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

Money is everything?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/17/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 108187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I've just come from having my dinner from my family where someone decided to talk about the water, electricity and phone bills (much to my delight), but then all of a sudden I got so annoyed at the fact that we HAVE to pay for water bills and electricity bills. We live in a world where we have to pay for pretty much everything, when someone tells me money doesn't matter , I reply by saying ; truth be told it does, money is what gets you food on the table, money is how you buy a house with, money is what you buy god damn water with, something that is virtually fundamental for human survival. There is NO other way of living without those paper notes or the metal coins in our pockets.


Pro argues that "Money is everything." I will take the role of Con, and will deny the resolution.

To begin, definitions:

Money: an item (or items) which are used to facilitate the transfer of goods and services from one individual to another.
Everything: all things that exist.

Simply by these definitions Pro has lost. The definition of money requires there to be some other good or service to exist. Otherwise, money would be useless. The only purpose of money is to facilitate trade. It in no way creates, or is responsible in the creation of those good and services. Oil changes produced by mechanics are independent of money, it only provides incentive to do so.

Even if Pro is to disagree with these definitions, money is in no way a necessity of life. For the majority of the human race, money was not used. Capitalism is less than 300 years old, and humans have lived for far longer. The traditional economy (an economy without specialization) has been the primary form of economics.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all the definition of the money is separated into two section, one being money of account i.e. debit cards and the other being money of exchange i.e. wood, bamboo etc. Money is not just to be defined as its modern day equivalences e.g. bank notes ,coins. As a matter of fact the the use of representative money had been used but people way back in the ancient times of the Egyptians and the Babylonians.The Greek philosopher Aristotle contemplated the nature of money. He considered that every object has two uses: the original purpose for which the object was designed, and as an item to sell .The fact of money whether being of account or exchange is everything is certainly a fact as even in the ancient times people used some sort of currency whether it being a bag of grains or a bag of coins people wanted things that others had but simply couldn't just take it. "Money isn't the most important thing in life, but it is reasonably close to oxygen 'on the got to have scale'".


Right, there is a cost to everything. That cost is usually not monetary. It is usually an opportunity cost. Pro agrees with me and simply has not realized it yet. He even states in R2: "Money isn't the most important thing in life." The thing is, Pro, for the majority of the human race, government didn't exist to coin money, nor did people want governments. They opted for a bartering system without money of any kind, simply trading goods for goods. Money has made bartering easier by assigning a number to a value, but this doesn't change the fact that money is not necessary for life, as we have been living without it.

Also, your new definition is unfair. You claim that anything you trade is money. To state that all trade involves money is incorrect, because of the barter system not requiring it, and your definition therefore is totally inaccurate. Wood and bamboo are not money. Coinage and silver pieces are, because they facilitate trade without being the goods themselves. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


I guess you win, vote pro.I do agree that money isn't everything , I just felt like arguing against by beliefs.


Pro conceded that money is not everything. He has not in any way refuted any of my claims, in fact, he agreed with them.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Conduct - Tied. Both sides had proper conduct throughout the debate.
S&G - Tied. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. There were minor spacing issues on Pro's end in the last round but nothing significant enough to render his rounds incomprehensible.
Arguments - Con. Pro sets out to affirm the notion that money is everything, and has the BOP to show that that is the case. Con has to show that money isn't everything. Pro's main argument is that every material thing comes at a cost/price and money is necessary to obtain those things. Without money, we can't buy anything. Con then introduces his arguments by first defining the key terms and relying on those definitions to show that money merely facilitates trade, and more importantly - that money isn't the only thing that facilitates trade - rather, humans have used many things other than money. Pro rebuts by saying that currency has always been used, but con then counters this by reaffirming the fact that other items can accomplish bartering. This defeats Pro's argument because it negates the notion that money is absolutely necessary for trade. In the final round Pro concedes to Con. Con then accepts Pro's concession and as such, Con wins arguments.
Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 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: RFD in Comment Section

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.