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

Money runs the world - the rest is just details

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,409 times Debate No: 103173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Every decision, law, employment, war, occupation, murder, etc etc. is why people do what they do, is based solely on money. Money is what makes the world turn. Everything that happens, any unexplained event you encountered was because of money in one way or another. JFK assassination, wars, sport teams winning championships, laws all of it is based on money. If I have enough money I can make you do anything. Everyone has a price. You don't believe it, then lets go, and tell me I'm wrong.

Lets Get Ready To Rumble!!


I can see why the Pro side believes that money runs the world, but I can also see that they are making a giant mistake. It is not money that runs the world, it is power. I pose you all a question: Why drives a man like Donald Trump run for the US presidency? Sure, he gets an annual salary of $500,000, but he could make far more money with far less difficulty if he wanted to in the time it takes to perform the duties of a US president. Clearly, the driving force behind his seeking of the US presidency is power, not money. When you are the US president, you are arguably one of the most powerful people in the world. The uses of this power extend vastly beyond anything money could buy. Don't believe me? I ask you all another question: Why do people desire money? It's a very vague question, but I challenge people to come up with a better answer than this: people desire money as they can exchange it for the use of human labour, or for goods that have been produced with human labour. In essence, people desire money as it is a token for power over mankind. Money is in effect, simply a token for power. From this, you can clearly Donald Trump's presidency is driven by a desire for power, not money.

One interesting example the Pro side stated was that JFK's assassination was centred around money. I disagree. Any monetary factors in JFK's demise were clearly about power, not money. Business tycoons that benefited in money were really benefiting in power (given that money is simply a token for power). However, figures such as Lyndon B. Johnson (who became US president following JFK's death) benefited almost exclusively in power, not money. You can clearly see that the common driver in JFK's assassination was power, not money.

Now every issue you analyse will at it's core be about power, not simply money. Power can exist without money, but money cannot exist without power. Money does not run the world, power does. Money is simply token for power, one of many forms of power that is used in the running of the world. Money is by no means, the sole driver of the world. In the words of Frank Underwood, "Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries".

For these reasons, I am proud to debunk the moot that "Money runs the world - the rest is just details". I bid the Pro side good luck in round 2, and I cannot thank enough everyone who has taken the time to adjudicate this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Those are some excellent points and I do agree with you partially, but motivation, greed and decisions in life are all based on money. Money is a token but it's also the driving force behind power. You get power by getting rich with money. Perfect example, any celebrity, their status is based on the money they make. Take any celebrity for example and have them commit a crime or DUI offence, because of their money, they will get a great lawyer and in the end they will get off with probation and a large hefty fine or charity donation because they have the money. Now take an average Joe and he commits the same offences, now he can't afford the big shot lawyer and ends up in jail because he couldn't buy his way to freedom.

Just look at OJ, he was rich, got Johnny Cochcrane to defend him and got off with murder. It's all about money. Power comes from having money, but first you need the money to have power. Donald Trump got 1 million dollars from his father to start his business, then he got the power once he bought all his businesses and casinos and his fortune grew and that gave him power.

Picture for a moment you are an average Joe, all of a sudden you win the Power Ball, now you are rich, you can buy anything, you hire people, you become the man of power as you command others to do work or security or whatever you need for you. The people who work for you look up to you as their boss, leader or whatever because you are paying their salaries, essentially providing their livelihood. Therefore you just got power from commanding the group of people, where before you won the lottery you had no power.

Money = Power. Money is still the main factor for all decisions in life. We all need to eat and a place to sleep and provide for our loved one, money does that, so we will do what it takes to get the money. We will move across the country for a job, contract killers kill people for money, cartels traffic drugs for money, because money provides you your basic means of life and luxuries. Unfortunately many who get a taste of a lot of money turn to greed because once the money is blown they need more. And this is where murder, robbery, fraud come into play.

Without money you have no power, that is why a bum on the street has no power at all and is the lowest on the rung of society. The people in power are all rich, see the correlation there.

Lets continue debating LOL


I agree with you partially, but I still believe you are missing the point. You still haven't recognised that there are forms of power that don't involve money. This is shown by the fact that most politicians have very little money compared to the amount of power they have, whereas most billionaires have lots of money but very little power in comparison. Even in most of the examples you have put forward, it is clear that that power not held in the form of money was the driving force.

Look at OJ Simpson as an example of this. He almost certainly got off due to his fame rather than his money, meaning it was fame that gave him his power rather than money. This is reinforced by the fact that he still owes some of his legal fees today (so he clearly wasn't the extremely wealthy person you make him out to be). Clearly OJ Simpson was acquitted due to forms of power other than just money.

Another example you stated was that "bums on the street" have no power because they have no money. Sure they have no money, but they have no other forms of power too. Most of them instead have mental illnesses and drug issues, and are unemployable. You will not find a single "bum on the street" that is a good public speaker, respected community member, or a renowned thinker. Clearly "bums on the street" are on the lowest rung of society due to there lack of power, not just their lack of money.

