The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Wealth and laziness

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2016 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 88557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Kids who grow up rich grow up to be lazy


Due to the large range of open remarks here - i will place some clarrifications - Pro, please verify your next round if you accept.

My interperetation :

Children who were raised in 'successful' (i.e. High income households) family, grow up to be a detrement to society, they use their inherited wealth to not step up and contribute to society.

My stance on the matter :

Agreed, this CAN happen, but the statistics show a different resolution than my opponents.

Pro, can you please confirm if you wish this to be a debate with Sources, or will we just use our minds and information we have found elsewhere (If you want comments at that point, we can shoot each other the sites through comments) - How does that sound?

anyways, I believe I have cleared up my side of this debate, Passing the baton to my opponent, I wish us both best of luck :)
Debate Round No. 1


I'm just debating from my own observations through the years. I wouldn't necessarily say a detriment to society in a crimal sense. I've noticed that the rich kids I want to high school with ended up still living with their parents for many years after graduating high school.


Okay, I understand where you are coming from. I had not intended Criminal in my definition, but i can see where you read that - Sorry, I will be clearer in the future.

I can put that back at you by saying many children who come from low to medium level income households are in the same boat, and yet they use the "Dole" - or public welfare money - to achieve their aims (Usually to stay at home, playing CoD and smoking bongs! haha).

The fact that the wealthier people do this too, does not mean that they are more likely to stay at home mooching of whoever they can - People do that in whatever way they can - we are inherently selfish in that regard.

I will actually use that point, to show you that people who are wealthy and stay at home - Are less of a problem to society, as the money they use to fuel this, is their parents money - as opposed to Tax Payers money.

From that, I would maintain that Children from Wealthy family do not mean they will be lazy - Lazy people will be lazy, they just happened to be rich in that scenario.
Debate Round No. 2


I will say in my personal opinion people who live on welfare are rich in s sense. I believe it was my lead then wealthy up bringing that made me a better worker. I've had a job since I was 14 worked 32hrs a week by the time I was 16. (Not trying to brag) I worked hard because of I wanted anything including good I had to. Where as a wealthier parent can simply but their kids what that want. I also think wealthier kids to better in school because they don't have to work but that's a different debate.


Well i can say in my personal opinion - I have experienced the opposite - i have met a plethora of underprivileged people utilise the fact they have had a horrible or poor upbringing to dodge their responsibilities and instead "be themselves" - which until that point, "themselves" had been smart, athletic and high in potential.

This site is filled with people who have their own personal opinion. One of the first lessons i had joining this site is the following :
1. Disassociate yourself from the subject - your perception is not always to be trusted.
2. Find the point that you have, and build on it with facts and knowledge.

At the moment you have the first part of 2 down pact - you have vision of this issue.
Branch your vision out to check your validity, and you may have stumbled on the fact i found - PEOPLE are lazy.
Rich, poor - religious or atheist. People are people regardless of their titles, and it is US who are lazy.

On the whole, good debate here friend, your points were good, but blinkered - otherwise give it some time :-)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dpowell 2 years ago
If I could vote, I'd vote Con. Because they're actually putting up an argument with reasons while Pro is just stating his person opinion. I also, personally believe that this isn't much of a debate because of Pro's lack of argumentation and both parties lack of providing proof to support their claims.
Posted by raskuseal 2 years ago
I do kiinda agree with toby88's opening statement, and one of the reasons would be the "Afuleneza" case. It was on the news maybe two years ago. So down in Texas, this very rich kid and his friends were underage drinking and driving. The rich kid then T-boned anther car as they were speeding, and If I remember correctly, 4 people died. The rich kids three friends and the guy they hit. And you know what? he got away scott free because he was rich. He was playing the "I'm too rich and since I grew up rich my entire life, I don't know right from wrong" card.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 years ago
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: Debate based on personal observation and opinion. PRO contends that rich kids are lazy, live at home longer and do well in schools, due to not having to work. CON rebuts low income kids stay home and live off the dole as well. But rich kids are less of a societal burden (taxes). Laziness exists on both sides. CON gets the better argument point due to reasoning that laziness is exhibited by both sides. This was not a debate but a discussion where both side had opportunity to make stronger points by using examples and citations to support claims. Other voters are unlikely to use their time to vote on such a thin 7 point debate; there?s a win/loss voting option. Tied S&G, both exhibited sufficient language skills. Conduct tied, both were polite. Sources tied, none were used.