The Instigator
Alexanderthegreat123
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
SaintMichael741
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

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 4 votes the winner is...
SaintMichael741
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 939 times Debate No: 33911
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Alexanderthegreat123

Pro

i belive that monoplies should be allowed because normally they were smarter and deserve to own a monoply. Componies like Standard oil should not have been split up. It is wrong
SaintMichael741

Con

Monopolies lead to the following:
1. High Prices on goods
Without competition, the price of goods will soar. An unchallenged company will charge whatever they want because no one can offer an equal or superior product. Take Microsoft for example. Most computers these days are Windows operated. Only a small fraction of consumers can afford to buy a Macbook. While the Macbook has been catching on, they are still light years away from catching up to Windows and their client base. Microsoft can charge whatever price they want for microsoft office, computers, etc. and people will still buy their goods. This is dangerous for our free market when a company has near absolute power.

2. No Regulation

Monopolies like Standard Oil worked off the blood and sweat of their underpaid workers. Standard Oil made their workers work hours that by today's standards are appalling. The workers were paid very little for long and often dangerous hours.

3. The Gap Between The Poor and the Rich
The Wall Street protest have shown that the disparity between the rich and poor is still a major issue. If monopolies are able to function, the gaps between the two groups will only increase. It will be the barons of industry against the average Joe. In the end, the monopolies would win, just as history has shown before the government broke up the monopolies.
Debate Round No. 1
Alexanderthegreat123

Pro

he If the OS market had more competition and had 10 companies, each with an equal market share of 10%, then it would be very difficult for software programs to be available to everyone so if there were more componies instead of microsoft like lets say 20 even 10 it would be a mess because games like call of duty would take longer to make doing it with 10 diffrent sofwares at a time. Then you are going to say something about walmart right?? well here is a little example from a paragraph
"if I am holding a basketball tournament to find the best basketball team (a consumer finding the lowest price), I would like as many teams to join into the tournament as possible (more competition is good). Preventing teams from joining would be bad (barriers to entry). However, as the tournament progresses, teams will be eliminated (consumers choosing not to shop at expensive businesses). Eventually, there may be a winner (e.g. Wal-Mart). In most industries, the tournament never ends and there is not a winner because many teams are often equally matched and/or new teams continually enter the tournament."
SaintMichael741

Con

My opponent has not made his points very clear. I would ask for more legible writing and grammar in the following round. It's difficult to counter a point when it's not clear and concise, though I do believe my opponent has made some good points last round.

I do not agree with my opponent when he says that multiple companies making software would be a mess. I don't really understand how it would be a mess. Companies competing against each other fight to make the best products for the consumer. Their goal is to gain an edge against the competition by various means such as price, quality, etc.

This leads me to my next point. In my opponent's example about basketball, he brought up a point about how basketball can be viewed as a microcosm of a free market. The problem with the example is that it leaves out many variables. Using the NBA, allow me to demonstrate an example: say that you go to a website selling official jerseys. There is a sale going on that any Charlotte Bobcat jersey (a team with a horrible record as of this season) is only 25 dollars. However, there is a Miami Heat (a team with the best record as of this season) jersey that is 120 dollars. Why would people purchase the Miami Heat jersey? Taste. Consumer taste drives everything. The more teams that compete with each other, the more choices that the consumer/fan has. Should the consumer buy his favorite team jersey? Favorite player? Discount jersey? Hometown jersey?

Monopolies destroy the very competition that drives businesses to lower prices and offer strong quality products that the free market enables. All of the choices that we have as consumers would be destroyed by the dirty practices of the monopolies of the past. Competition is integral to the benefit of society and the consumer; it keeps every business in check from becoming too powerful while also creating a balance of power between consumer and business.
Debate Round No. 2
Alexanderthegreat123

Pro

sorry for my writing and grammar mistakes, though your example with people buying the Miami heat and the bobcat is true in basketball but not in the real world since about 90% of the people don't look at the quality but by the looks and the price. this happens with cars as well as stores like walmart. Walmart destroyed its competitors by making the price go down so much that people had to buy from them not the local stores. though there were only a couple that stay on their level like publix. Also when I said it would turn out to be a mess I meant that there would not be a standard. this happens with apple and Microsoft. even with only two companies there is such a difference that it takes years to make a game that works both on windows and Macs, just think of how it would be if there were about 30. this is like railroads back in the day when there were hundreds of companies and each company had its own railroad size and you would have to wait very long before you could move again, this changed when there was one standard only one software would stop the waiting for software to be translated from windows to Mac.

also I would like to bring up the idea that Monopolies such as standard oil really built America and made it the best country in the world. if their was no Vanderbilt and his companies did not exist America would be a 3rd level country. he made trade easier and changed America in a good way not in a bad way like most Monopolies do.

also i will have to thankyou and this has tought me a lot about history and Monopolies. to tell you the truth i thought that monopolies were bad but i wanted to learn more so i made a debate. I am very thankfull to you that you kept up with the debate and gave a good Argument.
SaintMichael741

Con

To close, I would like to draw attention to a few of your points:

"since about 90% of the people don't look at the quality but by the looks and the price."

