Should 2000 rupees be in india
Debate Rounds (2)
Indian prime minister to launch 2000 rupees and 500 rupees in a new design
Not to be confused with the Legend of Zelda currency, Rupees are an Indian currency on Earth. It's worth 1.5 american pennies. 2,000 rupees would be worth exactly 3,000 pennies, or $30.
I'll go into depth later on why there shouldn't be 2,000 rupees... or why there should. The burdens aren't clear. [I'll make a weak argument. Don't worry.]
Narendra modi in just one night announced a new currency releasing what is this . people cannot go to banks in lines to exchange old 500 notes
My Burden of Proof is still not clear. I'm taking it that I should argue why 2,000 rupees should be in India. I did say I'd make a weak argument.
So 2,000 rupees are in India, meaning $30. Now, that actually isn't a whole lot american dollars. However, 2,000 itself is a big number. India would be fine with such money. Though I think there should be even more, 2,000 is moderate.
Con never made a clear argument, and her side isn't obvious. There's a new currency? Okay. Rupees are getting redesigned? Alright. that doesn't mean anything, really. Debate is about explaining why your side is correct. If you're not arguing for or against anything, it isn't a debate. If you want to make another debate, clearly state the topic, as well as what you think about it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: In this debate, the instigator, Con, presented an issue which was that the PM of India is introducing a 2,000 rupies note and 500 rupies note in new designs. Pro then clarified what rupies are and stated that he would present a weak (?) case in the next round. Con then presented her only argument which was that people wouldn't be able to go into banks to exchange their old 500 rupie notes for new ones, a clear harm. Pro argued that India would be fine, which never really made an impact as an argument showing any benefits to counter the harm Con raised. Furthermore, instead of countering Con's argument he states that Con didn't argue anything at all, which, as a judge, is empirically false considering the harm Con previously raised. Due to Con's argument standing unchallenged, and Pro presenting no impactful arguments whatsoever, Con wins the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.