The Instigator
jordyz
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
bexy_kelly
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

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: 5/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,344 times Debate No: 4271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

jordyz

Pro

I do not think that the rich should have to give away thier money to be socially acceptable. It is thier money and in most cases, they have earned it. I reilize thier are some people who have inherited it. Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person? By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society.
bexy_kelly

Con

Of course the rich have to give away their money to be socially acceptable. They must do this in order to survive. Already at this very moment a new revelution is being planned (headed by myself of course) to overturn the rich. The modern form of bourgeois are going to be slaughtered in their thousands unless they share part of their wealth.

"Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person?"

Because they'll DIE thats why!

"By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society"

Clearly not, their simply making the people on welfare become exceptionally grumpy and they will eventually rise up against the rich and their hard earned cash. They'll riot and the destruction will be devastating. These riots will send America into an even greater depression then the last one.

I urge the voters to vote CON, support the rioters and overturn the bourgeois!
Debate Round No. 1
jordyz

Pro

Without the rich the country woiuld colapse, and many leadrs in the world agree that America is the leader of the free world. So you could say that the fre world would colapse without America. How would America fall apart? Simple. The top ten percent of America pays over 50% of the taxes in America. How? Because thery have more money to tax of cource. If you started a rebellion and overturned the rich by I dont know killing them I guess America would lose 50% of its money paying for those unproductive people to be on welfare. The rich have to be productive (to make them rich)so if you "overturn them busnesses would fail, meaning product prices would go up causing the poor to die from hunger esier. So overturning the rich is not an option. My openents only argument is that this would happen if the rich did not give away their money. I feel that I have disproved this argument about a rebbellion agiast the "bourgeois".
bexy_kelly

Con

My opponent has based his argument on the fact that if we overturned the rich, their money would simply dissapear. America does not need the rich to survive, in fact it only need their MONEY to survive.

And by overturning them WE could take over their buisnesses, so they would not fail. The wealth of the rich would be spread out a bit more equally, therefore removing the people on welfare, meaning less taxes would be spent on welfare, therefore improving the economy and showing that overturning the rich IS an option
Debate Round No. 2
jordyz

Pro

My oponent states that "we" could take over the rich's business. However if any of the people who are going to take over the rich's place as head of the business then wouldn't they have a suceseful business already. I don't know about you but I dont want any old hobo on the street running the economy of America. Here is the thing about the rich. Most of them are educated. Heres the thing about homeless people, they are generally not well educated.
Also when my openent talks about "spreding around the wealth", she is just saying Comunism in a fancy way. I hope you found this debate to be compelling, and my arguments to be good, the best of luck to my openent.
bexy_kelly

Con

Of course any old hobo wouldn't be running these buisnesses. There are many poor educated people in america. And why couldn't a poor person run a buisness as well as a rich person. Ah, my opponent says that rich people are generallu more "educated". There are many people at the heads of buisnesses who havn't been "educated" or have buisness degree's.

Here are a few who were in fact COLLEGE DROP OUTS:

1) Bill Gates-founder of Microsoft
2) Michael Dell-founder of Dell Computers
3) Steve Jobs-co-founder of Apple Computers
4) Steve Wozniak-co-founder of Apple Computers
5) David Geffen-co-founder of Dreamworks, SKG
6) Larry Ellison-founder of the database company Oracle
7) William Hanna-of the cartoon producers Hanna-Barbera
8) Sheldon Adelson-real estate and casino owner
9) Jack Taylor-Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Source: http://www.helium.com...

These people were not fully educated, they dropped out of college. So according to my opponents logic, they should not have become the great buisnessmen they are today.

"Spreading the weath a little more equally" is not communism in a fancy way. I really don't see where communism comes into this now. I'm not trying to become a dictator or anything... or am I....??? >:D

Best of luck to ye' in yer future projects, thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by jordyz 8 years ago
jordyz
You said you wanted to give people born into poverty a chance. They have a chance just look at all those people you posted up there bill gates, etc. They all had a chance and took it even though they had to work their way up. There is no law saying that the poor can not succeed its there own fault if they do nothing, not the rich's.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
Its going all right.. would be going better if non believers like you wern't standing in the way!
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
It makes perfect sense to me bexy_kelly.

How are you getting on with championing the curlers' cause, by the way?
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
I don't want to begin another debate in the comment boxes, but people born into povery really can't help that

I'de say give them a chance. Any of the above peole that I mentioned could have been born into a really poor household.

Not too sure if that makes sense, but at least I'm trying
Posted by C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
"There are many people at the heads of [businesses] who [haven't] been 'educated' or have [business] degrees."

Did those people receive handouts? NO!
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
That's perfectly acceptable given your age.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
pleh I don't have socialist views I'm really all for capitalism. I'm just absalutly terrible at debating and yeah I'll admit I am really naive aswell
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
bexy_kelly, your socialist views are making you sound very naive right now. For example, given a redistribution of wealth, the country would never do as well as it had given the previous conditions. EG: On average, people as a whole would make far LESS money in a socialist system than they would a capitalist system.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
I KNEW you'de end up calling me a commie! I just KNEW it!
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 7 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
jordyzbexy_kellyTied
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 Random_Man 8 years ago
Random_Man
jordyzbexy_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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
jordyzbexy_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 Delli6110 8 years ago
Delli6110
jordyzbexy_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 jordyz 8 years ago
jordyz
jordyzbexy_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 slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
jordyzbexy_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 C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
jordyzbexy_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 revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
jordyzbexy_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 slammin 8 years ago
slammin
jordyzbexy_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 brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
jordyzbexy_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