The Instigator
dr.jimmythefish
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Money enslaves the populus

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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/11/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 981 times Debate No: 98868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

dr.jimmythefish

Pro

The practice of money, and its inevitable hoarding causes a concentration of power in a new monarchy of billionaires, who are running the world through capital. The world is now less nations and more corporations, ran by unelected CEOs who answer to none other than their shareholders and they by use of bribery control their interests in government. Democracy and freedom are dead, the destruction of the means of control is necessary, for this means also controls your daily life, each and every day we are extorted, we must work at the every whim of the money minded overseer, we must conform to the rule of not morality, not any form of justice or the community but the corporation.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The resolution of:

"Money Enslaves The Populous"

Is as absurd as the resolution of:

"DVD Players Torture People"

If a person decides to smash someone's fingers with a DVD player until they give up information then it is the person using the DVD player that is doing the torturing; not the DVD player itself.

Similarly, if people in power are abusing their power by using money to enslave people, then it is the people in power doing the enslaving and not the money.

Money is a useful tool created to avoid the limitations of barter. If I only have apples and want your oranges, but you want pairs and not my apples, then a trade will not occur. However, with currency there is something almost anyone will accept and this makes trade easier.

If it wasn't money, the people in power would be using food, water, and resources to enslave us; the money is just a tool.

Since it is the people who abuse money doing the enslaving, and not money itself; the resolution is self-evidently false.
Debate Round No. 1
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

Yet before money the people who worked ruled know there are ruled. How is it not slavery if I have to work here because I need money, and I can't complain because if I do that I get fired. Quite simply it's a violation of freedom as one can easy compare the life of the Proletariat to the life of a slave simply substitute a wage with food clothing and a hut. You are defending a system that cons the common man to give up his freedom.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent said that before money the people who worked ruled. First off, there is no source given to believe this, secondly, even if it was true, it still only supports the notion that people use money to enslave people; it is not the money itself doing the enslaving.

Pro is accusing me of defending the current system but I am not doing anything of the sort. I'm just saying that all of Pro's arguments only support the notion that people use money to enslave people; not the resolution that money enslaves people.

We wouldn't say that a DVD player tortures people just because someone could use one to smash someone else's fingers. It's just as absurd to say that money enslaves people just because people use money for control.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

I don't care what it was meant for. It's used to enslave the world. If the use of DVD players as torture devices was commonplace you analogy would stand, money was meant as a universal value system, it's used to control every aspect of peoples lives. And before money we used credit not barter through the professional town intermediary.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

It doesn't matter whether using a DVD player for torture is common or not, it still doesn't change the point. The fact still remains that money being misused by people in power wouldn't mean that money itself is doing the enslaving. The people enslaving us could just use natural resources, or credits (barter was before money by the way). Money is not the necessary component here; it is greed and control which traces back to human imperfection.

Since it's the people doing the enslaving and not the money; the resolution is still negated.
Debate Round No. 3
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

Yet if money was removed the slavery would end, and by money I mean not the literal substance but the idea and the capitalistic system behind it, the system that encourages the use of money in this manner rewarding those heartless enough to capitalize of the problems of others and thus make them dependent on his continued existence and belevolence that he will revoke as soon as it suits him.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent says if money was removed the slavery would end. However, if someone wants to enslave us they could just as easily do it with control of natural resources (no money required). Without money, there is no reason to think the enslavers would just throw up their hands like "like oh well, it was fun while it lasted". There would be other ways to enslave us. So, once again, it's the people who use money that are doing the enslaving; not the money itself.

The resolution is still negated.
Debate Round No. 4
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

I argue that the oppressors are now so familiar with the currency system that it's removal would phase them. During this interim we could seize natural resources for the good of the many, thus avoiding that fate.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The oppressors have already gained the power and resources they need for control. If money was out of the picture they would still have enough at their disposal to enslave us. Either way it wouldn't matter; it is is the people using money to enslave doing the enslaving not the money itself...

The resolution is still negated.

I thank my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
I would like to debate, but I am barred from accepting this debate.
Posted by RicePharmer 1 year ago
RicePharmer
I'll take this debate even though I agree. 1000 limit is not a problem. Just make it available and I'll make it a good one.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
Oh well, I cant accept the nomination.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Smooosh
Ummm, why can't I accept this debate? Why must I be outcast, simply because of my "age and/or rank criteria?
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
"You cannot accept this nomination because you do not match the Instigator's age, rank or number of debates completed criteria."
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
I have no problem being enslaved by money...But it is a problem that 1% of the population now owns 50% of the worlds wealth:
https://www.theguardian.com...
If that trend continues, (1% owning 75 %), economy can implode, and we could soon be back in "the dark ages".
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
Scruggs
1,000 characters? There is no way a meaningful debate can come out of this.
Posted by DumbellDoor 1 year ago
DumbellDoor
Feel free to challenge me to this. I don't meet the criteria to accept.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Money frees us for intellectual pursuits (such as this debate), instead of mere survival.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
(cough) COMMUNIST
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
dr.jimmythefishRational_Thinker9119
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con shows how money is an innanimen object and cannot enslave anyone.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
dr.jimmythefishRational_Thinker9119
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more convincing arguments, as they pointed out something that makes sense: it's the people themselves who enslave people. They brought up how people would find ways to enslave the populous even without money, whereas pro continued to insist that money itself enslaves people.