Not true at all. Today the average consumer is getting smarter and smarter due to the Internet. I personally read reviews for phones, video games, and movies to see what is worth my hard earned money. The Internet reviewer has given consumers the ability to judge the quality of products more effectively. Also, take into account that the quality of products is spread through the mouths of average consumers via social networks. If someone put on facebook that the new Iron Man movie was amazing and the new Superman movie coming out is terrible, this will effect consumers' choices. Lastly, be careful from throwing random percentages out without something to back it up.

"even with only two companies there is such a difference that it takes years to make a game that works both on windows and Macs, just think of how it would be if there were about 30."

That's true, it would be more difficult to create games for 30 operating systems. However, that is a unique situation. Automobile makers benefit from competition; they fight each other to make the most gas effective, well built cars. Military organizations around the world compete to have the best weaponry available for conflict. Movies compete against one other to beat all of the other available films in the box office. Competition makes businesses strive to be better in quality, price, and looks. Quality is a huge factor in competition in our modern day.

"if their was no Vanderbilt and his companies did not exist America would be a 3rd level country."

Debatable, but just because these monopolies may have shaped what we are today does not mean that monopolies are right or ethical. Many terrible events in history such as WWII and the Cold War have had positive effects on society in the aftermath such as treaties and regulation of certain weapons of mass destruction. It does not mean that those wars were positive overall; WWII caused millions of death while the Cold War put the fear of nuclear proliferation into the hearts of many scared people on this planet. Monopolies can be related to this; although monopolies were horrible for the working class, the aftermath did lead to some exciting changes in America that helped competition. So why would we allow monopolies to enter our economies again after knowing the atrocities they committed in the past?

I thank my opponent for such an interesting debate. I hope we get to debate again soon.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmm. This debate was hard to judge.

1) PRO essentially argued that monopolies deserve to exist because they were smarter/better than the competition. CON essentially argued that competition is exactly what allows for companies to become smarter/better.

2) PRO plagiarizes his round #2 argument, from where exactly I do not know. Next time, if you quote something, cite what you're quoting.

---

Conclusion

This really was a chicken-or-the-egg debate. In the end, I left it to my own judgment, since neither side really refuted the opposing argument.

Do natural monopolies exist today? Of course, utilities are a prime example of this. Do utilities lead to the destitution that CON cites? No.

Arguments PRO, S&G and sources to CON.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Alexanderthegreat123SaintMichael741Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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 made much better, legible arguments that made sense and went unaddressed by Con.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 4 years ago
newbiehere
Alexanderthegreat123SaintMichael741Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I'm seeing this debate differently. Pro brought up Standard Oil as an example of a monopoly, but he failed to address what makes it okay for that particular company to stay as a monopoly. He then brings in examples such as operating systems, basketball, and Wal-Mart. However, this isn't an argument for natural monopolies. It's an argument against increasing competition, perhaps artificially, because there aren't 10 major operating systems competing. He also fails to counter any of Con's arguments against monopolies, and every argument he makes in favor of a monopoly is only aimed at some sort of unified standard (railroad tracks, operating systems, etc.) that does not necessarily have to be a company that makes it to the top on its own. My apologies if I misread the arguments Pro was making, but they really were unclear.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Alexanderthegreat123SaintMichael741Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
Alexanderthegreat123SaintMichael741Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument wins by default because the formulation of any abstract entity represents intelligence and that formulation process represents equity. Pro's premises were grounded in monopolies being "smarter" and "deserving", so his premises are satisfied. In contrast, Con goes on three red herrings that don't deal with the issues of defining what's smart or deserving. Instead, he simply brutally asserts them while expecting Pro to make an intuitive leap for him. While Pro follows the red herrings, the role of a judge is to call out logical fallacies. Unfortunately, this website does not enable people to call out and highlight fallacies in the debate itself.