The Instigator
andre
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
bexy_kelly
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The entire world economic system is evil. (Con = is not evil).

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,062 times Debate No: 4316
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

andre

Pro

The economy, which is to say money, is evil. Because of money, people are forced to steal, tempted to kill, and many have to spend a dangerous amount of time away from their family for work. People starve, people go without housing or hygiene, and people are forced to be segregated into rich and poor, or separated into a hierachy. People have to wait years in some cases just to get medical care - and because of funding issues (as well as, of course reasonable testing) medicines and technology that could help the environment have to wait a decade oftentimes to get on the market. People get greedy,and destroy other people's lives for money. Some people will do anything for money. People waste money instead of helping those who don't have it, and frankly, don't need it because if we scrapped the whole economy and lived without one, the world would be a much less evil place and it would be friendly and co-operative. Look at other species, such as ants, wolves, lions, wildebeest, and dolphins, and notice how they live in a community that works together, and as would we naturally, if you look at Aborigines, Native Americans, African natives, Indonesia and Islander natives, Amazon natives. Our technology could develop just as fast,and just as well as it would have.
bexy_kelly

Con

May the best debater win.

Firstly my opponent has stated that "the economy, that is to say money, is evil"

The Economy and money do not have brains. Neither have a mind of their own. Therefore they cannot think. Therefore they cannot do actions, have a conscience etc. An evil thing is generally regarded as something which does bad things simply for the sake of doing them, for the sheer badness of it. Money and the Economy cannot be evil, as they do not intentionally set out to do bad things.

"Because of money, people are forced to steal, tempted to kill, and many have to spend a dangerous amount of time away from their family for work"

What exactly is money doing? Is is FORCING them to steal/ kill/ stay away from their family?

Clearly not!

And then my opponent wanders off topic...

"People starve, people go without housing or hygiene, and people are forced to be segregated into rich and poor, or separated into a hierachy"

Yes I agree that all this does happen. This does not make the economy, or money for that matter "evil". The money would have to have its evil little mind forcing all this to happen and manipulating people.

"People waste money instead of helping those who don't have it, and frankly, don't need it because if we scrapped the whole economy and lived without one, the world would be a much less evil place and it would be friendly and co-operative"

This is off point. For this to be a valid point money would have to be behind all this, controlling the people, manipulating their minds

My opponent then attempts to show us what the world would be like for humans without money:

Look at other species, such as ants, wolves, lions, wildebeest, and dolphins, and notice how they live in a community that works together, and as would we naturally, if you look at Aborigines, Native Americans, African natives, Indonesia and Islander natives, Amazon natives. Our technology could develop just as fast,and just as well as it would have.

The other species listed have less complex lives then ours. All that is required for them to get food as a bit of team work and they can catch a fish/ other animal, or eat a plant.

Humans however do not have it as easy. Most of us are not fit enough to catch other animals to eat. And we already have a more appropriate method of getting food - get a job, earn some money, go to a shop, buy some food! This method of getting food is better for us humans. And why could we not all hunt together aswell you might ask? Well - we are far to used to our own lifestyle to just go about changing it because money is "evil".

And as for the native people listed "Aborigines, Native Americans, African natives, Indonesia and Islander natives, Amazon natives" well they do each have forms of currency actually. Currency is vital because it is the one good that you can use to trade for everything - if I wanted to buy a computer for example - would I go up to the computer salesman with my sheep and offer it in exchange? What if he doesn't need or want a sheep? With a form of currency, i.e. MONEY we can be guaranteed a sale.

"Our technology could develop just as fast,and just as well as it would have"

My opponent offers no proof to this statement at the end of his argument

I would urge the voters to vote CON in this debate, as money/ the economy is clearly not evil... It simply doesn't have the mental capacity to be evil!
Debate Round No. 1
andre

Pro

OK, let me give it to you with a new rephrasing - the concept of economy is evil, or at least, it is a cruel and anti-human (as well as anti-animal is some cases) concept.

