The Instigator
Just-Call-Me-PK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WaraiOtoko
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Money is killing us

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 85222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Just-Call-Me-PK

Pro

More and more and more money is being spent and flashed about every year. Actors, sport athletes and so on are now earning sickening amounts of cash and yet poverty still exists. Why? As human beings who share the same planet and same life morals how can we justify poverty by using currency as an excuse? We created money, its only paper. I just think it is now the year 2016 and we still have poverty, money is prioritised wrong and is very much taken for granted. My question is, is poverty justifiable?
WaraiOtoko

Con

Hi, I'm a student currently studying economics and I hope I can make this interesting.

1. To address pros final question "is poverty justifiable?" to answer it simply yes it is. If someone refuses to get job and refuses to work one expects them to be impoverished, right? We set up welfare programs to try and help some of these people get started sacrificing a portion of out own hard earned cash.

2. To address the finer points of pros post I'll start with "actors and sports athletes make sickening amounts of cash". Like everything in an economy Labour/jobs have supply and demand meaning (number of people willing/capable if doing it) vs (number of people who need the services of said job). Actors and professional athletes are paid so much more because the standards and barrier of entry to become a qualified member of the labour market is extraordinarily high meaning it is very difficult to become either of them. Next is the amount of money generated by the businesses that require actors and athletes; they are huge. The NFL pulled in 13 billion dollars of revenue last season and star wars viii alone has pulled in 1.8 billion dollars at the box office.

If you would like me to address the other points please state them in numbered format and I'd be happy to address them. I'd like to thank pro for starting this debate as it is a very interesting and commonly thought of question.
Debate Round No. 1
Just-Call-Me-PK

Pro

Thank you for the response 😀 reading your response it is clear that you are prioritising money in your arguments, I agree with a few things you said, people should work hard and earn to support their family, but my topic is not on this subject, it is on prioritising basic human rights (water, food, shelter, clothing) first, over anything, then the rest can fall into place. It has now been almost half a century since we put man on the moon just think of how advanced we are now, has poverty advanced? We are responsible for this planet and its growth not money.
WaraiOtoko

Con

I see so pro is arguing that the human RACE is responsible for basic human rights. I was bringing up that human INDIVIDUALS value money and by extension themselves over all else. This is a core assumption in all economic theory. I ask that pro define "this planet's growth" because this good refer to economic growth.

1. The fundamental mistake that pro makes in their argumentive statement is referring to the human race as a single entity. Each human is distinctly separated from the other and as such every mass movement of the human race is started by individuals who then influence others to behave a certain way. I will try to explain why the poverty that is basic human rights is inevitable.

1. The simple and most blunt answer on why poverty exists is that: Most people don't care. Why? Because people prefer to increase their own "utitility". Utility is a term in economics that refers the the quantity of happiness a human can gain. Utility can take many forms including moral feelings from doing charitable work but for a lot of people this is simply not worth the "opportunity cost". Opportunity cost simply means with the exact same resources (money, time, labour, etc.) the next best alternative you can get. For most people the moral feeling from charitable work is not worth the cost because they could buy food, cars, books, games, movies, clothes, donations to a different cause, etc.

2. Now the more complex reason is that the people in these impoverished areas don't necessarily require donations and in fact are harmed by donations. Take Uganda for example, foreign donations in Uganda have crushed local Ugandan businesses and forced then out of business which is crippling the domestic economy of Uganda. So the solutions to these problems aren't clear cut and foreigners tend to understand them poorly and end up harming then more than helping.

3. The truth is that altruism doesn't exist in economics. Like I pointed out before what chariters are gaining is the moral feeling and societal respect that comes with being an altruistic person so only people who get sufficient satisfaction from this will go out of their way to seriously try to help the impoverished.

