The Instigator
johnyrocket
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

: a government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor citizens

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 4 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,572 times Debate No: 48569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

johnyrocket

Con

Today I will be debating on the negative position and go against the status quo which states: a government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor citizens. Therefore I have three contentions and a value to back up our reason to go against the status quo.
Value: Private Property. All rights derive from self-autonomy because that's the only way they can be willfully exercised. Individuals own themselves and can do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others individuals have the right to do what they wish with their property and income as long as they do not aggress on others. The only morally justifiable role of a government is that of protection its citizens from aggression both foreign and domestic.
1st contention: Individuals must have a right to choose their own career path.
2nd contention: inequality for the rich
3rd contention: the government is not responsible to administer gifts and talent.
For my first contention individuals must have a right to choose their own career path. My first contention is individuals must have a right to choose their own career path. Sub point A: teachers. Teachers don"t make a lot of money maybe 56,000 dollars a year and that may not be enough if you are a single parent but that may be what you want to do or what makes you happy. Sub point B: government trying to give jobs. The government just can"t tell them quote "oh you should work there and make more money or ill just give you money from the rich." First of why would you take them from the job they want and put them to something just for the money, most people work for happiness not for money. Second if all the teachers stop working to work somewhere else for the money how will we get an education to learn and make the next generation better? Sub point C: bus drivers/ cafeteria workers. They don"t make a lot period and if they stop working then how will we get to school or get fed hot lunches and snacks and breakfast. Like I said they work for happiness not money.
My second contention is inequality for the rich. Sub point A: you can"t just raise taxes on the rich to give the unfortunate money. The rich worked hard for their money so they should keep it. Also the rich people may not need all that money but that is what may keep them happy. Sub point B: even though the unfortunate people work hard and just don"t get paid much does not mean they necessarily want money. Not all the unfortunate are homeless men/women on the street they also are teachers like I said, the rich people are only rich because they set a goal to be rich. The not so rich people are teachers who just want to work for happiness.
My third contention the government is not responsible to administer gifts and talents. Sub point A: the government does not bore you. The government does not make you in any way all they do is collect your taxes send you welfare checks and etcetera. The government can"t give you talents that you don"t have, some people weren"t meant to be 6oot 9inches and be a star basketball player, just like some people weren"t meant to have a 180 IQ its just life. Sub point B: the government is not your biological parent"s. The government is not even a real human being it is just an organization created back when the first 13 colonies were formed. The government cannot force you to be what you are not.
That is why I urge you to vote negative for this debate.
Benshapiro

Pro

I am not sure why you limited the time to argue to only 5 minutes but I'll debate you nevertheless.

My main argument is that if governments don't attempt to lessen the economic gap between rich and poor citizens, the rich will have an obscene amount of control over the rest of society.

Money is power. It's power in politics, education, location, and more. If left unchecked, the rich will only get richer and those that are working beneath the rich will become slaves to their power and inequality will rise.

Inequality is bad because it limits mobility or other people's opportunity to become rich. It limits their choice of good education, good neighborhoods, it inflates housing and real-estate prices because the rich are able to afford more land than they might ever use and more.

10 seconds left.

Debate Round No. 1
johnyrocket

Con

johnyrocket forfeited this round.
Benshapiro

Pro

extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
johnyrocket

Con

johnyrocket forfeited this round.
Benshapiro

Pro

I guess this is why 5 minute debates are a bad idea.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Benshapiro, you can see how long you have to respond, in the screen before you officially accept the debate.
Posted by krz 3 years ago
krz
I was considering accepting this until I saw the ridiculous time constraint. Five minutes is not nearly enough time to construct a good argument.
Posted by Topkek 3 years ago
Topkek
Inequality is necessary in a capitalist state in order to achieve sound economic growth. Too much inequality, to the point where the poor are unable to sustain themselves through work alone, is clearly detrimental for both society and the economy. I think what CON is trying to argue is that a certain degree of inequality can actually be beneficial, not that inequality itself is intrinsically "good" at even high magnitudes.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Read "Price of Inequality" by Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Until you read that, please don't make arguments concerning inequality lol
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
You know, if it wasn't for that 5 minute constraint between posts (which I'm pretty sure you're not likely to manage), I might accept this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
johnyrocketBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won..con forfeited most of the rounds
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
johnyrocketBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for FF. The debate was hard to read because paragraphs weren't spaced apart. S&G to pro. Pro made better arguments in 5 minutes then what con had unlimited amount of time to write.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
johnyrocketBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
johnyrocketBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF