The Instigator
AdamDeben
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
airmax1227
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
airmax1227
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,068 times Debate No: 22063
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

AdamDeben

Pro

Resolution and BOP:
The burden on PRO is to prove that the world would be a better place with a resource based economy. The burden on CON is to prove that the world would not be better with a resource based economy, and we're perfectly fine with the system we have in place.

Definitions:
A Resource-Based Economy is the fair and sustainable distribution of natural resources, governed/influenced by science, but is not the totalitarian ruling by scientists. The main concern in this type of economy is the well being of all people and sustaining the environment.

A Monetary Economy uses currency, which you can use to buy and sell goods and services. It is governed by politicians, banks, and large corporations. The main concern in Capitalism is competition; the freedom to obtain as much as you can. The main concern in Socialism is the equal distribution of money.

Rules:
1. This is not about the personal flaws of the debaters. It's about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments themselves.

2. Grammar doesn't count, as it is a personal flaw, and not a weakness of the argued point itself.
3. The first round is for acceptance.
4. Arguments in the 5th round will not be counted.
5. After the debate is over, the debaters may not post comments.
6. If you misinterpret something your opponent says, and they point it out, then don't keep rebutting to what you previously thought they meant.

I advise that you know a little about Resource-Based Economics before you start debating, so that I don't waste the whole debate having to clear up misconceptions.
airmax1227

Con

Accepted. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
AdamDeben

Pro

Money is the root of many of the world's problems:
  • Poverty
    • Therefore causing overpopulation in Africa (they need their kids to take care of them)
  • Corruption
  • Most wars
  • Starvation
  • Death from preventable diseases
  • High crime rates (look at countries that have more economic equality)
  • Pollution and use of resources that run out fast
  • Economic instability
  • A cure for cancer (found in Canada a few years ago) isn't on the market, mainly because the pharmaceutical corporations can't make a profit off of it.

Now how do we fix or greatly reduce all of these problems? My solution is to remove the source, rahter than adapt to it.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." -Albert Einstein
We have the resources, but not the money, to create a new and sustainable civilization. One volcano alone has enough geothermal energy to power the world for thousands of years. We also have enough nuclear energy in our weapons to power the world for a long period of time. There's enough solar energy in the sun to power the world until it explodes, and you can't sell the sun. You can't sell the wind, either. You can sell windmills, but you can also sell the equipment to tap oil, which is inefficient, and is prone to spills hence pollution.

Plants and animals can reproduce, only limiting the supply to overpopulation, so there's no reason for world hunger. Since there is no profit involved, we don't need unhealthy Grade D beef anymore. Money is an unnecessary barrier.

Many jobs are being replaced by machines. A lot of people think this is a bad thing. In a Resource-Based Economy, this would be a good thing, because there would be no need for the boring and repetitive jobs. Everyone's dreams can come true, because there is no money to limit creativity, and there is no burden to "earn your living." The very concept of earning your right to live is just sickening, especially when they can technically get what they need with all of the resources we have.

Access > Ownership. The things you don't use consistently (phones, beds, etc), you'll be able to use when you need it. People don't buy plane tickets. Look at all the empty space on some planes that could be otherwise occupied. First come first serve for a certain number of seats, and some for people who urgently need to get there. Anyone can get a free vacation, increasing their well-being.

Anyone can contribute to society, and get other people's contributions in return. It'd be more like one big family. Do you pay your mom to make you dinner? Some soldiers "serve their country" and aren't in it for the benefits. There are also non-profit organizations. Why wouldn't people serve society?
Intellectual property in the current system isn't going to last. People can download anything for free these days.

Day in the life of a Resource-Based Economy (for further insight, if interested):
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com...

airmax1227

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent opens with an unsubstantiated claim, that money is the root of most of the world's problems and then writes bullet points to assert this statement. I will address those now:

Poverty: My opponent believes that poverty leads to over population in Africa. I assert that the opposite is true. Over population in Africa (which causes the society to be unsustainable) is what leads to poverty. This is true of all heavily impoverished countries that over breed, and has nothing to do with currency.

Corruption is existent in every society and eliminating currency would not eliminate corruption. If we replaced currency with resources (goats and bricks) people would exploit others for, goats and bricks. Hence corruption exists independent of currency, or a monetary system.

