The Instigator
KALADIN
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
sanchitsharma
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Money is the root of all evil.

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...
KALADIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,013 times Debate No: 55490
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

KALADIN

Con

This will be my first debate.

The topic is that of the nature of money. Money is routinely and passively cited as the root of all evil. I shall attempt to shed light on this ridiculous, fallacious notion. Anyone willing to do the opposite is welcomed.
sanchitsharma

Pro

I willingly accept this debate. I would commence this debate quoting the wise words of the renowned and illustrious writer, historian and philosopher Voltaire who is also considered as the father of the French Revolution : "Don"t think that money does everything or you are going to end up doing everything for money."
I look forward to an enlightening debate! May the better debater win!
Debate Round No. 1
KALADIN

Con

Thank you for accepting. I look forward to hearing your remarks.

DEFINITIONS:

Money~"Money, as legal tender, is a commodity or asset, or an officially-issued currency or coin that can be legally exchanged for something of equal value, such as a good or service, or that can be used in payment of a debt." (Investopedia)

Note that money is not equivalent to wealth. Money is merely a tool.

Evil~"Morally reprehensible." (Merriam-Webster)
--
Pro's position is one of concurrence regarding the statement, "Money is the root of all evil."
In order to invalidate this claim, and win the argument, I need only give a single example of evil which is absent of any monetary aspect or quality, as one example negates the absoluteness inherent to the word "all". But I shall not stop there.
I also intend to further elucidate the absurdness of Pro's claim, by attempting to show that money is in fact, a root of all good. And if we hold the Law of Non-Contradiction as axiomatically true, then it can be shown that money can not be both the root of all evil and a root of not-evil (good). It is one or the other. Let's begin.

1. An example of evil which holds no relevance or relationship with money:
A good and simplistic example would be an evil deed by an individual who has no sophisticated (or any) concept of money nor wealth. If one is completely unaware and unfamiliar of money and its nature, then the end-goal of their evil, if one exists, most certainly can not be of money. Such an example can be found in the case of the murder of two-year old James Bugler. James was abducted at a mall, tortured, and killed by two ten-year old boys all within a few hours. The motive of the two boys was not one of profit. It was not one of money. It was not one of granted material wealth. Their motive, as it often is, was sheer pleasure in the degradation, dehumanization, and act of paining another individual. These boys found the fulfillment of their deed of evil in and of the deed itself. Money is irrevocably and absolutely irrelevant.

Therefore, money is not the root of all evil.
(Granted you consider the horrific mutilation and killing of another evil, let alone a two-year old boy)

2. Money is a root of all good:
Money rests on the principle that each man is the owner of his effort and of his individual capacity to think. If this were not the case, money could not be. If man is neither the owner of his mind nor effort, the concept of trade itself cannot exist (as trade implies the mutual exchange of personal value, and personal value can not be if nothing is personal), which is a concept necessary for the existence of money, as money is the very tool of trade. I consider the existence of such trade, and the beauty and products which comes of it (such as the very device on which I am now using) to be very good.

When men live by free trade (along with the recognition of the power of money to grant it), and with reason, not coercion, as their final authority, it is the best product, the best ability, and the best man who wins. This competition and the freedom to do so is the soul of productivity, the soul of innovation, the soul of achievement. The soul of good.

I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments. Till then. :)
sanchitsharma

