
The barter system, as Pro would define it, is an actual life system and within actual life events take course. How would money solve anything, in regards to problems, if the means of economics rely on services and/or goods traded for one another? Also mentioned, is my example of naturally occurring phenomenon that money can't prevent. I challenge Pro to refute my examples and defend the notion that, provided an unlimited supply of cash, "money can solve anything."

Pro, you have the metaphorical floor.
Debate Round No. 2


Jingle_Bombs forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited his opportunity to refute my arguments.
No further arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WillRiley 1 year ago
Hyperinflation lol.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 1 year ago
To clarify, CON may list more than one example, but at least one must withstand scrutiny in order to win. Must be a real-life misfortune, calamity, or disaster.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 1 year 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, made no arguments, and had no sources.