The Instigator
chatterbox124
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kiddo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

should we pay to eat and drink?

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: 7/26/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 36002
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

chatterbox124

Con

no because the government is letting poor people starve and die but the rich live! all he cares about his not his people or country! we are not his money machine. we have to pay to live and if you cant your no more then dust. mabye we should just say WE WONT PAY!!! please tell me wot u think xox
kiddo

Pro

I thank con for bringing forth a topic as such to debate on.
This would be a summary for my arguments
  1. We reap what we sow
    We must pay to eat and drink because these are basic necessities. If No payment is required to do so, then people in general will get lazy. I am sure people are happy doing less than what they have if food and drinks are on the house for them, however this is not what the society or the world needs, instead we need people willing to work in order to reap their efforts. By providing free food and drinks to the people, the country becomes inefficient as a whole. One of the most common excuses that parents want us to land a good job is so that one day we do not need to starve because of empty pockets, and it is only fair that people work for what they get.
  2. Domino effect
    The food and drinks market is essential for a big part of society as a whole. If we assume that no payments are to be made for food, then what will people who sell food do? What will the suppliers of these food sources do? What would the farmers do when they realise that all their hardwork is being given to people just like that. People who contribute food sources to society will cease to do so because people are getting all their hardwork and effort FOR FREE. The sweat and blood they poured into planting and harvesting and it all goes away free of charge. I don't think anyone would like a farmer when things are in such a situation. And when the farmers are no longer existent, there goes the food source. All this in the name of Free Food
  3. The unnecessary fight for food
    Once the farmers stop contributing to the country, the government will HAVE TO find a way to get people to go for farming, and in this case the money needed to hire and pay these farmers will increase by a massive amount. This is definitely not a revenue for the government and the country. In scenario B, people do not have a quota for said food sources. This will cause them to take more than what they need because there is no such thing as wasting when it is all free. People might take a month's supply of food and call it supper, and if everyone does that, lootings will occur and thus threatening more than just the food source in the country.

  4. Human greed knows no bounds
    Humans have a great weakness: Greed. Like what is previously said, just because things are free, people will take it without stopping without a quota. Therefore, we have to use payment as a regulator for people so that we can minimise wasting of food by people who take Far Far more than what they really need. The requirement to pay for your food will keep the greed of humans to act upon food sources at bay, if by paying for your food, all of the above disasters can be prevented, then why not. It is better to prevent than to cure and we should not induce any unnecessary problems by handing out free food to everyone.

    I enjoyed this, thank you :)
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.