The Instigator
Evannnn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Saska
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Saska
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 60929
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Evannnn

Pro

Hello, I would like to debate someone on weather rich people should be allowed to own any sized home they wish, as long as they can afford it.

I shall allow my opponent to begin his/her opening statement/debate first. I look forward to an interesting time.

Not much else to specify or speak about. Lets begin >:).
Saska

Con

No one should be allowed to live in a home that is condemned or deemed unfit to live in. Rich people should not be an exception. So there are some homes that rich people can most definitely afford in which they should not be able to live. I believe that this fulfills my BOP, to show that rich people should not be able to live in ANY home that they can afford.
Debate Round No. 1
Evannnn

Pro

A fair argument, yet incorrect. If I were rich, and I wanted to live in the most decrepit home I could find, it would be immoral to stop me. My living in a terrible home only affects me anyway, nobody else, so why should anyone care?
Saska

Con

Why should the amount of money a person has dictate whether or not he/she should be allowed to do something? Why not just say that any person should be able to live in any home they can afford? By your standards, should a poor person not be allowed to live in a home they can afford? You would think that the morality should be the same for everyone, regardless of how much money they have, but the amount of money they have would dictate the type of home that they can afford.

Regardless of that, I stand by my original argument. Society has rules in place to ensure people's safety. Seat belts in cars are there to protect people. They can be fined for not wearing them because the government reserves the right to put rules in place in order to protect the safety of its people.

Have you ever seen the TV show 'Hoarders'? People live in derelict places and sometimes they will be kicked out of their houses because they are deemed unfit to live.

Another example of the government protecting people who won't protect themselves would be people who try to commit suicide and fail. They are put on watch and police/nurses/security guards try to help make sure that they person can't try it again.

My point for all of this is that just because someone wants to do something that is damaging to their health and safety, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. Living in a house that is condemned or deemed unfit to live is putting your health and safety at risk, and it is in the government's interest to protect the health and safety of it's people.
Debate Round No. 2
Evannnn

Pro

Your first point is irrelevant. The question presented was not related to poor people. It was only related to the wealthy. Assuming circumstances where I specified that poor people could not own any home they could afford will not help you in any way.

To address your second point, I would like to point out that I agree that society has rules in place to ensure peoples safety. The Government has and should have the right to protect its citizens from threat. However, it is much different if I decide to put MYSELF under threat. Smoking is legal. I can smoke all I want, no matter how harmful it is to me, as long as the second hand smoke does not negatively affect someone else against there will. Marijuana, a drug that is legal in some states in the U.S.A, has been made legal for the same reasons. You seem to really think that the Government is very partial to aiding its citizens, but, considering these things are legal, and the Government actually profits from them, I believe you may want rethink your premises.

You mentioned the show Hoarders, and the act of attempting suicide. The people in the show, and the people who attempt to commit suicide, may be putting themselves at harm, but not necessarily willingly. They are all usually suffering from mental instability, and possibly illness (many times depression). They cannot decide for themselves if hoarding is the best for them, or if suicide is best for them, therefore, it would be fully called for to prevent them from living in a home with such terrible conditions, or to prevent them from trying to kill themselves again.

To specify my point even farther: If I were to force another man to live in a derelict home, the law should stop me. However, if I were to willingly occupy and live in a home that endangers my safety, and I am suffering from no mental afflictions, and I believe it is best for me, what gives anyone the right , Government or person, to prevent me from doing it?

Am I still a fully functioning individual if choices are being made for me? Is it really a democracy anymore if I am forced to abide by rules that I do not believe are helping me? No.
Saska

Con

I will admit that my first post is not completely relevant. That was just a side note because I don't understand why a distinction should be made that rich people should be allowed certain rights. To me that comes across as saying that poor people are not worthy of the same rights. If they were, then there would be no need to make a distinction.

The government seems to have a standard where they will protect people in situations where their lives are immediately at risk, ie. seatbelts, suicide threats, etc. Smoking is an example of something that will not kill you on the spot. It is proven to have very negative long term effects on health, but you won't drop dead on the spot from smoking a cigarette. Eating unhealthy food also has negative effects on health, but the government does have to draw some lines in the sand. However, if a house is deemed unfit to live, and has the potential to collapse at any time, I would argue that a person should not be allowed to live in the house, regardless of how much money they have. Now I know that is a specific case, but my BOP in this debate is to merely show that there are some homes that rich people can afford in which they should not be allowed to live.