Yes, money does FORCE people to do these things. How? Not physically, but mentally and maybe emotionally. If people had the money, say two parents had 50million dollars, they would not have to struggle, nor would they have to worry about them and their children, nor would they have to take more time away from family than necessary. For a lack of money, which many people are facing, even from middle class and all the way to absolute poverty, people have to resort to any means to get money, in order to save them and their families. Do you blame someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family? What choice do they have, in a world that forces them, by law, to pay for a necessity?

""People starve, people go without housing or hygiene, and people are forced to be segregated into rich and poor, or separated into a hierarchy"
Yes I agree that all this does happen. This does not make the economy, or money for that matter "evil". The money would have to have its evil little mind forcing all this to happen and manipulating people." - It makes the concept of economy very evil. Think. If there was no economy, and everyone cooperated, they would not starve. With economic system, they are forced to go without food, without, they can eat all they like, significantly reducing the risk of imminent death! Without economic system, there is no hierarchy. Without economic system, people do not have to struggle for a roof over their heads. Without economic system, water is clean, everything is safe, no worries about dangerous diseases if someone drinks the only available water.

It is a valid point, and it is very on point. Money does manipulate minds. Who makes people greedy for money, if it does not exist? Who does that when it does? The person with more money, the lure of luxuries, which would not take such struggle to obtain when there is no economy. Without an economy, and which you simply cannot deny, there is no greed, and no struggle for survival needs. You cannot deny that the world would be a so much more cooperative place.

"All that is required for them to get food as a bit of team work and they can catch a fish/ other animal, or eat a plant." - Precisely! We need food as much as the next animal, and that is how we do it! If we didn't have to pay for food, that is basically all we might have to do. The keyword is teamwork. We work together to obtain our food, our shelter and anything else.

Even I doubt that humans would change the system now, however, I think people could agree if we take a closer look. We may not even need to hunt ourselves after all. That's why we have farmers, yes? So those who wish to run a farm, gather our food and send it to the grocery store. Then, we simply go in and get what we need. The thing is, we need to teach people cooperation so they will understand how everyone's life will improve.

Your next argument was very interesting, however, if the salesman in question does not wish to give you the computer free, as it should be* (in the non-economic world, there may be say, one computer per person), therefore does not wish to cooperate, give him something you have or can obtain easily, that he needs. Or do a service for him. What is your job in society? What is your passion, now a career?
*You do not get paid for a job. You do a job you enjoy doing, if you have the brains or strength, and you cooperate by giving people a service. e.g. in your computer example: computer is free because, it is made from materials obtain free - minerals and elements, like silicon, are mind by miners and given to those who need it for products. (This, by the way, is how technology still develops).
bexy_kelly

Con

For the sake of 5 rounds I will accept this new debate.

But for the ultimate lack of time I will have to keep this short.

A concept cannot have a brain either. Therefore a CONCEPT cannot be either anti-human/ evil.

It isn't anti-human either, because the economy is a way of life for all people. If it were anti-human there would be no humans left. Anti-anything requires the eradication of whatever its against.

Because of this I feel the rest is of topic, but I'll refute the points anyway, for the sake of debating.

"If there was no economy, and everyone cooperated, they would not starve"

People do not always cooperate. People are greedy and cruel sometimes. People crave power. People are sometimes insane. All of these aspects of people make this cooperation impossible.
Its a nice idea, the thought of roughly 6.5 billion people working together. But it is simply impossible.
For this to work and all 6.5 billion people getting food most people would have to cooperate.

For example farmers would have to give away surplus food to other neighbors.

Now, what if the farmer was self sufficient? He has enough food to keep himself and his family going, they have a well of water, their house is built from the wood of surrounding trees, their clothes are made from cattle skins, and they have enough cattle, each in herds of about 20 or so, and of various breeds and variety's (so the chances of them getting diseases and spreading them to all cattle are an impossibility). They also have various other plants, oh and lets say they have 11 kids all grown up so they have a large enough workforce to keep this place going.

The neighbors are starving but the farmer is greedy. He doesn't want anyone else benefiting from his family's work except for his family. What should happen? You cannot guarantee that there are no people like this, its impossible to vouch for all the 6.5 billion people out there. Would you propose taking all this away from him, because this is ALSO anti human. It would be incredibly hypocritical.