Wars existed before there was currency or a monetary economy.

Starvation is a result of an unsustainable society addressed above.

Death from preventable diseases would exist even in a resource-based economy.

High crime rates are most prevalent in unsustainable societies.

Pollution and economic instability are inevitable in large societies and not a result of currency.

What my opponent believes is due to currency can simply be explained with human nature…

Furthermore, my opponent's solution to these issues (eliminating the monetary system) would not eliminate the root of these problems that lies within the nature of mankind in general.

Instead, to offer a simple idea, I suggest a universal solution that has nothing to do with currency:
Increase literacy rates, lower birth rates, and the society will be more sustainable. Therefore conflicts, starvation and death will not be a ‘necessary' part of these social structures.

My opponent says:

"Now how do we fix or greatly reduce all of these problems? My solution is to remove the source"

Since my opponent believes erroneously that currency is the problem, we can assume removing it wont solve anything.
My opponent's individual suggestions are worth considering within the already established framework of most societies. Exploiting volcanoes, nature and whatever else can be used perpetually would indeed be beneficial to mankind. There is no reason to believe that these ideas could possibly replace the way our economies already work though.

The greatest problem with this entire idea is in an already accepted reality of our world. If there is no incentive for me to get an education and work hard to sustain my lifestyle, why should I do it? If I am guaranteed a living, food, shelter, and a preset allowance in this system, what prevents me from simply doing nothing?

Naturally, some percentage of people will give an answer that is simpatico with a resource system, such as saying: I work for self-satisfaction or the betterment of the world etc, and not for personal gain. But what percentage of this world is this? What would prevent the world from becoming a global society where only 1% (or less) are actually working, and 99% of us are just sitting around having fun and waiting to be given the food and housing that this system promises us?

Everything about the resource-based economy sounds great (and idealistic) in theory, but without an answer to this question, I don't see how such a system could ever be reasonable or sustainable…

The competitive structure in the capitalistic system (as an extension of the monetary system) has been responsible for creating much of the things that have made our lives better, decreased the risk of starvation and disease, and inherently gives incentive for all of us to get an education and work hard. The resource-based economy is likely to result in the opposite.

I would like to thank my opponent again for this debate and eagerly await his response.
Debate Round No. 2
AdamDeben

Pro

Thanks for the response. You made some interesting points. The first of which I'd like to address is "overpopulation causes poverty." While it is true that overpopulation makes the situation worse, poverty and overpopulation form a loop that begins with poverty. These people need their children to take care of them when they are ill, but there is a high infant mortality rate, so using probability, they have 6 kids so at least one can grow up to care for them.

"Death from preventable diseases would exist in a resource-based economy" It is true that it would happen nonetheless, but I claimed that the Resource-Based Economy would be able to greatly reduce that. One example would be by sending AIDs treatment to Africa, without a concern for sacrificing the pharmaceutical company's profit.

"The competitive structure in the capitalistic system (as an extension of the monetary system) has been responsible for creating much of the things that have made our lives better, decreased the risk of starvation and disease..." Yes, ever since Capitalism has been established there have been advances in medicine. But that is a product of the Scientific Revolution, occurring around the same time.
They found advancements in medicine because they had a passion for what they did. They wanted to change the world. Some doctors today feel this way, including my cousin. They just wanna help people. Some people also sacrifice low salary to do what they love, but also contribute to society effectively. There are also non-profit organizations around today. And some soldiers join the army to help their country; not for the financial benefits. We could put that passion into something good.

There was no system in place before money; it was anarchy. People just claimed stuff and that was that. If you wanted it too, you're out of luck. By the way, money is anti-economy. The true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The current system demands the opposite. A Resource-Based Economy is not trade. It's distribution where it's needed. People have ownership of what they need consistently, and access to everything they want as they use it, like a library. There would also be businesses, but they wouldn't compete for money, they'd contribute for the betterment of society and to get known for it.
"Celebrities wouldn't do charity if it wasn't in the public eye." –Ricky Gervais

A friend of mine once said, “If I had a lot of gold, wouldn't people steal it?" similar to your "goats and bricks" argument. Without money, gold doesn't hold the same value. It's not that rare, but jewelers have a monopoly on it. So the value depends on the function. If you need goats for your farm, you can just get goats. There's enough to goat around; you don't have to steal. If a fellow farmer doesn’t really need as many goats as they have, then you can have some.