4. The world is divided. People in the USA care less about the people in Uganda then they do fellow Americans and vice versa. In this sense whenever a transaction between two countries is involved the respective negotiators are obligated to secure the most beneficial trade organization to their own countries regardless of the effects on the other country, it's a zero sum game. If I take more, you lose more, but I am obligated to take as much as I can. So there is a conflict of interest that altruism has no place in.

I think I'd covered most reasons so I'll leave it at that and await pro's response and I thank anyone who takes the time to read this and ponder the topic.
Debate Round No. 2
Just-Call-Me-PK

Pro

Again Con is directing the dabates context away from its intention but i am more than happy to address a couple of points made by Con as side topics and then finish on my real point. Your opening paragraph describes some individuals, but not all, and your reasoning later on confirms this (individuals are influenced to behave a certain way) but not all individuals are influenced to behave in the same way as each other. So how do we figure out which way is actually correct? Who has the real authority over life? It can only be a being outwith ourselves that acts justly, a being that will correctly 'influence' us. It is down to us to either trust that being or reject that being. Each individual wrong decision to reject God takes us further away from him and his will (the will we truly seek) this has now lead us here to the point of greed and selfishness in SOME people, unfortunatly a lot of these people have a lot of materialistic power and can easily influence us in a completely different way. I know this is not a religious debate and i know that religion is such a huge topic but to me and to millions around the world God is the centre of every subject not money. As for your request, the planets growth is in reference to every aspect of its meaning to us, but we don't need money to allow the planet and by extension us to flourish. When we talked about people working hard, can we not work hard for the sake of working hard? Rather than just for profit? Can we not work hard for each other so that we can live, so we can flourish? We are a united nations with united leaders that can make any decisions they want together. For such an intelligent species why do we let money run our lives? What we need is a modern day Abe Lincoln to take us away from the dated illness that is poverty. Someone to make (good) radical changes, someone needs to step up, and if someone does maybe they can 'influence' us to act the same way, the way of peace, love and charity, the way of Jesus Christ. There are so many people working hard to act in this way in their every day life, who remain faithful, who fight for all of us. So not all people think and act as you describe, life can't be worked out with figures and paperwork. I have to circle back to my main point again and i will try a simpler way of putting it, a starving African child does not care for the economic growth of businesses, that child just wants food and water in their stomach. Can we NOT grant that? You think that is justifiable? And 1 last question, hypothetically take every luxury out of this world so that all you are left with is our planet with all of us and our resources and intelligence in it .(not money) and we still have to work. Is it possible to feed and give water to every human beingin this scenario? People have to come first.
WaraiOtoko

Con

I will split my next argument between the original topic and the religious angle which pro brought up.

1. Pro is clearly making an argument for widespread altruism and which I have noted the reasons for why it doesn't happen in my previous arguments so you should reread the concept of utilities and opportunity cost.

2. As I have noted "true" altruism doesn't exist because the benefit you gain by sacrificing resources to charity is the positive feeling when you go to sleep at night and this feeling is not the priority of many people.

3. Competition is inherent in nature, life, society to find the best method we measure them against every other and what comes out on top is deemed the best it is how we as a species have survived up to this point. Every human is motivated to be better than his kin to go farther, to reach higher that is our primary motivation.

4. Pro also seems to be making an argument against technological advancement when he remarks on the planets health. Indeed the environmental health is suffering because of developing economies and their economic growth policy. Environmental Protection is an issue that only crosses the mind of the developed nations. Countries such as those in Africa, South America and the most blatant offender of the last decade, China. China in its effort to catch up to the west economically produced and consumed resources without fail to reach their current stature and it is that which hurts the environment. So to put it bluntly, the prosperity of those in poverty is directly linked to the damage done to the environment. Technological advances are how we create the best medicinal treatments and these things don't get made for free because people aren't motivated to work for free they will put the most minimal of effort because that is all that is required of them. The Soviet Union faced a similar issue with its ultra communist configuration.

Now onto part two where we discuss religions impact and whether or not it is the answer to the problems listed above.

