Return to CreateDebate.comJoin this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

3
0
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:3
Arguments:3
Total Votes:3
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (3)

Debate Creator

jolie(9803) pic



It is advantageous for rich people to spend their money to increase technology.

It is to their benefit to:
1. have robots take over menial jobs.  Like farming, cooking, driving, picking up garbage, manufacturing goods, cleaning, etc.
2. have robots that can fix themselves or each other and design new robots.
3. be able to have Martian colonies.

Once those goals are achieved, they can fix global warming by sending people to Mars.  Less people means a smaller carbon foot print which means less green house gases which means cooler temperatures.  The robots would then take over the menial tasks performed by those sent to Mars.  If they don't want to go to Mars, the robots can hunt them down.

Liberals will screw that plan up by taking the money away from rich people and giving it to the poor people who are the problem to begin with.  Who are illegal aliens?  Poor people.  Who are the homeless?  Poor people.  Who commit blue collar crime?  Poor people.  Who are a drain on the insurance companies?  Poor people.  Who are always clamoring for more rights?  Poor people.  Who brings down property values?  Poor people.  So..., let's get rid of the poor people.

True.

Side Score: 3
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 0
1 point

If you disagree...., you are probably a poor person. ;)

Side: True.
1 point

Your premise is half true. It is not advantageous in the present system for rich people to spend their money. However, assuming these rich people you describe are business owners, then it is advantageous for them to acquire better technology for the simple reason that better technology enables them to cut costs. But researching better technology is only one method of cutting costs. More practical and immediate methods include firing people, dropping wages, closing branches and reducing the quality of product or service on offer.

Side: True.
1 point

But those "immediate methods" you describe do not fix any of the problems posed by poor people. If anything, those methods exasperate the problem. ;)

Side: True.
No arguments found. Add one!