"We may not even need to hunt ourselves after all. That's why we have farmers, yes?"

What if not enough people don't want to be farmers. This after all is a profession that numbers are dropping in. What happens then? Do we force people to become farmers?

"*You do not get paid for a job. You do a job you enjoy doing, if you have the brains or strength, and you cooperate by giving people a service. E.g. in your computer example: computer is free because, it is made from materials obtain free - minerals and elements, like silicon, are mind by miners and given to those who need it for products"

I want to become a wall climber instructor. How is this going to benefit society. For the sake of argument lets say I have the brains/ strength for this job. Now there aren't enough farmers about the place. So we'll say for the sake of the greater good I'm made become a farmer (starving people are more important then people who want to be taught how to wall climb). I resent this completely. It would be a bit anti- human as well, as its against the humans who want to be wall climbers instead of farmers.

What about people who simply want to paint all day? Who want to create amazing pieces of art? Or musicians? How do they make a living? I'll play you this song if you give me a car?

Anyway, went a bit off topic there. I urge the voters to vote CON, simply because a concept doesn't have the mental capacity to be evil or anti human either...
Debate Round No. 2
andre

Pro

Where does this idea of a need for a brain to be evil definition come from? A concept can be evil. The concept, for instance, of Nazism/white supremacy is evil.
So money does not have a brain, nor conscience (as is the case with anything/one that is evil). The money system can be an evil system (in the same way that some people think the UN is evil) because it forces evil actions.

"People do not always cooperate. People are greedy and cruel sometimes. People crave power. People are sometimes insane. All of these aspects of people make this cooperation impossible.
Its a nice idea, the thought of roughly 6.5 billion people working together. But it is simply impossible.
For this to work and all 6.5 billion people getting food most people would have to cooperate."

Exactly. Because all of those people, and us, have been brought up in a world RULED by money, that teaches us greed and cruelty. If we had not ever invented such a system, people would not have been taught such greed.

"Now, what if the farmer was self sufficient? He has enough food....[etc]" If there WAS such a family, then I can be sure neighbours would be in a similar situation. In a world with no economy, land is dealt in equal parts, and everyone owns their land, it is not controlled by a bank etc. Therefore, everyone could serve their own family's necessities.

"Would you propose taking all this away from him, because this is ALSO anti human." It is not hypocritical, because greed is not encouraged in a cooperative world, and if there was a scenario like yours, he would only have to help others out, not give his whole supply away.

"What if not enough people don't want to be farmers. This after all is a profession that numbers are dropping in. What happens then? Do we force people to become farmers?" If there is enough farmers to supply grocery stores now, there would be then.

"I want to become a wall climber instructor. How is this going to benefit society" It benefits people in what it does. There should be enough farmers, if there is not, the government could run farms. If you want to help people, go ahead and start a farm. Maybe charity groups will do that too.

"What about people who simply want to paint all day? Who want to create amazing pieces of art? Or musicians? How do they make a living? I'll play you this song if you give me a car?" Perhaps artists will benefit from free food, rather than trading. They could do either. As for cars, they are simply made and distributed, one per family, maybe two, depending on size.

Better yet, why don't we all just go live in Amazonian tribes, or in African or Asian rainforests. That would all make us a lot happier. :-).

Money doesn't need a physical brain to be evil. It has a mind of it's own today. It has a powerful effect on people today and so it has some degree of evilness.
bexy_kelly

Con

bexy_kelly forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
andre

Pro

Speechless, eh?
Lol.
Well, I have nothing else to say I guess.

Just remember, money and economy are evil concepts. It is not fair that people have to pay for health, shelter, and food, and its not fair to segregate, nor it is good that we have created a system that really doesn't help anyone, it is a problem.
bexy_kelly

Con

bexy_kelly forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
andre

Pro

Well, as this is my closing, I will write as much as possible in defence of my position. I hope my opponent at least returns for her closing!