"Increase literacy rates, lower birth rates…” Good luck paying for schools around the world. Lowering birth rates is a good way to decrease the problem, but corruption and other power-related (and therefore money-related) problems would persist.

"Therefore conflicts, starvation and death will not be a ‘necessary' part of these social structures." You say all of these problems are human nature, so any solution would not work (you did not specify how that would link to my solution’s failure in particular) yet you still think yours would make these problems obsolete.

In order to change the behavior, you have to change the environment. People are a product of their culture, and one main aspect of culture is economy. Look at the Middle East for example: they use oil to strengthen their economy. That oil is causing wars.

Didn't you like being a child and not having to worry about earning your right to live? A resource based economy would be like that, but you would learn whatever interests you and what you enjoy to make yourself feel useful. But you wouldn't act like a child.

airmax1227

Con

The only way a society could possibly function in the way that my opponent describes is if there are infinite resources. The entire BOP my opponent has to advocate for this system requires him to explain how this infinite resource society would manifest.

Without proving how this could exist, there is no other possibility any of the characteristics my opponent describes as part of a resource based economy could ever possibly come to fruition.

As long as there are a number of goats, and finite amounts of bricks, someone somewhere will do something to attain more of them. Whether this is accomplished by hard work, devious means, or knowing someone in the government (and any combination) is dependent on the type of society and economy.

In a resource based society we assume everything is infinite so everyone knows that anything can be attained, therefore they don't need to work, plot or steal, as someone else has already assured the infinite nature of the item they desire.

Regarding science and capitalism as a method of encouraging development:

My opponent cites an alternate reason for advancements I claim are due to the economic system I am supporting. While he is not incorrect about the influence of the ‘scientific revolution' and passion of those involved influencing these advancements, he undervalues this economic system being a crucial catalyst in the ultimate creation.

Three significant advancements in modern health:
The Pill
The Artificial Heart
Viagra

All three are the culmination of the necessary large amounts of resources (peoples time and money) required for such profound advancements. The massive incentive for creating such things is what arguably finally culminated in their existence.

Certainly someone in the ancient world, or Cuba, dreamed of a magical pill? And yet all three of these things manifested in distinctly capitalist (and obviously monetary) economic systems.

The greater point here is what distinguishes the next characteristic of the ‘resource based economy', and that is a lack of incentive to achieve anything. Will 6 billion people believe that self-satisfaction is enough?

If my opponent can point to any other tangible modern scientific advancement as significant as these three that did not require large sums of money and resources to attain and therefore profit/monetary incentive, I will drop this argument entirely.

I recognize that my opponent does not wish to debate the transition between these economies, and I do not believe these arguments contradict that desire. I am simply using the base line of reality to compare what a resource economy is suggesting we consider.

"There was no system in place before money; it was anarchy"
A bartering system still exists in many places in the world and as flawed as it is in modern societies, it still makes more sense than an infinite resource structure.

"A Resource-Based Economy is not trade. It's distribution where it's needed."
This is ideal but unrealistic for reasons stated above.

"A Resource-Based Economy is not trade. It's distribution where it's needed. People have ownership of what they need consistently, and access to everything they want as they use it, like a library."

What if I wanted to have my own swimming pool? Would it be illegal or impossible? The only reason I got a PHd was so I'd have my own pool.

"There would also be businesses, but they wouldn't compete for money, they'd contribute for the betterment of society and to get known for it?."

Why would I bust my butt and deal with the headaches of running a business if there is no incentive to do so? Prestige is nice, but what if resources suddenly become finite and I can longer clothe and feed my kids? I think I'll take cash, or precious metals instead.

