The Instigator
SIVAPRASAD
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
qwarkinator
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,971 times Debate No: 3118
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

SIVAPRASAD

Pro

I am not an expert in stocks. I am a commoner seeing many people investing their life savings in stocks and stock markets through one route or other, directly or indirectly with the hope of higher returns on their savings. The amount they save for the rainy day is not safe is my argument. The sentiment that drives the demand and prices for stocks or the sentiment that leads to market crashes is too risky as a channel for common man. There must be better way for the companies to mobilise funds for their activities and offer guarnateed returns without the bouts of volatility.
I am for disbanding the stock markets and evolving a mechanism for the saftey of investors and also for the smooth growth of the companies.
I shudder to think of the fate of the millions of investors who lost billions and billions across the globe due to weak sentiment.
Sentiment is a thing that changes day to day on news and too dangerous for the investors.
Better invest the savings safe in bonds or just keep the savings in current or savings accounts and relax is my advice to the common man.
qwarkinator

Con

No one is forced to invest in the Stock Market. You know the risks when entering the market; you should have the freedom to make your own decisions even if they are unwise.

Shutting down the stock market would also reduce the amount of capital companies have to invest in the market. In turn reducing how well companies can produce products. It would be stupid to shut down the market.

You have the choice to enter the market; if you fail it is your fault. You have the freedom to decide if you want to make risky investments.
Debate Round No. 1
SIVAPRASAD

Pro

My argument is that the stock markets are unreliable, unpredictable source for keeping the savings or surplus funds. Stock markets need people who think differently from the crowds to succeed. Stock markets are sentiment driven many times which is unknown factor x. I do not contest the need for companies to invest or mobilize funds for their expansion, growth etc. If they need funds, why not they resort to offering shares at fixed guaranteed minimum fixed returns so that their needs are met and the investors interests are protected. Even the Investment companies, Public funds prefer a more risk free atmosphere for making investments. The mutual funds, the investing companies,the Public funds often lose heavily due to stock market fluctuations risking the investors/contributors.
The companies to can offer better guaranteed return to their shareholders even if the companies are not listed or traded in the stock markets. When you can remove the risk, why persist with unpredictable stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of millions is my argument.
qwarkinator

Con

I agree with you that the stock market can cause people to lose large sums of money, I believe that the stock market can be unsafe to invest in, however, that is no reason to shut it down. People have the option of investing in alternatives; no one is forcing them to invest in the stock market. Therefore there is no reason to shut the markets down.

Your argument can be best summarized with this example. Someone is going out to lunch and they need to find a restaurant to eat at. They choose to eat at McDonalds even through they know that the food McDonalds serves is not that healthy and can lead to cardiovascular disease. You are saying we should shut down McDonalds because it might cause someone to develop cardiovascular disease even though they could have gone to Subway or some other healthy choice for lunch. As long as you have the option to choose something wise there is no reason to outlaw the unwise.
Debate Round No. 2
SIVAPRASAD

Pro

I fully agree with what you say. But I am questioning the need to have stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors and traders. Eating your favorite snack is one thing and losing money is some other thing I think. The demand supply dynamics in the markets are often manipulated and even some big listed companies manipulate accounts to boost the demand for their shares. What I say is that there are methods by which the companies can sell shares and offer better guaranteed returns for the investors without getting listed and traded in the markets. I only say that the stock markets, the trading places for stocks are often driven by unknown factors and make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors. If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question. Eating junk food and losing your savings are different things according to me. What I want is that the greed for quick money is making investments in stocks an attractive option. There is no harm if we replace the stock markets with a system where companies mobilize funds and offer guaranteed and risk free returns, higher to other types of investments to their investors. That way both gain. The companies as well as investors.
qwarkinator

Con

"If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question."

THIS MATTERS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INVEST AS YOU CHOOSE AND NOT BE TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS A SAFE OPTION, THIS IS CALLED LIBERITY.

There is no reason to shut down the stock market, listed above is my opponents best argument against the stock market and as you can see it is an argument against personal liberty.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
Shutting down the stock market? What ridiculous nonsense and economic illiteracy.
Posted by SIVAPRASAD 9 years ago
SIVAPRASAD
My friend kleptin may be right. But he should confine himself to the merits of debate instead of questioning the credentials of the debater.For my friends information, I won predictwall street award for the best stock predictions. I know many who lost heavily due to the trading games in stock markets and virtually on the streets not due to their fault but due to the fault of the system of stock trading that encourages speculation and relies on sentiment.
Posted by septim 9 years ago
septim
Wow, I started a profile just to say this. I cannot believe that you thought that con won. First of all, the United States is a democracy. A democracy is government of majorities. If a majority of people suffer because of the stock markets than they should be shut down. Furthermore, just because some people benefit from the stock markets doesn't make it good for the country. Consider for a moment what could happen if we allow ourselves to think this way: We could enslave one-third of the world (2 billion people) and leave the rest to use the 2 billion slaves for their personal benefit. Even though some people of the world benefit from this, slavery was not just, is not just, and most definitely will never become just. Continuing, the Con side only had one argument that was that it doesn't matter that only a small minority gains from the stock market because everyone has a choice. This argument becomes invalid in the case of a democracy, such as the United States. Also, the Con side did not refute the Pro side's contention or his idea to simply replace the stock market with a much better, safer alternative.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
@Pro

This is a practical joke right? Your profile says you worked in a bank for 20+ years. You CANNOT be suggesting something like this havening worked in a bank for two decades o.O
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I'm not going to vote because I'll be too biased.

This is probably the most ridiculous, serious debate I've seen. Pro's argument that we should shut down the stock market is the same as saying "hey, food makes people fat, so we should shut down food production" x.x
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by livi 9 years ago
livi
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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 
Vote Placed by MDHarris08 9 years ago
MDHarris08
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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 
Vote Placed by ptc 9 years ago
ptc
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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 
Vote Placed by PhillyEgls20 9 years ago
PhillyEgls20
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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 
Vote Placed by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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 
Vote Placed by SIVAPRASAD 9 years ago
SIVAPRASAD
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by septim 9 years ago
septim
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
SIVAPRASADqwarkinatorTied
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