The Instigator
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT
Pro (for)
The Contender
MentalDeadlock
Con (against)

Money solves all problems - Change my mind

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 184 times Debate No: 121824
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

I believe that money solves all problems. Prove me wrong. >:D
MentalDeadlock

Con

I shall except your challenge, And as con attempt to prove that money does not solve all problems.

Firstly, I would like to set up some framework for this rather ambiguous prompt. Because pro's argument is specifically that money solves ALL problems, There are two approaches I may (and will) take as con. Firstly, If I can provide any example of a problem money can't solve, I have proven the statement wrong. Because the statement is all-inclusive, Anything excluded cannot exist if the statement is true. Secondly, I will be addressing the principle of the statement, And how the inferred foundation is flawed.

Now before I get into these points I would like to provide definitions.

Money: "A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively. "
Solve: "Find an answer to, Explanation for, Or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery). "
Problem: "A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome. "
Effective (this will be important later): "Successful in producing a desired or intended result. "
(All definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary)

Firstly I would like to address the statement as an absolute statement. Because pro has stated ALL problems can be solved this way, Any single example otherwise refutes the claim. While I agree that money can certainly solve a myriad of problems, I believe some are simply beyond the scope of monetary value. Therefore it is my contention that moral problems, Those dealing with right and wrong, Cannot be solved with money. Sure, You could use that money to hire professionals in the appropriate fields to make those decisions, But at the end of the day no amount of money can make moral decisions for you. In a court case, The judge/jury must make a moral decision, And while bribery is an option, It is an extremely unreliable one, As not everyone accepts bribes. Other, Comparatively bland problems occur, As well. What to wear, Eat, Etc. Can often come down to issues beyond money. If it all costs the same, How can money solve such an issue? It cannot. Money only deals with trade and market forces, Not emotions, Personal taste, Etc. We could also go into the hypothetical and suppose you had the problem of trying to bribe a monk who does not accept money.

Secondly, I shall address the principle of the statement with 2 subpoints.

Subpoint 1: Effectiveness.
I go back to the definition of "solve. " It specifically states that a problem (in the context of this debate) will be dealt with effectively. If it does not do so effectively, It does not solve the problem. The issue with pro's statement is that it assumes anything can be solved by throwing money at it, But historically this hasn't been the case. Many education reformation acts have increased the amount of funding schools and their staff receive, But problems have not always been solved as a result. Why? Because the money is being put into programs/systems that don't work. Programs and systems that have been proven to not work. Ultimately money can only "solve" a problem if it is being used effectively, And this is important, Because it leads to my next point.
Subpoint 2: Actor.
Money in and of itself cannot do anything but exist. It is merely a piece of paper or metal that either has value or symbolizes value that can be used as an alternative to bartering. One may think that money can solve many issues, Such as illness, Because if you have enough money, You can pay for the best treatment/service. But in this case, The money is not finding the method to deal with the issue, Nor is it dealing with the issue itself. In fact, The only issue money is solving is a lack of funding. It is the user of said money that finds the method, And the receiver of the money that uses the method (or is the method). This also ties in to my previous point. Because money is not a sentient being, It cannot make decisions, Let alone moral decisions. It is the judge or other party that makes those decisions. The only reason money seems to solve these problems is because the user would otherwise face the problem of a lack of funding.

Because the statement is absolute, Any one example, Hypothetical or not, That does not fall under it refutes it by nature, And as I have shown, There are examples that prove this. We can also see that with the problems that money can solve, Many times it doesn't actually solve the problem, Due to either lack of adequate usage or simply the fact that money inherently cannot do anything. There are many issues that can be solved with money, But to say that all of them can be does not look to the reality of things. Thank you, And best of luck in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

Right. The bribery thing sometimes works, And if you have enough money, It will work.

On the other hand, Monks can also be broken down. Hire people to help you make the monk not become a monk. It doesn't matter how long it will take. As long as the money is there, The problem would be solved.
'
Emotions and personal taste: Emotions can be easily puppetted, While you can simply adjust everything in your life to your own personal taste. I mean, You have the money to.

I'll ignore your subtopics because effectiveness does not matter in this debate. All it matters is whether it works.


In the end, Money solves all problems. If the problem isn't solved, You don't have enough money.
MentalDeadlock

Con

"Right. The bribery thing sometimes works, And if you have enough money, It will work. "
This is assuming everyone will put aside their moral convictions for enough money, Which there simply isn't evidence supporting this. Some people will, Yes, But people will resist bribes for more reasons than simply "it's not enough money. " We have historically seen people die for their moral convictions, To think enough paper/metal could do what torture/death couldn't is unrealistic.

"On the other hand, Monks can also be broken down. Hire people to help you make the monk not become a monk. It doesn't matter how long it will take. As long as the money is there, The problem would be solved. "
This goes back to the effectiveness subpoint (I will address your response to that in time). Here you are assuming that throwing enough money at the problem will fix it. We see this didn't work in U. S. Education systems, How do we know it will work with the monk? We don't. You can hire the best surgeon in the world, But it won't guarantee your terminal disease will be cured. In a situation like this, For example, It does matter how long it takes, And a time limit could also easily apply to the monk scenario, But that is somewhat beside the point. If your problem is terminal cancer, And the best equipment and medical staff say it can't be cured, Then money has failed to solve your problem. Surgeons, Lawyers, Bribes, Etc. Are not vending machines, Where you insert the money and a snack/drink/solution will always come out (well, Almost always). They are reliant on the other person's beliefs and emotions, Which leads nicely into the next point.

"Emotions and personal taste: Emotions can be easily puppetted, While you can simply adjust everything in your life to your own personal taste. I mean, You have the money to. "
True, Although this doesn't necessarily address the point I was making. You can adjust your entire life to suit your taste, Yes, But in most cases that means variety. Having the same set of clothes is seen as rather dull, Etc. People like the ability to choose, And this is where things get interesting. Let us say you have infinite money. You cannot have any more money than that, So according to you, You should have no problems. Now let's say you want to write something on a paper to remember. You have two pens of equal quality and monetary value, Red and black. Which pen do you choose? If they are the best quality of pen in existence (why use any other if you have infinite money? ), Then money cannot solve your (relatively minor, But still definition-compliant) problem. When you have enough money, It becomes meaningless, Because having the best of everything means you have to choose between things of equal monetary value.

"I'll ignore your subtopics because effectiveness does not matter in this debate. All it matters is whether it works. "
I have 3 responses to this. 1) Effective is defined as being successful at achieving the intended result, Therefore ineffective is unsuccessful/doesn't work. In effect, They are the same thing. 2) The definition of solve has the word effectively in it. 3) The very argument I was making under this subpoint is that it doesn't always work. I gave the example of the U. S. School systems. The funding did not solve the problems they were trying to solve. They didn't work. They ultimately mean the same thing. If money is not successful in achieving the desired result, It has not solved the problem.

I would also like to point out that subpoint 2 was unaddressed, That technically speaking, Money doesn't solve any of these problems, Rather it enables people to solve the issue themselves.

Stating that ALL problems can be solved by money requires proof that not a single problem cannot be solved by money, And if any one such example does exist, The statement must be false. I have shown several of these examples; the monk, The bribe, The surgeon, The U. S. Education system, Etc. All of these are examples of money not solving the problem. And even if we were to assume that money did solve these problems, Ultimately it was not actually the money that solved the problem, But the surgeon, Or the person who persuaded the monk, Or the U. S. Schools that actually did the work. Money is the middle man, And does nothing but trade hands.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by moyarona 1 week ago
moyarona
I think money not solves all the problems but money makes problems easier to solve.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.