"Without money, gold doesn't hold the same value"

Gold has value because there is a demand for it. It's pretty (the ladies like it, if that doesn't create universal demand nothing does), and it's useful in electronics and grills.
Debate Round No. 3
AdamDeben

Pro

We have infinite energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) and more than enough water. We could easily filter the ocean’s water into tap. In fact, that would be helpful, because due to the ice caps melting; sea levels are going to rise. Plants and animals can reproduce, so in a controlled environment, we could have infinite food. Without the barrier of money, the food can also be good quality. People are building new buildings every day, and many of those are from natural resources, not recycled. We have unoccupied areas such as deserts (both hot and cold), some mountains, and the ocean. All of which contain resources. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 300 times over, so all of the electronics and energy can be used to supply people with new things. People make TVs and phones every day, and recycling parts for these aren’t that common right now. If you look at the Venus Project, Jacque Fresco actually designed everything to be sustainable. The things he designs are profit-proof but extremely efficient. They can be re-used, easily maintained, recycled, and produced a lot more than the current resources. But it can't be done today, because it's bad for the 'economy'. It would take less energy and resources to create and maintain his city designs than it would to maintain today's cities.
To conclude my ‘do we have enough’ statement: We have the energy, food, vast land of untapped resources, and the electronics. Without monopolies, the resources could be distributed easily in a relatively short period of time to change the face of the earth and accommodate everyone. Overpopulation is only going to make the monetary system worse. If we have economic equality, people won’t feel the need to have so many children (as proven by my round 3 statement). BUT if we have, say 15 billion people we’re gonna need 2 planets regardless of the system. The projected population for 2100 is 10.1 billion, and by then we’re also projected to be able to take resources from Mars and the moon, and manipulate things on a molecular level to accommodate our needs.

They have ownership of what they need and access to what they want. I mean why would I want to hoard bricks if I already have quality housing for free?

Isn’t the invention of the artificial heart linked to Sci-Fi-to-real-life dreams? Any medical advancement is made to solve a medical problem. The advancements are patented for the pharmaceutical companies to gain profit.
People come up with ideas for inventions every day, and their only incentive is to change the world, since they know how hard it is to make money as an inventor. Many still want to get rich, but what if they were already financially comfortable (for lack of a better term)? Then all inventors’ only incentive would be to change the world. I designed concept phones before. I just want them to be made because they’re a lot more efficient than other phones. Money is just a bonus, because I do need it to survive in the current system. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we’d be at loss of nothing but our sanity.

The thing that is so hard about owning a business is keeping the business. It’s all about money. It wouldn’t be business in the same sense as it is today; it’d be a group of people coming together to form ideas and put them in action, not a group of people struggling to keep the company's profit, and resorting so scams.

There’s a monopoly on gold. There could still be jewelry, but most would go towards useful things like electronics and grills, as you stated.

If you want a swimming pool, then maybe that is feasible. We have the tools to dig a ditch and we have the water and rock (to make concrete). Other luxury items; everyone would have easy public access to, and not ownership. That’s one small sacrifice of values that would have to be made in order for this to work, but I won’t go on that tangent.

Money is a false incentive: http://tinyurl.com...

airmax1227

Con

First, I'd like to insist that my opponent stop posting in the comments. He chose the 4000 character preference for this debate, limiting the depth of the topic.

As stated already, all of these ideas should be implemented. If they are a realistic alternative to energy use, and would provide a limitless source for food and fuel, they will be used eventually.

Everyone should feel free to read the info and web site of the Venus project and the zeitgeist films on utube to see how plausible they feel these ideas are. Like myself I think they will feel similarly that Jacque Fresco is a brilliant designer and thinker.

However when the questions I have asked to my opponent, were asked of Fresco, the answers were similarly not sufficient.

Fresco quotes the biblical saying, "From the sweat of your brow you shall eat", he says he doesn't believe it should be that way. I have no reason not to believe that it hasn't always been that way, and will not continue to be that way. Any society where the few are being productive so the overwhelming majority can rest will collapse.

When asked these questions about a society where everything is provided, Fresco gives a short response saying he doesn't believe it would be that way. My opponent says the same, believing people will work hard for prestige or self-satisfaction.

If my opponent can provide other answers Fresco has given to these questions it would be helpful to his resolution. In the meantime my opponent (and Fresco) has failed to respond to these realities.

"We have the energy, food, vast land of untapped resources, and the electronics."

In places where people are being productive and not irresponsibly over populating we have enough of all this stuff. In the west food is plentiful, cheap and healthy (if one desires). The profit incentive for food has created a near limitless supply that could already feed the world (and would if not for poor distribution).

Distribution of food and resources for the common good leads to people waiting in line waiting for their equally small portion.

"If we have economic equality, people won't feel the need to have so many children"

Depends on how this system is implemented. If I have 10 kids while my friend only has 5, will I not be allotted more bricks and goats? Wouldn't this be an incentive to reproduce irresponsibly? Another huge flaw.

