Wealth and laziness
Debate Rounds (3)
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 :)
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.
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 :-)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 7 months 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||3|
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.
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.