1. I would like to point out the irony of mentioning religion in the same conversation of helping the impoverished. We will look at Uganda again and see what bringing the Bible's teachings to that land has done. Ugandan Christians have used the Bible to justify passing a bill in which they can summarily execute a man for being a homosexuality. Even before the bill could go into effect many Ugandan Christians committed extrajudicial killings of not only homosexuals but all people who protect or sympathize with them. That is what the Bible has done for the impoverished of that country.

2. Even in the context of religion true altruism doesn't exist. People follow the teachings of the Bible because they believe by doing so they can go to heaven and live a better life after this one. So no, religious people are no different. In fact you could say the current state of many impoverished countries were a consequence of religion. When missionaries were on the rise, exploring and colonizing in the name of God was the predominant activity in which the European powers competed. When these missionaries landed they would preach their gospel and exploit the natives of the lands for their resources. This continued well into the 20th century and after the end of colonization the effects and consequences still hold down these countries due to the actions of some gospel spouting preachers.

3. Who has authority over life? Well for each individual their life is theirs to decide how they can use. There are actually no rules in this world if someone wanted to steal there is no higher power preventing then from doing so the only things are our self created security measures and laws to threaten and penalize offenders.

4. "And 1 last question, hypothetically take every luxury out of this world so that all you are left with is our planet with all of us and our resources and intelligence in it .(not money) and we still have to work. Is it possible to feed and give water to every human beingin this scenario? People have to come first. " pro puts in the condition "but we still have to work", why do we have to work? In such a scenario most people would work just enough to survive and then carry on with their lives, what you are describing is ancient tribes and those tribes most certainly would not share and in fact would very likely steal from other tribes to better the lives of the people in their tribe. Pro then goes on to say "People HAVE to come first." and to that I say no they don't people prioritize themselves because how can I worry about the world's problems when I can barely make it through each paycheck. Unfortunately contrary to what many people think we humans do not have a special connection to one another other than the same kinds of connections other animals have.

5. Finally, we must doubt the validity of a 4000~ year old text of fiction. Why must we listen to this book? Was this book written by my fellow man to con me? Can the things described in this book even be real? Why should I listen to this book and not that one? Who is God and what if he's actually evil? All these are valid reasons to doubt the Bible not to mention the aforementioned consequences of the Bible on the world.

And so ends the debate I encourage everyone to reread our arguments and decide for yourselves whether or not pro or con is right. Remember money is just a reflection of our desires it is not money that controls us but rather we that choose to pursue it because it betters our lives and helps us in our pursuit of happiness.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by WaraiOtoko 1 year ago
WaraiOtoko
You did post your final argument, it was the third one. I should have said question as that fits the meaning I was trying to convey better. When I said there are no rules I meant that there was no supernatyral force stopping me from murdering pillaging raping or any crime other than physical limitations of course there are my own feelings but then there are also sociopaths.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
plays a huge part, people can't be bothered and will use any excuse available to them. What are you being Conned into doing i wonder? To love one another? I have addressed your other comments previously.
I thank con for the debate i really enjoyed it and look forward to further debates. I will finish by saying if we want to understand any teaching in this world weather it's the catholic bible or the rules for football we have to make sure we understand the context before throwing our judgement and opinions at it.
Thank you.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
You would then need to provide good evidence for why your opinion is actually fact and i believe there is no good evidence for that. Facts in regards to natural law cannot come from beings of the same natures opinions, it has to come from a being out with us who is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Going to your second last comment, there are so many reasons i could provide against your arguments but i will just provide a couple, comments like 'people prioritise themselves' and 'i can barely make it through each pay check' ( I sympathise with the latter 😩) this is my point exactly, this should not be the case but we seem to just accept it instead of challenging it, and people should maybe be encouraged to start thinking of others, starting from the 'top' leading by example. In regards to human connection there are several things that separate us from animals, our intelligence and the fact that we can rationalise being a couple of examples.

