The Instigator
derogatory
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jaksunmadness
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

elitism leads to barbarism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 52024
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

derogatory

Pro

first round acceptance
jaksunmadness

Con

Let us start
Debate Round No. 1
derogatory

Pro

Definitions

Elitism - 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

Barbarism- 1. a barbarous or uncivilized state or condition.
2. a barbarous act; something belonging to or befitting a barbarous condition.
3.the use in a language of forms or constructions felt by some to be undesirably alien to the established standards of the language.

uncivilized 1. (of a place or people) not socially, culturally, or morally advanced.

Elitism as stated is where the elite rule, Who are the elite? in this case they are the rich and wealthy. Who do they rule? everyone. How? either directly as bosses enforcing regulation and policies on employees or indirectly by subtly influencing a country's economy for there own benefit and by providing commodities/services to the general public.

The language of the Elite and Non-Elite can often differ by significant amounts due to different ancestry leading to isolation within groups, causing both groups to become alienated by the other and thus decide to stay within the confines of there own society essentially forming "tribes".

This isolation leads to a lack if empathy; when the Non-elite see the elite in luxurious houses and gaining a superior education with all facilities at hand it leads to anger and disgust. These emotions are equally shared when the elite watch as the Non-elite 'fight for' a better living.

As the Elite are in control, due to there lack of emotion for the common man they exploit them even further through cheaper wages and harsher living conditions which they control through there vast amount of wealth - all for the benefit of gaining even more profit. This in turn leads to the "Slippery slope" effect.

As the Non-elite descend through the stages of civilization into barbarism due to lack of sufficient and sanitary goods and education the Elite prosper at there expense. However, when the the non-elite are reduced to essentially inanimate humans the Elite suffer as a result as they depend on the menial workforce of the common man - this causes someone else to fill in for the common man and thus the same division occurs within the elite until eventually everyone is reduced to an insignificant combination of cells.

To recapitulate, at first barbarism is subjective to the society you live in which for the non-elite's case eventually leads to a deterioration of living standards and consequently the breakdown of each society as a result of the other.

Sources:
https://www.google.co.uk...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
jaksunmadness

Con

An economic system in which everyone is given a fair share of resources with the absent of an elite would be Communism, however as history has followed there must still be a governing state or an elite. An economic system in which there is an elite and the commoner is Capitalism. It's no doubt that in either economic system cruel actions are found. In capitalistic societies the elite which is separated into different businesses tend to abuse their workers and the workers want less work and more pay creating an agonizing relationship. In communist societies the workers are not productive and the Communist party has control over all the production.

U.S., a capitalistic nation however granted worker unions and laws to protect the common man. Since businesses are owned by different enterprises, workers could choose a better business to work under. The level of barbarism is limited and in comparison to how the Communist party treats their workers, barbarism does not exist in the U.S. because it has elevated to the point in which people did not experience cruelty because they were capable of fighting back or choosing to work under the boss of their choice.

Sources:
http://www.sjsu.edu...
http://barefootbum.blogspot.com...
https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
derogatory

Pro

The US is a prime situation in which the select elite are able to manipulate and influence laws and economies, although some form of 'sovereignty' may be intact their need to appease corporations has led to absolutely absurd laws such as the Citizens United Vs Federal Election Commission and the more recent law McCutcheon Vs FEC. to be passed. the reason these laws have past is a combination of the Elite's power and the lack of morals within the US government which has reduced the ability of the common man to influence decisions by the elite and thus leads us back onto the same slippery slope. It is also often the case that regulatory checks of multinational corporations have been overlooked simply because they have money and are nourishing the economy. The Wall Street investors who bet on there own shares and create more bubbles than a bubble bath are also affecting employment, inflation and generally the ability of people to live and yet they manage to live there life carefree because of the amount of influence they have within political parties.

A legitimate democracy where there was no elite to influence the outcome would allow for better cohesion between the representatives (who are not elite) and the working man.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
jaksunmadness

Con

Income is different for every individual but talent can be found in any individual whether they're sitting on a golden throne or sweeping the corners of a warehouse. Corporations always look for fresh talents off the streets, innovation cannot be bought unless it's in the form of a product. Those with innovation regardless of social status can attract the attention of the elite and be bought or connected into the network. This is the networking age, elite and the common man are more closer to one another as long as the common man develops a connection with someone in the upper ranks there would be no difference. Smaller businesses that are being pushed by a monopoly are bought off, money still given as a compensation. Taxation are larger and lawsuits are more rampant in the life of the elite, for the common man they experience less of these situations.

