The stinking rich should consider people like me a charity.
Debate Rounds (2)
"How do normal charities work?" I hear you cry. Well, how they work is people who are richer than me (but still not rich enough to afford a Millionaire's mansion) give money to people who are a bit less rich than me.
I argue that following this logic, richer people should give money to people like me!
To illustrate my point, I'll use some stages of richness.
Stage 1 - Smelly Poor (The usual lucky ones who get money given to them via charities)
Stage 2 - KingDebater & Friends (me)
Stage 3 - People who give money to charity (This is the biggest one, and is comprised mainly of normal regular boring old people)
Stage 4 - The Stinking Rich (Celebrities and People who won the lottery 10 minutes ago)
Stage 3 currently gives to Stage 1, So stage 4 should give to stage 2.
What would I spend that money on? Well....
• Unneccessarily luxorious motorized vehicles - I will literally be able to pick up all the hot girls I want.
• Talking Pets - I reckon girls will be so impressed by this that they'll be describing me as 'Dreamy' in no time!
• Big Holes - This is where the fun begins. I just put it in the middle of the road, and kablam! Accidents.
• More Money - I'm sure there's some moron out there that will allow me to actually do this.
I thank you.
No. As a fourteen year old , it's your parents who should consider you a charity; not anyone else... Unless you end up in prison, then it'd be every taxpayer who has to support you, but the filthy rich rarely pay taxes .
If you want to become an official charity, you can always join Helping Hands Monkeys, where you'd be trained to assist people with your "dexterous hands and amazing fine motor skills" .
Pro asserts in his stages of richness speech, that "Celebrities and People who won the lottery 10 minutes ago" should give their money rather than to something useful to society, to "KingDebater & Friends" a total of 59 people in the whole world .
Since winning the lottery takes greater than 10 minutes to get the money, this proposed idea would suffer much the same fate; KingDebater & Friends would instantly be raised into the tax bracket having to give money out (due to their instant celebrity status), before they could hope to receive any at all. Plus it entirely leaves the top 1% (those with 90% of the wealth) of earners out, as most of them are not celebrities.
Plus consider the crime spree proposed (straw men ahead).
"Unneccessarily luxorious motorized vehicles - I will literally be able to pick up all the hot girls I want."
Society already pays too much due to the problems of rape vans.
"Talking Pets - I reckon girls will be so impressed by this that they'll be describing me as 'Dreamy' in no time!"
Drugging them so much they think your pets talk, does not change the moral problems of it.
"Big Holes - This is where the fun begins"
I'm getting ready to throw up.
"I'm sure there's some moron out there that will allow me to actually do this"
Which is precisely why the money would be better spent on education, to make no one fall for this...
CRAZY CON SAYS: "No. As a fourteen year old , it's your parents who should consider you a charity; not anyone else... Unless you end up in prison, then it'd be every taxpayer who has to support you, but the filthy rich rarely pay taxes ."
Nope, this is wrong.
COCKY CON SAYS: "If you want to become an official charity, you can always join Helping Hands Monkeys, where you'd be trained to assist people with your "dexterous hands and amazing fine motor skills" ."
Con is IGNORANT of the fact that I make a much more convincing lizard.
CALAMITY-CAUSING CON SAYS: "ther r not dat many celebripees or peepul hoo wun the lotterie tenn mimmits agooooo"
First of all, look at that SLOPPY spelling! How can we trust a nut like that to make convincing arguments?
CRATE-INHABITING CON SAYS: "Society already pays too much due to the problems of rape vans."
Perhaps, but my idea works.
COCKREL-CHASING CON SAYS: "I'm getting ready to throw up."
So are our simply fabulous audience, who won't fall for Con's stupid dumb crazy baseless idiotic insane nonsensical dorky wrong biased arguments, alliterative name-calling or being sucked up to.
COLD-CALLING CON SAYS: "Which is precisely why the money would be better spent on education, to make no one fall for this..."
Con needs to learn that from time to time, people want to do fun and important things, like ride the latest roller coaster or get the NEW iPhone 6.2387609832987.
Pro claims in reference to my source1, his own profile: "Nope, this is wrong." Yet fails to offer any corrections.
I offered con an easy way to become a charity, via becoming a helping hands monkey; but he does not wish to become one as he would rather be a lizard: "I make a much more convincing lizard." Skin problems aside, a basic web search revealed no seeing-eye-lizard (or related) programs for pro to become a companion pet for.
"CON SAYS: 'ther r not dat many celebripees or peepul hoo wun the lotterie tenn mimmits agooooo'"
Voters please verify for yourself that I never said such things, not even with proper spelling. This is both pro surrendering S&G, and a large strike against conduct (possibly setting it to tied after my straw men last round).
In case he was hallucinating, any of his friends should probably alert the police to check in on him.
In reference to rape vans, rather than claiming I had faulty reasoning, pro insists they're proof that "my idea works." Which he furthers the idea, by connecting it to "CRATE-INHABITING." No one should have to pay tax dollars to support rape vans, nor should rape vans count as a charitable contribution on taxes. Same with forcing girls to live in crates, to remove (or decrease) the van part of the equation.
I cannot properly respond to the line of reasoning that followed, as I'm unsure what Cockrel-Chasing means; perhaps cockerel chasing? Even then what would be the context of this argument?
(who needs a van when you have a trained cockerel?)
"Con needs to learn that from time to time, people want to do fun and important things,"
This was in reply to a picture of a van with 'free candy' written on the side of it: "Fun and important things."
As for wanting to ride roller coasters, or get a non-existent iPhone 6... Get a job, and save up just a few dollars a month; by the time the iPhone six is out you'll have enough money for it.
As too many of my counter points were completely ignored (such as the top 1% not being touched by the redistribution proposal, and the 59 people in question not being able to benefit due to instant celebrity status making them have to pay into the system while getting nothing in return), I urge a vote in favor of con.
Besides if judging this as a troll debate, you know I made you laugh more (to verify just look at the 'hands up those who believed there was candy in this van' picture).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dragonfang 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to defend the claim that rich people should give their charity to KingDebater and those who exists in his friends list. Pro conceded to Con's points but maintained that he and friends do not need to be eligible for official charity, via. joining an organization like Helping Hands, so that rich people would mindlessly lend their money to a total of 59 person. Pro loses conduct for unacknowledged concession and not carrying the burden of proof. He simply provided no reason at all why he & friends should be funded for activities that are potentially very harmful for society. Pro misquoted Con with a bad grammar version of his statement, he did not point the flaw in logic within the statement. Instead, he claimed that forged statement belongs to Con and proceed with an Ad Hominem attack regarding grammar. This is also related to his lost conduct point. Con provided sources for his statement.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.