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

Redistribution of Wealth

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: 1/27/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 85611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Redistribution of Wealth is not only one of the most poisonous things to a Capitalist society, but to a society in general. A society where one is taught to work hard and earn their living could not possibly flourish under such dictation. I am challenging Hayd on this particular issue because I couldn't help but noticed he supported distribution of wealth on his profile. While I can respect that we do, in fact, live in a world of varied economies, but is redistribution of wealth a morally responsible thing to do? Is reaping the benefits of another, so to speak, a lesson we should teach our children? Thank you for your time, God Bless.


Since I was challenged to this topic, I will accept. I look forward to my opponent's opening case in R2.

The resolution shall be
The US should have redistribution of wealth

I will be arguing that we should, and Con will be arguing that they shouldn't.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1


As a Capitalist society, the United States is a wealthy and one of the most prosperous countries in the entire world. This statement coan prove itself time and time again. Nowhere in the history of this iconic nation has any office or any public official been able to plunder the bounties of the rich to give to the lower class. This concept goes against everything our founding fathers outlined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights. How can a person hope to achieve any sort life or liberty when the government, which is the only realistic conduit that wealth can be redistributed, is taking most of what they worked for, and in most cases of socialism, dole it out to lazy, unincentivized competition. I am only outlining what would happen if the basic principles of socialism were to come to fruition. Most socialists do, in fact support larger government intervention, not just in terms of how people live, but with an emphasis on the individual's finances. Thank You, and I look foreword to your rebuttal.


Moral Obligation

People are morally obligated to provide money to the poor. Thus, the US is morally obligated to have redistribution of wealth.

Peter Singer, in his paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” [1], formulates the following argument.

1) People dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad.

2) If one can prevent something bad from happening (such as dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care), without sacrificing anything of equal moral worth, then one is obligated to do so.

3) One can prevent something bad from happening (such as the givens), without sacrificing anything of equal moral worth by redistributing one's wealth.

4) Thus, one is morally obligated to practice distribution.

I conclude therefore, that the US is morally obligated to have distribution of wealth.

Political and Societal Stability

The basic concept of redistribution is taking from those who have too much and giving it to those who don’t have enough, usually economically speaking.

Redistribution helps lower the wealth gap. The wealth gap is the difference in wealth between the economic classes. For example, 2% of the population owns 90% of the country’s wealth. The greater the difference between the population and its wealth, the larger the wealth gap.

This raises grave consequences such as societal and political instability. When their is a large wealth gap (the majority of the citizens have little and the minority of the citizens have much). Society revolts, and the social and political structure is overthrown. We see this happen throughout history, such as the French Revolution and Russian Revolution.

Redistribution helps minimize the wealth gap by taking from those who have too much and giving it to those who don’t have enough. Thus, redistribution helps preserve societal and political stability.


I conclude that the United States should have redistribution of wealth because we are morally obligated to, and in order to preserve political and societal stability.

Debate Round No. 2


The most fatal flaw of redistribution is this: it's unfair. Not only is it unfair to those who are being taken from, but it is unfair to all of those who CAN'T be helped by it. You couldn't give to every starving person, or every homeless person, and it would be morally unjustifiable to leave those you can't help, without help.

"The laboring people are only poor because they are numerous. Numbers in their nature imply poverty. In a fair distribution among a vast multitude none can have much. That class of dependent pensioners called the rich is so extremely small, that, if all their throats were cut, and a distribution made of all they consume in a year, it would not give a bit of bread and cheese for one night"s supper to those who labor, and who in reality feed both the pensioners and themselves." - Edmund Burke

Moral Obligation is a subjective thing. Aren't murderers morally obligated to kill their victims? Aren't thieves morally obligated to steal? While giving to everybody who needs it is a very noble and just cause, taking from people who earned it is not. Who are we to say a rich person "doesn't need all that money." If you asked a starving African, he would tell you that you don't need all that food. But, subjectively, you worked for that food, and took the time to purchase it. The same logic can be applied to the rich, they worked for the money, they take the time to come up with ways to make MORE, therefore they need it.

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies and cuts through to the essence of the evolutionary spirit."- Gordon Gecko


In this round, I will rebut my opponent’s case and defend my own case.

OV1: Con uses many Bare Assertions; which is a logical fallacy. When a fact is asserted without supporting reasoning or evidence, obviously, the veracity of a claim cannot be trusted. It is a “bare” assertion. Thus, any bare assertions have no impact.

There are no arguments made in R1, just bare assertions which have no impact (OV1).

In R2, Con argues that nowhere in America’s history has the government been able to do redistribution. And that the concept of redistribution goes against the Constitution in the Bill of Rights because the government is taking away people’s life and liberty by taking what people worked for, and giving it to lazy poor people.

Con then says that redistribution is unfair because you can’t help everybody.

This is a logical fallacy called The Nirvana Fallacy: rejecting a partial solution because it isn’t perfect.

Redistribution does not help all people, but it helps most. A partial fix is better than no fix; something is always better than nothing.

Con replies to my Moral Obligation argument by saying that morality is subjective. He says that murderers have the moral obligation to kill their victims, but does not explain why. This is another bare assertion and thus has no impact (OV1), my moral obligation argument still stands.

Second, Con says that the rich worked for that money, and earned it. Thus, taking away from people that earned it is not justified.

This argument only works if rich people work *more* than poor people do, and would thus deserve their goods more than poor people. This vital premise is never backed up by Con and thus the entire argument can be thrown out on bare assertion.

But the premise can be destroyed further by proving that poor people work more than rich people, and thus negating the argument.

“In reality, a large and growing share of the nation’s poor work full time — sometimes sixty or more hours a week – yet still don’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families out of poverty...and a large and growing portion of the super-rich have never broken a sweat. Their wealth has been handed to them.” [1]

This is because 59 trillion dollars is passed to heirs [2]. Thus, since I have proven the poor work more than the rich, by Con’s logic, it is morally permissible to give them money, and I win the argument.

Con didn’t exactly have a case, and what little he had was entirely composed of bare assertions which was negated. Since he has no arguments left on his side, only one of mine has to avoid negation for me to win, and Con dropped “Political and Societal Stability”, so I win the debate.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: condeelmaster// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Although I'm really anti redistribution of wealth, I have to admit that Pro had better arguments in this one. Con used lots of statements without any argument or explanation behind them. This was pointed out by Pro, who did a good job taking advantage of this. As a final thought, both parties failed to give good arguments about the moral aspect of wealth redistribution. For next time, moral has to be well defined to use it as an argument.

[*Reason for removal*] Both point allocations are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side failed to support their arguments is not enough to award either of these sets of points, nor does nebulously stating that Con took advantage of the circumstances. The voter has to directly assess arguments given by both sides in order to award argument points.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: BrendanD19// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con had no sources, had no structure and one of his main claims was never supported

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) One side having no sources is insufficient to explain the source point allocation to the other side. (3) Having no or limited structure is insufficient reasoning to award S&G to the other side unless that lack of structure significantly hampers reading comprehension. (4) A lack of support for some claims on one side is insufficient explanation for arguments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, I would like to say that Con did horribly: 1) He had no sources to back up his statements (thus the point being awarded to Con); 2) Con's arguments, due to the lack of sources, were bare assertions and failed to meet his BoP -- thus the args. point to Pro.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof since he was agreeing with the resolution. In order to meet this burden he needed an argument to successfully prove his position. Due to the fact that Con dropped the argument "political and societal stability". This alone affirms the resolution since the burden of proof was on Pro and by proving this statement to be true, their burden of proof is successfully achieved. Ergo, my vote goes to Pro.