The Instigator
ritesh
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Megalobrainiac
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Rent control is the epitome of urban decay

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...
ritesh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 51889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

ritesh

Pro

Rent controls are applied in big cities such as New York where apartment rents are regulated by the government where it cannot rise above a certain level. This is a terrible economic policy because it goes against demand and supply, and since landlords receive MUCH less rent income than they could receive without the rent control, they have no incentive to regularly maintain the apartment (interior and exterior) because the costs of doing so greatly outweigh the benefits. If there is no government subsidy or assistance, this can lead to ugly, mismanaged and crumbling buildings which would completely demise the urban landscape of any major city.
Megalobrainiac

Con

If only rich people could afford to live in New York who would sweep the streets?
Debate Round No. 1
ritesh

Pro

I'm sorry to say this, but that argument makes no sense. How do you suppose high-income residential areas such as Beverly Hills remain clean?
Megalobrainiac

Con

Because Beverly Hills is not an entire State and is small enough for outsiders to come in and work and then leave back home.
Debate Round No. 2
ritesh

Pro

Exactly how New York CITY is not a state. But my point was not to target one specific city, but to approach rent control in itself.
Megalobrainiac

Con

Your entire argument revoled around your prejudice against the poor.

I explained why your idea is idiotic on a big scale and you failed to counter it, only on a city-scale.

My rebuttal went uncontested.

Your prejudice should lose you a conduct point too.

I have torn all substantial arguments of yours apart.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
riteshMegalobrainiacTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, both sides did not give any effort, but Pro made much more points in R1. Con left almost all of these un-refuted. He also made a cheap blow at Pro, as having a prejudice on the poor, and can not claim to tear any arguments a part, because he only made one rebuttal. Not a good one at that.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
riteshMegalobrainiacTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: sorry, con, but "Your prejudice should lose you a conduct point too. " ? just...meh. And sweeping the streets is irrelevant, it's not like you said "they don't get paid much". And no, con has not torn his arguments apart, he mentioned NOTHING of rent control