The Instigator
SS1105
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Talent is more necessary for success than money

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,965 times Debate No: 60115
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

SS1105

Pro

First Round- Acceptance
Second Round- Arguments
Third Round- Rebuttals
lannan13

Con

I accept.

Normally fist round is acceptance and definitions so I will define two key terms in this debate.

Success- the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Talent- a special ability that allows someone to do something well (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
SS1105

Pro

Hello.
I define success as "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose" and not only "the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame". (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...).
The aim of a person is not only to earn money but also get self satisfaction. The success that one gets by using his talents gives a kind of satisfaction that any other thing doesn't. So, talent gives people the 'real' success that they crave for.
History has been the witness of the fact that many people, who were talented in a certain field, but were without even a bit of money went on to succeed in their lives. Some great examples can be Charlie Chaplin (http://www.businessinsider.com...), Dhirubhai Ambani, Shahrukh Khan, Harry Houdini (http://www.businessinsider.com...), etc. After thinking about all these people, my mind says that achieving success in life is dependent on talent, and not money.
A talented person can earn money and gain success using his talents, but a rich person without any talent can't do that. Even if he does, he wouldn't get much success as compared to a talented person of the same field as his.
Also, money can leave a person anytime. So a person dependent entirely on money for success is under the constant risk of becoming a 'Zero' from a 'Hero'. But talent is something that stays with a person lifelong. So, a talented person never has to be worried about becoming a 'Zero' after he has become a 'Hero'.
But, along with talent, other factors such as passion and hard work are important. But these factors are of no use if talent is not there.
So, I believe that talent, and not money, is the most important thing that one needs to achieve success.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Materialism

In today's society when people ask you if you are successful in life they are asking weather or not that you have made a fortune. Not weather or not you have a good job. One also has to remember that today's society is very materialistic and has been for quiet some time. When immigrants come to America thinking of the American dream they think that all Americans are rich and that you can make it big in America just by moving there. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) In the document about the Lost Boys of Sudan the boy who moves to America is constantly being called by his mother asking who asks him to send an amount of his mountain loads of money home to Sudan to support the entire village. (http://www.lostboysfilm.com...)

So here you can see that the world is very materialistic and that Materialism is very important to defining success and that means big sacks of money.

Contention 2: You can make money and still not be talented.

In today's world it is easy to make money and not be talented and still achieve one's goals. Look at Andy Dalton, he recieved a 6 year $115 million contract. (http://www.cbssports.com...) Many ESPN sports analysts are even arguing that he is being over paid by Cinci and that his talent doesn't match the money he's making. (http://www.rantsports.com...)We can even look at historical refrences on how people don't have to be talented and can still be successful look at some people like Andrew Carnegie. He grew up on the streets as an immigrant orphan and then grew up to be the owner of US Steel. He had no talent. He became a bicylce boy and read magazines for companies he delivered to. They then hired him as an in tern and eventually he got to where he was. This man become arguabley the richest in the world. But then Fell behind Rockefellar. John Rockefeller created a trust on Oil. He did Horizontal Integration and bought up all of the companies he bankrupted that who were not in his trust, Standard Oil. He became the 2nd Richest man in America. He also had no talent. All Rockenfeller did was destroy his competition by rising and lowering prices to the point where his opponent's couldn't compete with Standard Oil. Here's one I believe we all know, William Vanderbuilt. He came up with the idea to make a standard for the railroad lines. That way you don't go from one city to the next and have to get off and change trains in between. This made buisness and transportation a lot easier on people and buisness. Still not talented only came up with the idea and became one of the richest men in America. (http://www.neatorama.com...) FYI there all time rankings are
1. John D. Rockefeller
2. Andrew Carnegie
4. William Vanderbuilt

Contention 3: Talent won't get you far in today's world.

Employers in today's world are not looking for Talent, they are looking for Hard Work, Good attitude, and someone who accepts responsability. Those in society who maybe talented don't really work hard. Take David Beckham for example, he's known for his talent in soccer, but has been known not to work hard. The same can be said for Manny Rameriez in baseball. ( http://www.career-success-for-newbies.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
SS1105

Pro

Money can be very important in defining success, but it is not necessary that having money always makes you successful. A very good example can be the thieves, robbers and smugglers. They do have money, they do achieve THEIR aim of stealing, but can not counted as successful according to our definition of success because we define success as the " fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame" and I don't think that anyone respects them. Also, many people don't have money as their aim. So, money doesn't always define success. Excluding America, many countries define success in terms of whether their work supports their family life. If they enjoy their work, and if it gives them an opportunity to spend time with their family and have a balanced life, they"d consider themselves successful. (http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org...)

There might be a few cases where less talented/ not talented people have achieved success. But, it is generally seen that the people who have more talent become successful. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is "every law has an exception".
There might be a few people who had a stroke of luck, but all people are not lucky. Luck doesn't make you successful, talent does.

If you are not talented in a certain field, I don't think your tremendous hard work in the very same field will reap off. So, hard working and responsible people are not always successful in their life. Therefore, it can be said that working hard and being responsible don't really matter if you do not have any talent. Without talent, these things are generally useless. A recent research says that talented people still have an edge over those who are more hard working than them. (http://www.nytimes.com...) Also, what employers are looking for doesn't really matter because success doesn't always come from employment. Many famous inventors were not employed and still became successful.
Also, Beckham went on to achieve his aim and that makes him successful according to our definition of success. And this success didn't take a lot of hard work. So, success means more of talent and a very little hard work(if necessary).

Thank you, Lannan for this wonderful debate. Onto you and the voters now.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Materialism

My opponent contradicts himself in his last round when he gives you the definition of success that I have given you (the fact of gaining or achieving wealth, fame, or respect) and gives the examples of thieves and robbers. There only main objective is to steal steal things to achieve wealth. Then there are some these thieves that rob to achieve fame like Bonnie and Clyde. If you really look at certain things in people's lives you can see that they all led to money. Like housing, schooling, technology, food on the table and clothing. You need money for all these things. Whoever has the nicer things tend to be more successful in life and be richer.

Contention 2: You can be successful without being talented.

The richest people in the USA and the entire world have been the untalented as I have brought up last round. How about world leaders. They have been successful without talent. FDR, Teddy, Reagan, IKE, Lincoln, etc... I can go on, but the list is long. The monarchs of Europe just had their jobs handed to them on a silver platter and they were very successful and didn't have to ever do a thing.

Contention 3: Hard work

My source applies to the average Joe's job and is from employers across the US while my opponent's source is including vocationial jobs. In vocational jobs you need to have a special skill. This must be discounted, because it only works for special skill jobs.You have to have hard work in the average job today's world. If you are lazzy then it doesn't matter how talented you are because no one would want to hire you.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SS1105 2 years ago
SS1105
Sorry AlexanderOc. Next time buddy.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Define success talent. Can't really debate when you don't know exactly what you mean by those terms.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
SS1105lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither definition is binding... This debate seemed to fall over which had better merit (the case, and the definition), overall from an objective standard that falls to con largely because his can be measured more easily, and pro's examples seemed to be the exceptions to the rule whereas con showed born into money almost guaranteeing success.
Vote Placed by texans14 2 years ago
texans14
SS1105lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate. Came down to more convincing arguments, and con had a slight edge.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SS1105lannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: most of con's points weren't really effectively rebutted