Pro

I would firstly like to apprise my worthy opponent that in this debate, he should not opine that I am completely against money. I simply believe that the cause of many reprehensible and disgraceful transgressions in today's cut-throat world is money. Moreover, I am saddened by the fact that my opponent has given redundant and superfluous importance to the word "all". It should not be taken in an absolute sense in this debate. For instance, if one says "He travels all the time." , one doesn't really imply that the person in context is travelling the entire time.
Moreover, my opponent said that in order to prove me wrong, he simply had to "give a single example of evil which is absent of any monetary aspect or quality". Similarly, I can reciprocate and prove his argument "Money is the root of all good" invalid by stressing on the word 'all' and giving an example of a good act which has no relevance or relationship with money.For instance:
If a pedestrian walking on a street notices a small boy running and falling down and he helps the child to get up, advising him not to run around carelessly, it can be described as a "good" and altruistic act, having no relationship with money.
This clearly shows that money is not the root of all good and hence,proves my worthy opponent's perception flawed.
Hence, I suggest that immense emphasis should not be given to the word "all" in this debate.
Continuing my argument, I would like to strengthen my position with the following:
These days it has become quite a prevalent practice of people spending money on things they don"t require just in order to look grand in society. People have developed notions like "Money is everything" and that society judges people according to how much money they have. These beliefs are detrimental to the interests of society.
Moreover, we cannot turn a blind eye to the numerous disputes that money causes within families because of greed and cupidity. Almost every day there are cases of sons murdering their fathers or other relatives just for the sake of acquiring their property and money. Evidently, these usurpers give more importance to money than family and forget the unconditional love that they were provided with.
I await the arguments and rebuttals of my worthy opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
KALADIN

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response.

Let's address each of his points.
"...he should not opine that I am completely against money"
Interesting, considering you opted for the "Pro" position in a debate entitled, "Money is the root of all evil."

"I simply believe that the cause of many reprehensible and disgraceful transgressions in today's cut-throat world is money"
Of course. It's also your means of survival, means of pleasure, and means of consumption. The verdict you pronounce upon these, is the verdict you pronounce on your life. If your livelihood is corrupt, so is your existence.

"Moreover, I am saddened by the fact that my opponent has given redundant and superfluous importance to the word "all"."
In an extremely desperate attempt to invalidate my previous arguments, it appears my opponent resorted to semantics rather than reason. His "for instance" clause holds no weight, relevance, or purpose to the topic.

"Moreover, my opponent said that in order to prove me wrong, he simply had to "give a single example of evil which is absent of any monetary aspect or quality". Similarly, I can reciprocate and prove his argument "Money is the root of all good" invalid by stressing on the word 'all' and giving an example of a good act which has no relevance or relationship with money."
The former quote is correct and accurate. The latter is not. I never said "Money is the root of all good." I specifically stated that money is A root of all good. Not THE. I'd appreciate accurate quotations henceforth. Additionally, his "reciprocation" does nothing to refute my single example. In fact, I'm not sure it does anything at all.

"Hence, I suggest that immense emphasis should not be given to the word "all" in this debate."
It seems, once again, my opponent resorts to semantics rather than anything of substance.

"Continuing my argument, I would like to strengthen my position with the following:"
Wait, what? What argument? Thus far, no refutation has been proposed, and no argument for the case that money is the source of all evil has been stated. Where is the argument? What "position" are you "strengthening"?

"These days it has become quite a prevalent practice of people spending money on things they don"t require just in order to look grand in society. People have developed notions like "Money is everything" and that society judges people according to how much money they have."
Has it it become a prevalent practice? For whom? Where? And even if this was so, is the spending in order to gain social approval evil? Is it wrong to spend that which one earns on what one chooses? Is it evil to work toward an image of grandness? Society does judge people according to how much money they have. Are you offended by this? Do you disprove of this "judging"? Bums and billionaires are not equal. Money is a barometer of one's success, be it fair or not. Is it wrong to discriminate on success? On virtue? On wealth? Is your disdain of money rooted in the fact that you despise those who are successful? Is it rooted in the fact that you despise the notion of individual wealth? In the concept of "mine"? Please enlighten me.

Additionally, I don't think many were aware, till now, that "sons murdering their fathers or other relatives just for the sake of acquiring their property and money" is occurring daily.

My opponents last few claims are quite simply incoherent nonsense. Greed? Murder? Family? Unconditional love?
None of this has anything to do with the argument, which is whether or not the absoluteness of evil is rooted in money.

If my opponent doesn't understand what his position is, this discourse will be futile.

In the end, we are left with no refutation of my argument regarding the murder of James Bugler, no arguments for the existence of all evil being rooted in money, no argument against the soul of productivity and good being rooted in free trade and money, and a nonsensical hodge-podge of statements calling for a redefine of the word "all".