"They have ownership of what they need and access to what they want…why …hoard bricks if I already have quality housing for free?"

What if I want more chocolate?

"People come up with ideas for inventions every day…only incentive is to change the world"

It takes a lot of people and risk for the greater endeavors, so it takes more tangible incentives to convince so many people to invest.

"If all…money in the world…disappear tomorrow, we'd [lose] nothing but our sanity."

We'd lose a simple solution for transferring our productivity into goods and services.

"…owning…is keeping the business… It wouldn't be business in the same sense…it'd be…people coming together to form ideas and put them in action, not a group of people struggling…and resorting so scams."

A business exists because it provides a good that's in demand. Profit is part of what is the incentive for the hard work that goes into it as well as a method of determining if what the business does is necessary.

"There's a monopoly on gold. There could still be jewelry, but most would go towards useful things like electronics and grills, as you stated."

What organization has a monopoly on gold? I can buy it and sell it in multiple locations... And because gold holds its value so well, it is now being used as an investment holding. I recommend everyone have some gold in their investment portfolios and grills.[1]

"If you want a…pool…maybe…is feasible."

It's guaranteed under the current system. So I think we should stick with that.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
AdamDeben

Pro

Before I conclude my case, I'd like to thank airmax for promoting further education on this topic. I feel like I didn't cover the specifics of the system enough, and some of his points could have been prevented if I defined Resource-Based Economy further with this video:


I suggest watching the whole presentation if interested. Now to sum up my arguments:

  • Money obviously causes many of the world's problems. My opponent has denied this entirely, saying the monetary system is unproblematic.
  • We have the resources to create a sustainable environment for all people. The first video explains it best. If you want more chocolate, and there happens to be enough to go around, based on chocolate consumption statistics, then congratulations, you have chocolate! If you want 10 kids, then you’re out of luck, because if the system only allows you to provide for a certain number of kids; based on a number of statistics; then you might only have the food and such for 5 kids. This might cause them to steal, but since families that large are uncommon, prisons won't have very many thieves.
  • As I said in an earlier round, the true goal of an economy is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The system today demands the opposite. You can't sell the sun. Many things that are more efficient, sustainable, or productive can hurt the current economy. Productivity is inverse to unemployment. Technological unemployment, alternative energy, and Cancer’s simple cure (Google it) are all examples of this. Once we run out of oil and other unsustainable resources, we’ll have to resort to unprofitable resources, hurting the monetary economy greatly.
  • To change behavior, you must change the environment. People are a product of their environment. Their personality may be genetic, but if you apply those characteristics to different variables, you're going to get different behaviors. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
  • Money is an incentive for war, monopoly, corruption, most crime, and other greed. There are other positive incentives besides money:
    • Human nature of altruism
    • Emotional drive for medical or other advancements
    • Prestige
    • Mastery
    • We must become the change we want to see in the world -Gandhi. If I have an idea, I could propose it to the system (the video presentation elaborates on how that would work). The creation itself is the reward.
    • Personal interests and passions
    • Curiosity, like a child, always wanting to do something
    • The need to feel useful. If you’re acting like a fat cat, someone’s gonna say, ‘get your life together.’ This also happens today with social life, if you start to show selfish or antisocial behavior.
    • Non-profit organizations are tangible evidence of an alternative incentive.
    • For more, see the second video.
  • People aren't going to get the "same small portion of food." Without an economic barrier, we can grow crops as productively and efficiently as possible, creating a population of plants and animals only limited to how fast they're consumed. Communism still has barriers.
  • If an innovation is infeasible, then that’s the only barrier stopping it, so anything good coming from money can be done better with RBE.
  • Cooperation is part of human nature. We're a social species. Today's economy is all personal concern; but if that becomes social concern, it'd not only be beneficial to everyone, but to everyone including you. The Golden Rule.
  • If it's both idealistic and realistic, then people will volunteer left and right to maintain that.
  • Money creates more problems than my opponent claims it solves. Yeah, you can buy and sell things with it; but the more you understand about money, the less it makes sense. The government can make money out of thin air, and it's not in proportion to available resources. People spend more than they have, so that causes negative amounts of money to exist. Now the global economy is in debt to itself.
airmax1227

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has been an interesting experience and gave us an opportunity to talk about the importance of grills.