I would also be willing to put forth the argument that any "rich" person (which I would define as "having abundant possessions and especially material wealth" [1]) who is willing to live in a derelict, condemned home that is a danger to their health and safety should be considered about as mentally unstable as a hoarder and should be handled as such by the governing body.
Debate Round No. 3
Evannnn

Pro

You mentioned that "The government seems to have a standard where they will protect people in situations where their lives are immediately at risk, ie. seat-belts, suicide threats, etc. " and that "Smoking is an example of something that will not kill you on the spot."

Now if I were to take on these believes you have, would I not think that since living in a derelict home would not kill me right away, and is not an immediate risk, that the Government should not bother with it, and that the rich person should be allowed to live in it? Your statements as listed above would not seem to result in your opinion.

As for your second point, I would like to bring up that you are assuming something about a non-existent person/group of people. This debate is merely theoretical; there are no people with abundant possessions and especially material wealth who live in a derelict condemned home as far as we know. To say that people who would do this are most likely insane is to say that aliens are most likely insane. There is no basis for it, as we don't know enough information about them.
Saska

Con

I used the very real example of a home that is deemed unfit to live, on the brink of collapsing. That is an immediate danger. In that specific scenario a rich person should not be able to live in the home because their life would be in immediate danger. My job here is to prove that there are circumstances where rich people should not be able to live in any home they can afford. That is one specific case where a rich person should not be allowed to live in any home they can afford.

As for me assuming something about a non-existent group of people, if you are allowed to create a theoretical person who can afford to live anywhere they want, but chooses to live in a condemned, derelict home, I think it is only fair that I comment on the sanity of said person; especially considering you brushed off one of my earlier points regarding hoarders having their homes taken away from them due to uninhabitable conditions by basically saying 'that does not count because they are crazy'. If loading up one's house with so much junk that it puts your own health and safety at risk is deemed mentally unstable, I would think that it is very much fair to argue that placing oneself in a home that puts your health and safety at risk, especially when said person has the means to avoid such conditions, should be treated equally.

I forgot to post the link to my reference in round 3. I just pulled a definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, so here is the citation now:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Evannnn

Pro

To be honest, your points are not seeming very logical. I will expand mine to show this. Governments are no more intelligent then anyone else. The government, therefore, cannot make decisions for anyone else. What makes you so certain, that the minds of the politicians and staff in a group in power, are superior enough that they can make decisions for everyone else? Why do they get to decide weather a decrepit house is bad for me? Because it is obvious? What if, in my mind, under my circumstances and in my POV, it is obvious that living in such is the best option? Why should anyone stop me then? If people should be able to, like you say, should they also be allowed to decide if an abortion is bad for me, because it 'obviously is'? Or maybe, if I should be forced to vote, because it's 'obviously the best thing to do'? Shall I be threatened into selling my hard-worked on products for a set price as well, because it is 'obviously morally right'?

Back when the constitution was created, people knew that the government was no smarter then the people. Yet, people knew it still had the strength to control them. This is why people wrote the constitution. This is why it was written not to protect the governments right to control people, but protect the people from that control. Why do you think it begins with 'We the People', and not 'We the Authorities'?

In fact, beliefs that people in control are superior then everyone else were common in many parts of our history, resulting in catastrophe at many times. One of the most disturbing times in our past, in fact, the Dark Ages, were caused by a direct result of people giving their control of thought to someone else. During the time, almost every part of everyones lives were given to the church, mostly because they thought that the pope and the priests were better then them, and had a closer connection to 'god'.

I can list some of the results of this below:
-People were being led often into utterly illogical wars for 'religion' (Although the rich religious rulers normally had other motives). These were called crusades.
-The Black Death was spread rapidly, and nobody had incentive to work or try to find a cure, as the people of the world were made to believe that death was irrelevant, because 'heaven' would welcome them with open arms. In addition, because so much control was given to the churches, 'god' was overly praised, overly credited, and used as an explanation for everything. So, people just thought 'god' would take care of the plague.
-The richest people in the world, as well as the most powerful, were people that were supposed to be selfless, such as bishops, the pope, and priests. They could also, because of the status that people gave to them, get away with almost anything.