I await my opponent's response.
sanchitsharma

Pro

sanchitsharma forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KALADIN

Con

It seems my opponent has chosen to withdraw. I should think this is proof of the validity and solidity of my claims.

I would like to conclude by thanking him for a very enjoyable debate. Happy voting. Till next time. :)
sanchitsharma

Pro

Firstly, I profoundly apologize for not responding in the previous round, however, I would like to bring it to the notice of all the readers and my worthy opponent that my unresponsiveness was due to a personal issue and was not intentional at all.
Also, I would like to inform my opponent that although I forfeited the previous round (not intentionally), I haven"t forfeited the debate and will continue to strengthen my stand in this round.
Now, addressing my opponent"s rebuttals:
When I stated that the cause of many reprehensible and disgraceful transgressions in today's cut-throat world is money, my opponent said "Of course. It's also your means of survival, means of pleasure, and means of consumption. The verdict you pronounce upon these is the verdict you pronounce on your life. If your livelihood is corrupt, so is your existence."
Readers please note that my opponent acknowledges what I claim by saying "Of course". Also, I do not understand how my opinion that money is the cause of most crimes in this era makes my livelihood and existence corrupt.
"In an extremely desperate attempt to invalidate my previous arguments, it appears my opponent resorted to semantics rather than reason. His "for instance" clause holds no weight, relevance, or purpose to the topic."
Here, my opponent holds me culpable for adhering to semantics, but doesn"t give any satisfactory reason as to why he emphasized on the word "all" in this debate. And FYI, the "for instance" used by me is to make my point more clear.
"I specifically stated that money is A root of all good. Not THE. I'd appreciate accurate quotations henceforth. Additionally, his "reciprocation" does nothing to refute my single example. In fact, I'm not sure it does anything at all."
Ok, you said money is A root of all good, which implies that no matter how money is used the result will be good. So Sir, do you consider all robberies and thefts (perpetuated for money) to be good?
After this, my opponent questions me as to which argument I was strengthening. Well, regarding that I"d like to emphasize on the very first round of this debate wherein alongside accepting the debate, I had commenced my argument by quoting the sagacious words of the renowned historian Voltaire.
Moreover, it seems to me that my worthy opponent resides in a morally sound and somewhat utopian world as he evidently appears to be shocked on learning about the innumerable murders in families all happening for money DAILY, and denies this claim of mine. Let me give some examples:
Franklin Bradshaw murder, is one of the most celebrated or infamous murders in American jurisprudence, wherein heiress Frances Berenice Schreuder in 1978 incited her son Marc Schreuder to murder his father, oil and auto parts millionaire Franklin Bradshaw. The case inspired wide coverage in the form of news reports, articles, and books telling of the prosecution's allegations that Frances Schreuder did not want to be cut out of her father's will and wished to continue funding her lavish Manhattan lifestyle.
The Menendez Brothers
Lyle and Erik Menendez were sentenced to life in prison in July 1996, for killing their wealthy parents in a salvo of shotgun blasts in 1989. Prosecutors said the brothers murdered their parents to inherit the family's $14 million fortune.
The occurrence of such cases has increased over time due to the upsurging malice of money in people.

When I stated that these days people spend money to buy things they don"t require and just to show people that they are rich, my opponent said "Money is a barometer of one's success, be it fair or not." Well, this means that if a person is corrupt and becomes very wealthy by carrying out money scams (and no one knows about it) he deserves more respect than a hard-working and honest person who is not as rich as he. Is this right?
Successful people are those who live a selfless life and perform their duties with passion and not those who go about destroying the lives of others just for their own benefit.
REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 2
"if we hold the Law of Non-Contradiction as axiomatically true, then it can be shown that money can not be both the root of evil and a root of not-evil (good). It is one or the other."
My opponent states that money cannot cause both evil and good. I would like to rubbish this preposterous & ridiculous claim of his as evidently, in this debate, he briefly stated "Money is a root of all good" (though he didn"t specify much) and I gave (and will further give as well) a few effective examples to accentuate the fact that money causes much more harm and damage than the little good it does. This shows that money is both good and evil (though it is much more evil than good) and hence, the Law of Non-Contradiction has no relevance here.

