The Instigator
Zachern
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should the Rich be the rulers?

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...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 48387
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Zachern

Con

Should the rich be our rulers? Well I know the rich can't cheat their way to the system or else they will just get caught, stripped of their wealth, and then be put in a life time sentence. But if they managed to do so? Do you think? they should be our rulers
Benshapiro

Pro

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! :)
Debate Round No. 1
Zachern

Con

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 so they might begin to tax more people and deploy more troops in an attempt to make sure they are forever the leaders till death(unless their family will be the next leaders)!
Benshapiro

Pro


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.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...


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.
Debate Round No. 2
Zachern

Con

Apparently, it is not ONLY the US on the stage, it includes all the countries. France, Russia, Germany, all countries except all the countries with monarchy(its obvious they can't cheat their way through unless they are part of the royal family). If you know what happened in the Phillipines during their martial law you will know that much of the money(taxetrs) were used for either even more harrasment/military use or go straight to the pocket of the president. Much like the Pork barrel scam(you'll know what it is if your a filipino(or if you want to now, it is a scam that tries to rig the systtem so the riggers earn more money than the legal limit)).

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.
Benshapiro

Pro

"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:

"Logical Form:

Sample S is taken from population P.

Sample S is a very small part of population P.

Conclusion C is drawn from sample S."

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;


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.)

http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
Zachern

Con

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


http://healthland.time.com...
http://healthland.time.com...
http://healthland.time.com...
http://business.time.com...
http://articles.latimes.com...


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.

http://www.investopedia.com...

Benshapiro

Pro

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.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

here's another source of generous rich people:

http://www.forbes.com...

and here's another:

http://blogs.wsj.com...

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.
Debate Round No. 4
Zachern

Con

Zachern forfeited this round.
Benshapiro

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the previous round. I extend my arguments . . .
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
ZachernBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con's most of the arguments were opinions of his own and assumptions made and finally lost conduct for the forfeit.