"5. Finally, we must doubt the validity of a 4000~ year old text of fiction. Why must we listen to this book? Was this book written by my fellow man to con me? Can the things described in this book even be real? Why should I listen to this book and not that one? Who is God and what if he's actually evil?"
Interesting you say 'we MUST' doubt it's validity, but its age is enough evidence to immediately condemn it? the bible is a book made up of individual books that have been dated back as far as 1 year after the death of Christ, it is also a documented historical FACT that there was a man called Jesus from Nazareth who was crucified (Not just from the bible) just because of the length of time it has been since these events doesn't then conclude we MUST doubt its validity, it is not rational, do you doubt the existence of Julius Caesar or Shakespeare etc? And in 2000 years from now would you expect that people MUST doubt the existence of Obama or pope Francis? I think in a lot if cases denial and even paranoia play
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
of the debate. Let me put another very very simple question out there again, is money in its entirety used 100% correctly? If the answer is no (which it is) then logic dictates change is needed. (Correct change) As for your next point regarding Christians in Uganda and i will expand this to Christians around the world, what Con doesn't realise is this is proving my point exactly, there are thousands of different Christian denominations teachings their own beliefs and in extension different religions in general teaching there own beliefs and this is the cause of human persons choice to reject the original teaching of God and the church which God founded (Catholic Church) it is now the year 2016 which is 2016 years after the catholic church was founded and instead because of original sin people became selfish and decided that no one is telling them what to do which of course leads to people making up there own rules. It is also interesting that even after all these years and how advanced we have become the bible in the context it was originally written (and the teaching has NEVER changed in the catholic church) it cannot be debunked. As for the killings of homosexuals in your example in Uganda this is a shadow of my last point, the one true church does not teach this and it is the decisions of all the individuals involved in this 'teaching' to partake. (The church teaches it is a sin to lie with another man/woman but in no way does it say WE must judge them for this) As for your reasons regarding authority over life, yes we have free will (granted by God on our hearts) that leads to wrong and right decisions and he does not interfere with that. (This goes back to my point that you have to choose God) it's interesting though that you say 'there are no rules in this world' when in fact we do have natural law, we know that it is wrong to murder someone or to steal etc and to say otherwise just voids your very own statement. You would then need to provide good evidence fo
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
Sorry for the delay, i seem to have missed the chance to post my final argument (I'm new here) so i will post it in the comments. First of all i just have to point out that con avoided giving a simple hypothetical yes or no to a hypothetical question which i have to point out to any readers that the answer is in fact yes and instead con decides to just ask 2 or 3 questions in response to a hypothetical question without actually giving a hypothetical answer (please read the last paragraph of my last comment) In response to your other comments con continues to use the point that it is all about profit and personal gain and although i do agree that is the mentality in a lot of people and i do understand that not everyones main priority is other people but this is the exact reason i started this debate, the acceptance of this mentality is exactly the problem we face, and hence restricts our personal growth. I have absolutely no problem with competition it's healthy and fun, but life is not a competition, there may be competition within life but not life itself. I can honestly say and I'm sure i can speak for millions when i say my 'primary motivation' is not to better my peers in life, absolutely not. It is to love my peers and better myself. I refer you back to several of your own comments regarding humans uniqueness and free will. You say people are not motivated to work for free and again the majority of people are not, but ironically no one is motivated to pay taxes but yet we MUST. Why not spread the work out globally equally to build and rebuild around the world, it doesn't have to be every day just allocate a day or 2 per month per person. (Obviously it would need thought out more but for such an advanced species i cant see why it can't be done) In regards to technological advancement Con is putting words in my mouth and again directing the context down the wrong road and moving onto subjects i have no issues with but is not on the main subject and intent of the
Posted by WaraiOtoko 1 year ago
WaraiOtoko
Hey I enjoyed our little debate and we may discuss it more if you wish, cheers :).
Posted by Sophisto 1 year ago
Sophisto
I was going to accept until I realized that I agree with your point about money being just paper. Good luck.
No votes have been placed for this debate.