Contrary to my opponent's idea of a concept not having the capacity to be evil, it can. As is my standing example, the concept of Nazism is evil.
If a person constantly deprives someone else of food to the point of starvation, when they have the potential to just give them the food, we'd say that was evil. And this is what money and the economy does to people. It deprives people of their right to be healthy, it deprives them of education, and it drives many people to do evil things, therefore hurt other people in many ways.
What kind of world is this where people can't even survive, because someone decided that they'll only do something for someone else for something back? Why have we made life harder for everyone by forcing this system upon everyone on the planet?

Well... I guess that's all I have...
bexy_kelly

Con

I'll debate this again with you if you want. I didnt have a lot of time this week, I'll redebate if your willing

"So money does not have a brain, nor conscience (as is the case with anything/one that is evil). The money system can be an evil system (in the same way that some people think the UN is evil) because it forces evil actions"

Money ISNT evil. It's the common trading good, which can be traded for ANYTHING

"Because all of those people, and us, have been brought up in a world RULED by money, that teaches us greed and cruelty. If we had not ever invented such a system, people would not have been taught such greed"

My opponent offers no proof as to why we wouldnt be so greedy without money. Animals can be greedy too, and they have no money

"Better yet, why don't we all just go live in Amazonian tribes, or in African or Asian rainforests. That would all make us a lot happier. :-).

Really? wheres your proof?

"Money doesn't need a physical brain to be evil. It has a mind of it's own today. It has a powerful effect on people today and so it has some degree of evilness"

Having a powerful effect on people dosnt nessiarilly make it evil

If a person constantly deprives someone else of food to the point of starvation, when" they have the potential to just give them the food, we'd say that was evil. And this is what money and the economy does to people. It deprives people of their right to be healthy, it deprives them of education, and it drives many people to do evil things, therefore hurt other people in many ways.
What kind of world is this where people can't even survive, because someone decided that they'll only do something for someone else for something back? Why have we made life harder for everyone by forcing this system upon everyone on the planet?"

This is a dog eat dog world. Those who don't have money wern't smart enough to steal it or get it honestly. You sit there and don't work, you dont just instantly recieve something
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by andre 8 years ago
andre
"My opponent offers no proof as to why we wouldnt be so greedy without money. Animals can be greedy too, and they have no money"

- We'd certainly be less greedy, if you do look at those peoples who still live without money, you will notice they are more willing to cooperate.

"Really? wheres your proof?"

My comment there was not necessarily meant to be taken literally, but so as to state that I would certainly be more happy if we were all like that.

"Money doesn't need a physical brain to be evil. It has a mind of it's own today. It has a powerful effect on people today and so it has some degree of evilness

Having a powerful effect on people dosnt nessiarilly make it evil"

Don't try to win this debate on definition. Whether the word is evil or a powerful negative effect it is still not right, which is my advocacy. With money, we have made ourselves our own enemy.
Posted by andre 8 years ago
andre
yeah ok sure.

lol by the way, i noticed you are the person with the lowest disagreement ratio to me i've seen so far! how cool!
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
Sorry couldnt reply due to unforseen circumstances. I was going to type something up, but it went out of my mind.

And no I'm not speechless (this is a types debate, I would have to be "typeless" or soemthing), I have my reply nearly half done. It'll be up tomorrow. And I will ask that you excuse the forfeited round, not in my line of control, sorry.
Posted by andre 8 years ago
andre
wow you're good...this'll take a while...
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
Thank you for including paragraphs in your argument! I hate getting lost in one big lumpy paragraph!
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
A bit on the short side I'll admit, but we have 5 more rounds to go. Let round 2 begin! DING DING!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kitty 8 years ago
Kitty
andrebexy_kellyTied
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 
Vote Placed by andre 8 years ago
andre
andrebexy_kellyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by bablybabe 8 years ago
bablybabe
andrebexy_kellyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
andrebexy_kellyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
andrebexy_kellyTied
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 
Vote Placed by jadoreyouux 8 years ago
jadoreyouux
andrebexy_kellyTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
andrebexy_kellyTied
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