The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The credit crunch is the fault of human worrying.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
sherlockmethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 8636
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

I would like to start off by saying , that I myself am conufsed by what the title means in a way !

but what i mean is that its because of what people think , how reluctant people are to invest. The general idea of people these days for not investing is " I'm not investing , nobody else is". its like saving power for instance , " what diffrence will one person make ".

I think that peoples attitudes towards things , are the reason we are here . not because of greedy bankers , polticans , the war and many more cuases , granted they are all causes , but the main problem is that mankind is refusing to work as a team to get rid of this credit crunch , its " everyman for himself" these days , the rich will get richer and the poor , poorer.

So , all that confusing aside ! (hopefully).

I would like my opponent to disprove my theory that well basically - the main cause of the credit crunch is human nature. that would of made a better title perhaps .

also , please no voting according to things like i said something that didnt make to much sense , if you understand what i mean , please vote accordingly , im sick of being vote bombed by people who say that you make no sense , but know what you are talking about.

thank you
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this debate and look forward to Pro's future arguments. First, Pro is worried that his resolution will be attacked because people will use semantics to attack a badly worded resolution all the while knowing what Pro intended. The first round argument is poorly worded, but I will attempt to put the contentions in a more manageable set so I can refute them as I think I see his points. I am in no way attempting to reword Pro's contentions to fit my needs, but I have to make the contentions more manageable to address them properly.

Pro's contentions:
1)We are in a credit crunch.
2)The credit crunch was caused by reluctant investors
3)The investors were and are reluctant because others are not investing and they think their investments will be for naught following the clique, "what difference will one person make".
4)Mankind refuses to work as a team; therefore, the credit crunch will continue.

If Pro has issue with these contentions, he is certainly welcome to address this in the next round. I will number my rebuttals per the above list.

Contention 1: Agreed. I will use this definition of credit crunch and I agree we are in one now. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Contention 2: This appears to be one of Pro's main contentions. Pro acknowledges the credit crunch has other causes but reluctant investors are the main one. I disagree. "The recent credit crunch was driven by a sharp rise in defaults on subprime mortgages. These mortgages were mainly in America but the resulting shortage of funds spread throughout the rest of the world." http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk...

Economics Help goes further by laying a majority of the blame at the feet of the banks for poor decision making policies and bad loan practices. http://www.economicshelp.org...
This essay did not address the political pressure put on the banks by members of Congress, but this point does little to affect the Con position. Voters, I need only show that reluctant investors are not the main cause of the credit crunch, but with all sincerity, I cannot find that reluctant investors had any role in the cause of the credit crunch, period. From all appearances, the banks should have been more reluctant to invest. I welcome the Pro position to offer any evidence showing otherwise.

Contention 3: If my opponent can show that reluctant investors are the main cause of the credit crunch, he must then show they are reluctant because they did not feel one person could make a difference and that other investors are not investing so they are not either. I welcome Pro to offer evidence to support this contention, as I cannot find any source listing these reasons for reluctance in investing. Investors appear to be reluctant because they have watched investments go down the tube due to mismanagement of their funds by now defunct companies. Here is a good article encouraging people to invest. http://www.kiplinger.com... but he does not address the main problem, i.e. people have lost trust in the financial system and have not done so out of greed, but out of the adage of "throwing good money after bad". If reluctance was unreasonable, Pro may be on solid ground, but companies must now show they can properly manage others' money. Reluctance is not the cause of the credit crunch – it is the result of it.

Contention 4: I have been very generous, but I cannot make heads or tails of this one. I ask Pro to clarify.

At this point, the resolution cannot stand as Pro has not provided material to support his main contention concerning the reluctance of investors; therefore, the Pro position cannot hold in light of Con's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

rangersfootballclub forfeited this round.
sherlockmethod

Con

Missing a round in a 4 or 5 round debate is not so bad as the debater only loses conduct points, but missing a round in three round is tough to recover from. I wish my opponent luck.

I still hold the Con position and continue my counter points to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

I would like to concide defeat in this debate , for many reasons .

first up i have been unable to get on a computer regularlay and will struggle to do so over this debate , and as i have already missed one round , i see no point because also as i was typing my argument for this round , debate.org has logged me out resulting in the loss of it , which to be honest i do not want to type again.
my final reason for withdrawing and conceiving defeat is that I have no "reliable" sources , i was hoping this debate could be more personal opinon , rather than sources , as i find them biased and unreliable , all sources most of the time. But my main reason is lack of access over the next week to a computer.

I urge you all to award all 7 points to my opponent.
sherlockmethod

Con

I wish my opponent luck in future debates and I accept his concession.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Thank you for your time wj.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Conduct- CON (forfeit)
Spelling- CON ("concide")
Arguments- CON (concession)
Sources- CON (none for PRO)
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I wouldn't necessarily call that vote bombing...if people are stalking your debates and consistently voting against you because you are you, then fine.

However, the main reason I wouldn't take this debate is because debating someone who doesn't write in complete sentences is more hassle than the debate itself is worth. Not a dig against you personally, but take enough pride in expression to grammar check, man (says the English teacher...).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
rangersfootballclubsherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
rangersfootballclubsherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07