*Sources for above in comments*

I know what I have written may seem like a few extreme examples, but I decided to go to this extreme for a reason. Clearly, if a large unnecessary amount of control was given to authority figures in the past with disaster resulting, a small amount of unnecessary control would do nothing positive either. Earlier, I responded to something in the third round, by questioning weather I really keep my individuality if the government starts to decide whats right for me, and if its really a democracy still if parts of my life are not allowed to be in my control anymore. Considering it's still not clear why control or force is needed in anyone's life unless they are affecting someone elses, I would like you to address these points. I hope my example of the dark ages will give you the kick you need to do this.

To address your naive argument about these theoretical people likely having theoretical mental illness, I will merely restate the fact that it's impossible to know the circumstances of a theoretical person, and it's impossible to test them for mental illness, like you could with an actually existent hoarder.
Saska

Con

What is not logical about my points? If a house is decrepit - on the brink of collapsing - it is perfectly reasonable for a governing body to step in and prevent someone from living there. Hoarders don't get kicked out of their houses because they are crazy, they get kicked out of their houses because the place is deemed unfit to live. Hoarding is seen as a disease, but that in itself is not enough to have a person removed from their home.

In the US (I am Canadian by the way, so I don't have your constitution memorized) the founding fathers compiled a list of logical rules because they understood that people act irrationally very often. The constitution is there to be a voice of reason for the governing body; to try and prevent them from acting irrationally. Is it irrational to prevent someone from doing something that could kill them on the spot?

For your information, I am also an atheist and share your views on the horrors that religions have caused all across the world. But that is so completely irrelevant to this topic. Those are examples of groups who manipulate people using a claim that the group has some level of control over people's afterlife. This is a discussion about whether or not people should be allowed to live in a home that is unsafe and could collapse at any point when one can afford to live elsewhere.

You list so many straw-man arguments about what else the government should be able to control. Voting and abortion are separate issues that are irrelevant to this discussion. Your resolution claims that rich people should be able to live in any home that they can afford. My response is that they should not be able to live in a home that has been deemed unfit to live; or that is on the brink of collapsing. My argument is that the government has a responsibility to protect its people when they can't protect themselves. If someone, who has the means to live elsewhere, chooses to live in a place that puts their life in immediate danger, I argue that they are incapable of protecting themselves and it is up to the government to step in. That person is acting irrationally and needlessly putting their own life at risk.

I could have played a game of semantics here as well, instead of this argument, by saying that if they can afford a house, but that house is on fire, based on what we understand about the human anatomy, they should not be able to live in that house... they would most likely die if they chose to remain there. But instead, I chose to go with a relatively serious rebuttal and I am quite pleased with how it turned out.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
Well done to you as well. This was a lot of fun.
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
Great debate, well done on your part. I think you may have won it over in your closing statements. If only I had the chance to rebuttal a few of the things you said there.....

Even if I lose, I feel quite proud of how I did considering our age difference.

Hopefully you'd be willing to debate again in the future. :)
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
(http://www.thefinertimes.com...)
(http://www.learner.org...)
(http://www.lordsandladies.org...)
(http://www.archives.gov...)
(http://constitutionus.com...)
(http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...)
(http://www.archives.gov...)

If you are very far left wing, and actually choose to attempt to interpret the constitution for something it isn't, I recommend you read through the bill of rights transcript, the quote source, and the Constitution itself one more time. As many say, the constitution couldn't of been made to protect its citizens from the government, as it essentially established the government. This is true, it did establish how the U.S government operated in many ways. This does not change the fact that people wrote the constitution, and that their prime priority was to protect themselves from what they were creating when they did it.

As William .O. Douglas (a U. S. Supreme Court Justice) famously said: "The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people."

Anyway, good luck, may the best debater win.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
I didn't know what to expect getting into this, but I am definitely enjoying the debate a lot more than I thought I would :)
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
Wow, I thought this debate was going to be very stupid, turns out, it's been quite interesting. Are you enjoying yourself just as much xD
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
I wanted to debate a commie. Xd
Posted by Bertie1987 2 years ago
Bertie1987
Is there any country or anyone with the idea that people should not be able to live in a home they can afford?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Is this a troll debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
EvannnnSaskaTied
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: con makes excellent points about the safety and overal morality of letting an insane rich person live in an unstable, dangerous house. Your own choice of dying is alright, but it's better to force them to live in mediocre houses at worse.