As arguments don't count in this round I will just give a brief summary of the debate.

I have argued with an overly generalized (and perhaps flawed) view of US style capitalism, (and by extension, any monetary system) that seems more reasonable than a "resource based economy".

Questions pertaining to incentive and other societal issues are never answered and therefore the resolution is not resolved.

I have also given various reasons why the monetary system should be maintained and therefore have carried my own BOP.

I would like to thank my opponent again and those who read the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sheepy 11 months ago
Sheepy
Here is why con is wrong. An RBE doesn't require "infinite" resources. There are enough to go around on this planet as it is, it has been proven. It has also been proven that the way we horde and manage resources in our current society is the cause of scarcity now. RBE's address this issue by incorporating technology such as automated localized food (aquaponics) and energy production checkout and return system for musical instruments entertainment, learning tools, etc and by removing competition and replacing it with cooperation. Human nature is not the issue. Human behavior changes to suit the environment. If it rained gold for 40 days and nights how many people would want it how many would steal it?
Posted by desertdawg 3 years ago
desertdawg
Opinion: In a resource based economy resources would become currency because human nature is the problem with any system.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Posted by Viperx00 4 years ago
Viperx00
@Adam : I think one of those inane arguments that Wallstreetatheist was referring to was that you presented resources as if they just popped around everywhere for us to pick at freely, sure we may have vast amounts of untapped geothermal energy and animals can certainly reproduce for us to eat but these resources must first be tapped then constantly maintained through huge amounts of work and labor.

Its not as if the geothermal power plants build and maintain themselves or that the pigs reproduce without being fed and looked after, then just suddenly burst conveniently into carefully sliced pork chops and fly to the nearest freezer. People have to build all the infrastructure maintain all the infrastructure, clean up the residual pollution, etc...

People have to mine resources from the ground, people have to refine them into usable metals, various people of all specializations will have to turn them into parts and electronics for everything from your geothermal power plants to cattle prods, freezers and kitchen appliances.

People must have incentives to work hard and be productive, that everyone would just get up and do these things is wishful thinking.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Am i the only one here who got PM'd by AdamDeben after voting against him?
Posted by AdamDeben 5 years ago
AdamDeben
@airmax Point taken. Conduct vote goes to you. I don't care about winning, I just care about getting the information out there and sparking interest.
Posted by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
@Adam

Rule #5. After the debate is over, the debaters may not post comments.
Posted by AdamDeben 5 years ago
AdamDeben
@Wallstreetatheist
Name one of my arguments that were inane. I'll re-explain it to you if you didn't get what I meant, why I said it, or where I got the information from.

Side note: I realize that no arguments made in the comments count. I will not make any new arguments in the comments; but I will clarify what I meant, why I said it, or what my source is.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Pro, your arguments were so inane that I had to take several facepalm breaks to mitigate the mental anguish.
Posted by AdamDeben 5 years ago
AdamDeben
"If my opponent can point to any other tangible modern scientific advancement as significant as these three that did not require large sums of money and resources to attain and therefore profit/monetary incentive, I will drop this argument entirely." I ran out of characters, but in response to that, I refer to my first argument where I list problems caused by monetary economics. The cure for many types of CANCER has been found years ago in Canada, and it's cheap. Pharmaceutical companies can't make a profit off of it because other companies can sell generic versions for less. The cure has been obtained from the emotional drive of losing loved ones, along with research.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 5 years ago
Mimshot
AdamDebenairmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments all depend on the existence of something he has not demonstrated: infinite resources. Con's arguments brilliantly exposed this flaw.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
AdamDebenairmax1227Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet his burden. Money is not the root of all evil, and a resource-based economy gives poorer incentives than a monetary economy.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
AdamDebenairmax1227Tied
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: I didnt but into the whole "money is the root of all problems" skit he built most of his arguments around
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
AdamDebenairmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I full heartedly agree with con, but pro won here. Although some of his arguments where poor he did a good job refuting his opponent. He proved baby boomers overpopulate in poor countries (africa, small scale overpopulation) and he defends this point well. Also from what I can see con made no case for a monetary economy, just refuted pro. From what I can see anyway. Pro had better sources making him more convincing. He also showed money was a false incentive, in this debate only, pro barley wins