Now, speaking of the murder of the 2 year old James Bulger (His surname is Bulger and not as my opponent stated "Bugler"). My opponent believes that by showing no involvement of money in any one evil act, he would win, which is a fallacious belief. And since the murder of James Bulger was an evil act without money, my opponent deems that he has successfully invalidated my claim. Again it reflects my opponent"s obsession with the word "all" in this debate to which he blames me to resort to semantics.
"Money rests on the principle that each man is the owner of his effort and of his individual capacity to think. If this were not the case, money could not be. If man is neither the owner of his mind nor effort, the concept of trade itself cannot exist (as trade implies the mutual exchange of personal value, and personal value can not be if nothing is personal)"
If I remember correctly, didn"t trade exist in the form of barter system, double co-incidence of wants as well as other methods before the concept of money originated?
SOME MORE ARGUMENTS:
Hoarding:
In the materialistic world, people give undue importance to money and, instead of utilizing in productive activities, may start hoarding. This would adversely affect the growth of income, output and employment of the economy.
Black Money:
Money, due to storability characteristic, is the cause of the evil of black money. It provides people a convenient way to evade taxes by concealing their income. Black money, in turn, encourages black marketing and speculative activities.
Moral and Social Evils:
In the modern times, moral values have been sacrificed due to the malice of money. People have become so much money-minded that they openly indulge in corrupt practices to satisfy their greed for money. Money is also the root cause of thefts, murders, frauds and other social evils.
Fake Friendship:
These days, there are many who befriend rich and affluent people with the sole motive of taking advantage of their opulence. Such people develop a facade of being concerned about their rich pal, but are actually fair-weather friends, merely attracted to his money and the attention it brings, nothing else.

SOME SHOCKING NEWS:
In January 2014, a man was stabbed to death in Bihar (India) by four people when he refused to pay them Rs.10 (0.169 $ or 0.1") to buy chewing tobacco mix with betel nut, police said.

In New Delhi, recently a 14-year-old child laborer stabbed three women to death because one of them told his mother he had borrowed 50 Rs (0.844$ or 0.5") from her.
Several incidents of this kind have taken place in the world, where because of money, numerous people have lost their lives.
Now, some statistics:
2,000,000 home burglaries are reported each year in the United States.
2,500+ cars are stolen per day (i.e. almost 2 cars a minute).
Every 13 seconds a home intrusion is committed.
Aren't all these done for money?

Well, I believe I have provided enough evidence to show that MOST evil in today"s world is caused because of money and the amount of evil done by money is much more than the good done by it.With this, I urge the readers to side with me. I thank my opponent for such a delightful debate. :)
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
Money is the root of 90% of all evil......thats what i thought!
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
The bible says :For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs 1 Tim 6:10

It says the love of money. not just money.

And it says all kinds of evil, not all evil.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
That was close. I almost accepted until I realized that the instigator is Con.
Posted by ChunxTheSane 2 years ago
ChunxTheSane
hmm... this feels like a semantic trap. money may not be the root of all evil, greed, lust for power, ect. is. All this is closely tied to money, yet it is not money itself, therefore it is a fallacy to say money itself is the route of all evil. I would watch out for any noob snipers, they would be likely to suspect that your argument will take this direction, if it this was not what you were planning to do, than you would probably throw off anyone that does except this. If anyone does.

Good luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 2 years ago
Bodhivaka
KALADINsanchitsharmaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: By providing an example of evil committed in the absence of any monetary influence, Con successfully demonstrated that money is not, in fact, the root if ALL evil. Pro attempted to combat Con by providing an alternative definition of the word "all." I'm not convinced by this semantic tactic; I think the intended meaning of the word "all" in this debate was obvious. As Pro himself admitted in the end, at most his arguments showed that money is the root of "most" evil, not all.; that's simply not enough to fulfill his burden of proof. Pro also loses conduct points for forfeiting a round.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
KALADINsanchitsharmaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Both made way to long speeches.