The elite and the common man have a relationship. The elite acts as the sink, the common man as the source. An elite garners competition, a need to strive to be a better you or the elite shines the career path you are fixated on and need an organization that would amplify it.
Debate Round No. 3
derogatory

Pro

Regardless of whether talent can be found in individuals it is the fact that it is exploited by people in corporations who in turn gain the most profit or end result, for example, the people that designed the script for superman were pretty much broke regardless of the fact they were innovative the elite does not strive for competition but competition is a necessity for the elite to achieve his desired goal but it is definitely not sufficient.

The predominance of digital media has leveled the playing field slightly to allow for people to reach better positions but again we live in a capitalist age and even on the internet you need something to help you get going money for advertisements and so forth and with all the risk involved peopled get deterred to try.

The reason why Income is important is again because our society is based on capitalism and that a high income means better and bigger head start; being able to explore the world gain and gain a rigorous understanding of the world requires a substantial income.
jaksunmadness

Con

The elite's existence is inevitable. People that know how to extract resources and organize the flow of goods is a demand from the common people, thus business CEOs provides and they are paid. Without the compensation for their work they wouldn't attempt to work up the ladder to gain the position without these members in society there would not longer be easy access to foods, shortage of gasoline, lack of electricity and other problems that would reduce the country into a third world country. Business CEOs are also effective in taking resources and money from other nations becoming the hunter-gatherer of the modern age so to speak. Furthermore there must be an incentive for doctors to go to their respective schools and spend a portion of their lives for the education and training. If they're not paid a high salary nobody would become a doctor leaving the nation with no medical care unless the expectations of doctors go down then their salary can be lowered to a common man's salary but imagine how unprofessional doctors will become if the amount of effort to become one was as similar to that of a janitor. We would have quack doctors up and about would the common man want to go to the hospital for a check up from these types of doctors? There would be more trouble than before.

There is no cruel actions behind the elite, the ones that would try to stifle them from their expenditures are the ones that are irrational. The elite has no reason to have enmity with the common man and neither does the common man have for the elite. Common man makes up the majority of the workforce, they make up the arms and legs of businesses, the military, labor force and any other company owned by the elite.
Debate Round No. 4
derogatory

Pro

I would Just like to mention before I go into my argument that it has been a good debate which I have thoroughly enjoyed partaking in.

Now for my argument,

There is a difference between being elite and being paramount in keeping society functioning. The elite should not automatically deserve more praise than any other person in the community as everyone has put in a certain amount of effort into creating the society we now live in. Despite the fact they do put in extra effort it is disproportional to the benefits of being elite, for example, bonuses handed out of over millions of dollars to bankers and the private tuition provided to the elite and their offspring. Not only this, but is it fair that you do not even get a second glance if you are someone classified as working or poor class? and is it fair that children who have fathers with contacts in all different types of industry are much more likely to attain success?

Another point you make pertaining to the 'incentives' of the rich is understandable, but regardless of whether the actions occur through spite or not does no excuse the fact that there needs can and have caused millions to struggle, the saying goes "with great power comes great responsibility" and it is no different here, is it ok for you to suffer because the intentions of the well off weren't "cruel"?

One final point I would like to make is that not all people have worked hard for there money and/or position in society; take for instance the nouveau riche, people who have large amounts money but inherited it.

To recapitulate, the needs and exploitation of the elite may lead to the culmination of society but ultimately end in the deterioration of society into barbarism.
jaksunmadness

Con

The U.S. is a prime example that even with the rift of the rich and the poor both can still live together in harmony. Other nations have adopted this similar capitalistic economy scheme as they departed from communism and have flourished towards a well-being. There is laws that protect the rights of all man and will be treated as equals. The elite did not attain their position without working for it. Children that inherit the leadership of their elite parents have to still prove themselves worthy of that sector, negligible parents would not mentor them into adopting a high position in life so it's not necessarily true that children would immediately be placed in the elite when they are adults, in fact it's harder for children of the elite to match the success of their parents if it's too high. But for the common man, their children can succeed their parents much more easily with or without good parenting. Of course if you set the odds the elite children would likely end up in a more comfy position than the children of the commoners, but in the U.S. people are rewarded for their accomplishments not their inheritance and that's why it's the country of opportunity. The children that inherit the money from their elite parents must still know how to manage the enterprise that creates this flow of income and if they lack the experience and know-how they would easily be dominated by their parent's rivals as the politics there would eat them alive because they did not attain that position. Any education the children receive does not amount to the education that results from parenting, so good parents and bad parents still exist among common man and the elite so the dice is still rolling regardless of how much wealth the parents have. A country where the government makes the vow to be the "public servants" to the people is for humility and to use their position to set long term goals for the population
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.