Should the Rich be the rulers?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will debate you, but you must give me a reason for why the rich should not be "the rulers" and that is your burden of proof. Good luck! :)
My opponent argues that all people that are rich should not be rulers by making a stereotype about all rich people:
"The rich should not be our rulers because they will begin rigging the system to their favor! They want to be more rich. They want more technology and power over us. They want to become supreme leaders of the country! They are very greedy. . ."
This entire argument is a logical fallacy.
STEREOTYPING: The general beliefs that we use to categorize people, objects, and events while assuming those beliefs are accurate generalizations of the whole group.
What's more is that I can't think of one example of a president in U.S. history that came from a humble middle class background. By saying that all rich people are corrupt and greedy, then you must believe that all (or nearly all) presidents in U.S. history were corrupt and greedy.
There are rich people who are corrupt and greedy, but that does not apply to all rich people and doesn't prove that being rich caused them to be corrupt and greedy.
You shouldn't say that rich people should not be our rulers based on stereotyping.
But I agree with you, some rich people are not corrupt and greedy, but remember some people DO know that sometimes, that is not true. They are simply undercover to avoid suspicion. So in short, majority of the rich are greedy.
P.S. About the President in U.S. history that came from a humble middle class background, don't forget Frankling Roosevelt or that president during WW2.
"But I agree with you, some rich people are not corrupt and greedy, but remember some people DO know that sometimes, that is not true. They are simply undercover to avoid suspicion. So in short, majority of the rich are greedy."
So in order to say that rich people should not rule, wouldn't you be making an unfair generalization about rich people if you admit that some aren't corrupt and greedy?
This is a hasty generalization logical fallacy with an example as follows:
Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is a very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S."
As for your claim about "...the majority of rich are greedy" I would need to see proof of that or a study referencing this because I would find that impossible to prove.
Roosevelt came from a very wealthy family, and prior to becoming president was a lawyer and went to Harvard (and living in a suite while he went to school.)
Okay, right before I start this one, I'll just say that i'm not american. Not to mention that my "I" key is nearly broken.
Nobody pretty understands my side of the show here too.
For my claim that "...the marjority of the rich are greedy", here is a bunch of links found
For Roosevelt "Roosevelt came from a very wealthy family, and prior to becoming president was a lawyer and went to Harvard (and living in a suite while he went to school.)," there is actully a president that was born poor, even poorer than middle class. His name is James A. Garfield the 20th President of The US.
He was born in poverty and had majority of his lfe in public service when he died, he was penniless at the end of the road. By the way, look at number 6.
Jus to reiterate, you have said that "the rich should not be rulers" because they are "greedy."
In my first post, before you were proved wrong via stereotype fallacy, you said that the rich "...will begin rigging the system to their favor! They want to be more rich. They want more technology and power over us. They want to become supreme leaders of the country! They are very greedy..."
You didn't mention anything about rich people that might not fit your stereotype.
After I had mentioned that your conclusions derive from a "stereotype" logical fallacy, in your next post you admitted this wasn't true:
"But I agree with you, some rich people are not corrupt and greedy, but remember some people DO know that sometimes, that is not true..."
So in order to arrive at a conclusion generalizing a whole group of people ("the rich") that shouldn't rule because they are greedy, then you admit that you are unfairly generalizing them because some rich people don't meet your criteria.
Some low-income people are murderers. Does that mean that all low-income people are murderers? No. It suffers from the same "hasty generalization" logcial fallacy.
Further, your sources are committing the same "hasty generalization" fallacy that I had mentioned in my previous post (which you haven't addressed or even attempted to refute in my previous post.) The study mentioned in the Time articles are based on a very specific scenario and do not represent the majority of rich people. Furtherrmore, 4 of your 5 articles are based from off of the same source. Is relying on mainly 1 source for the crux of your argument reliable? No.
News sources suffer from bias and sensationalism in order to promote their own agenda anyway.
In any case, I'll provide you a counter-example of 25 rich people that are not greedy. In one case, a rich woman donated $6 billion dollars to charity. Is that greed? I don't believe so.
here's another source of generous rich people:
and here's another:
Let me ask you a question. Pretend that your best-friend or life-long friend became rich and took a role as ruler of your country. Your friend is very ethical and would never take advantage of anyone within your country. By your own criteria, you have condemned your ethical and life-long friend even though they are not greedy in the least just because they are rich. This doesn't make much sense, does it?
If your argument you've said that some rich people are greedy, then I would agree with you. Some people who aren't rich are also greedy.
By saying "The rich should not be our rulers because... They will... They will.... They will... " is an unfair assumption and I have proven this to you in my second post via the stereotype fallacy. After I had proven you wrong and submitted that "...most [not all anymore] rich people are greedy" I've proven you wrong again by the hasty generalization fallacy in my following post - and your sources suffer from the same logical fallacy: a singular event - namely a very small proportion of rich poeople - to make a generalization about all rich people.
Now that I have exposed your logical flaws, my argument is this: you cannot judge whether being rich is an indicator of greed and cannot condemn any rich person to be greedy just because they are rich.
Zachern forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's most of the arguments were opinions of his own and assumptions made and finally lost conduct for the forfeit.
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.