Now I've debunked some of your examples, I will now put forward my own. Nelson Mandela. Famous for being South Africa's first black president, Nelson Mandela was one of the most powerful people of recent times, especially in South Africa. However, throughout his life he had very little wealth. This example clearly shows that you don't have to be rich to be influential and powerful, and that not all people in power are rich.

Now that I have rebutted the arguments you have finished making, let me reinforce my point about the world being run by power. Power is defined as "the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.". Now I consider the "running" of the world to be the manipulation of people and events. Therefore, power, by definition, runs the world. What's more, I previously said that people desire money because "they can exchange it for the use of human labour, or for goods that have been produced with human labour". Now you will notice that this fits in with the ability to influence the behaviour of others part of the definition of power, but not the part about the ability to influence the course of events. Clearly, the world is run by power, and by definition, money is only a component of power.

For these reasons, I am proud to debunk the moot that "Money runs the world - the rest is just details". I bid the Pro side good luck in round 3, and once again, I cannot thank enough everyone who has taken the time to adjudicate this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm glad you bring up the point of billionaires and politicians. Politicians are the legal public view and puppets of billionaires. Billionaires own politicians, that is why laws and tax shelters and decisions made in politics are at the request of billionaires. Politicians have no money, so how do they get elected in the first place, they need expensive platforms and tours through out the country to make them available to see for the public, and who do you think funds that, the billionaires. Who hosts those $5000 per plate money raising dinners, billionaires!! Without money the politician would not win an election because they wouldn't be able to afford the campaigning, the money has to come from somewhere..

OJ got off because he got the best most expensive lawyer, not by his fame, his fame was over in the 70's and 80's when his NFL career ended and he finished some movies, by the time he was tried for murder he was a wash-up with lots of money, all that money went to his legal defense.

Mandela had no money, but once he got into power he was a millionaire, his wife at the time Winnie, bragged that she had 50 thousand pairs of shoes in her mansion, where do you think that came from, money!!

Like I stated before it's all about the money, You could be appointed some trustee, or President or boss of somewhere, but without money your power means nothing, because you an be bought off. Just look at Mexico, the government with all the power has no control, the cartels with all the drug money run that country. Taliban drug lords run Pakistan and Afghanistan, not their puppet Presidents of the countries. Power might be important but it can be bought off with money. Without money power means nothing. Case closed!! LOL


First of all, I wish to contest the point the Pro side has made about billionaires owning politicians. Yes, billionaires use some of their power (in the form of money) to influence decision making, but that it far from the only thing that influences decision making. This is shown by the fact that large blocks of people (such as unions) often greatly influence decision making, having far greater an impact then forms of power such as money ever could. Additionally, money doesn't necessarily spell political success. This is shown by the fact that Donald Trump spent far less money than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election, yet he still won [1].

Secondly, I wish to contest the Pro side's point about OJ Simpson winning his case due to money rather than fame. I believe that though there is substantial evidence that money played a role in this win, the publicity around the trial undeniably had had a far greater effect on the eventual outcome then money. This view is reinforced if you look at newspaper clippings during the trial.

Thirdly, I wish to contest the Pro side's point about Nelson Mandela gaining money along with power. Though I accept Nelson Mandela gained a large amount of money upon ascending to the presidency, this money is definitely not what drove him. This is because there is no way he could have known of the money he would be rewarded with for his fight against apartheid, and there is far more evidence his desire to end apartheid was what drove him.

Finally, I wish to identify that the main point of contention in this debate is whether or not money is simply a token for power (with other forms of power existing), and it is in fact power that runs the world. If this point of contention is found to be true, it would mean that money is simply one of many things that assist in running the world, and thus the moot would be disproved. I have pointed out that there are many examples of situations in life where power is the main factor, money is nowhere to be seen. Clearly power is the common factor in the running of the world, not money. Therefore, I believe I have won this point of contention, and thus, the debate.

For these reasons, I am proud to rest my case against the moot that "Money runs the world - the rest is just details". I cannot thank enough everyone who has taken the time to adjudicate this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Natsu145 3 years ago
Ya I mean you can't frickin argue there
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by devinator534 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Alright, so I actually have been following this debate and was thinking about joining and I was like how am I even gonna argue here? But the Con did something awesome. I love your way of twisting and saying that power is what runs the world. I want to go look at the examples, because that is what it ultimately comes down to: Donald Trump: Flows Con because ultimate Donald Trump settled for less money and more power by becoming President. OJ Simpson: Wash. This is simply a wash because there is no way to know how or why OJ got off, simply unknown and neither side supported with sources. Nelson Mandela: Con. Nelson Mandela did not need money. He simply had power. Yes money came about because he got power but this is simple an end that came about through a process of him first attaining power. Another example Con should have used was blackmailers. Yea, they might not have a lot of money but they sure have power. One example, debunked the rez and Con showed many. Go

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