Week 3 - Dave vs. MRC

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for the debaters only. It will be open until Sunday at 6 PM CST.

Dave will be affirming.

Resolved: The redistribution of wealth is a violation of human rights.

 

[Dave]

OK, let me first apologise for being so late wit my first argument, I have been unwell all week and I have barely found the time between work and college. With that in mind, I would like to say that I am sorry to FTS and to my opponent, Mentaur Rodeo Clown. I think that you are a great guy, MRC and I am very much looking forward to seeing what you have got stored away in the locker. Hopefully, we can get a good show on the go and show people what we are worth.

Now that that is out of the way, let me get on to my argument, shall I? Now, for this debate I have been asked to defend the statement that:

Resolved: The redistribution of wealth is a violation of human rights.

When I first looked at this topic, I was very daunted by the prospect of getting into a debate about ethics and how money should be used. However, I feel that to prove my point the best way I can, I have to cover all of the bases and ethics are just one of the factors that have to be considered. For you see, wealth is a very touchy subject. Some people have wealth and others don’t. However, everything we do in this world is driven by the lure of monetary gain. Whether it is working from 9-5 every day or just studying at college or a place of learning. I mean, who hasn’t had the dream of becoming rich and famous one day? It is the reason that so many people play the lottery, work hard and die trying.

In my life, I have always been taught that working hard and doing my best when it comes to making money has been important. I was taught, from a very young age, the value of currency and I don’t mean in the literal sense. I mean that I was taught how doing a good shift and working hard would give me greater dividends. However, it would seem that my mother was wrong. It would seem that her mantra of working hard is nothing more than a fallacy when it comes to making money. For you see, the redistribution of wealth is something that affects many people. The redistribution of wealth is something that many people cannot avoid, even though they may not agree with it. The most common kind of redistribution is income redistribution and this is where the main problem lies.

In many developed countries, income redistribution is becoming more and more prevalent. It exists in a huge way in the United Kingdom and the United States seem to be following suit since the election of Barack Obama. Income Tax is probably the most common type of redistribution under the bracket of income and no one is ever happy with them. For you see, people’s human rights are adversely affected by the government taking money straight from the pay cheque of the working man to fund schemes and programs that are aimed at people who are clearly not interested in working or making their own money. In the United Kingdom, people who make over £34,600 in a single year are taxed 40% of their salary before it becomes their own. That is over £13,000 that is taken from people who have worked hard to achieve that level of salary. Now, I don’t think I would have a major problem with it if that money was being used to fund programs that would help me, if I was the one being taxed for it. Yet, it isn’t!

No! It is being used to fund the poor and the unmotivated in vein attempts to get them out of their houses and into jobs. Now, you may be wondering how this affects ones human rights, well let me explain it to you. I have a right to own a house. I also have a right to start a family and make sure that that family is protected in a safe environment and that they have all of the options of nutrition and health available to them as possible. However, it would seem that an egalitarian government would not allow this to happen as income tax is taking away the potential of having some of these rights fulfilled. Lets take a closer look, shall we?

If I want to but my house, I need a mortgage and I have to make payments every month. However, with 40% of my money going to the government every month, how am I supposed to be able to afford it? How am I going to have enough to pay for the property and still have enough left to ensure that my other human rights are intact? Simple, I can’t!

The government are taking money from me and giving it to the poor, who do not deserve it It is affecting my human rights and it is undeniable,

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Hey Dave. Whats up? Sorry I'm a tad late. But thats a usual sort of thing with me. Anyways, I know you're a good poster, and I can't wait to see what we'll be able to do in this debate. So lets stop dilly dallying and get on with it shall we?

Resolved: The redistribution of wealth is a violation of human rights.

So. Here we are. We are looking at a statement that is fairly clear cut, or at least in my eyes it is. It is the statement that the taking of wealth from those who have it and spreading it out amongst the community is a violation of the rights that every human being should have. Now, lets go a bit deeper here and analyse the key terms.

My favourite document of this Debate League has got to be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I just love that bastard. I used it in my first debate and I'll use it here again. This document is basically a list of basic human rights that everyone should be entitled to, and as I scan down the document, I'm noticing something. In no way,shape or form does it state that the redistribution of wealth is violating any human rights. Huh.

Well the document which set the standard for Global human rights doesn't say it violates any rights thatwe should be entitled to. But what else does it say, you may ask. Well I'm glad you did ask Dave, because lets have a look see.

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has the right to be a part of a community, to be able to enjoy its culture. Enjoy the parks. Enjoy the beaches. Hell, enjoy the Subway rides. The thing about society is, that often we exclude people from things. We exclude people from culture, from seeing art or listening to music or entering a club. Why? Often because they can't afford it. In essence, you have poor people not having the same rights as someone who can sustain themselves. You have the upper crust of society being able to enjoy all the bells and whistles of a town or a city, and the poorer class unable to. This is where the redistribution of wealth really comes into play.

1. Taxes

You mentioned Income Tax. The government isn't a money printing company. They need tax dollars in order to help us. They need income tax and sales tax and company tax in order to pay for those parks, those roads, those beaches. They are redistibuting the wealth of the people in order to create a higher living standard for all. They are paying the elderly who gave their lives for public service and to the community. They are paying families who cannot sustain themselves. They are paying for the schools, the hospitals and everything else that a westernized country takes for granted. Why? Because without them, we'd be in anarchy. Can you imagine a world where the no wealth was redistributed through the government? Forget about Public, schools, hospitals, transport. Forget about police, fire departments, pensions. I will address your problems with welfare later on, but you must realise how important this is to the benefit of society.

2. Social Inequality

Then we have the problem of Social Inequality. Was it not Plutarch who said:

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

I truly believe this is a correct statement. The redistribution of wealth aims only to close the gap. Look at where you have some of the widest gaps. A place like India, where the rich are absurdly wealthy, owning palaces and having 100 servants. Then you look at the poorest of the poor, living in slums on less than a dollar a day. The gap between the classes is so ridiculously big, its shocking. We may curse having to pay for the poor, but we are at least trying to help each other. Is egalitarianism really so bad? We only have to think of the consequences should we not act upon it. If a person isn't receiving help from his community when he is going through a hard time, then what reason does he have to wanting to help back? What exactly is to stop him for breaking that window and stealing a TV? This is why crime rates are so high in countries with the widest poverty gaps.

3. And now, some quotes.

I mean, who hasn’t had the dream of becoming rich and famous one day? It is the reason that so many people play the lottery, work hard and die trying.

A great statement. We all want to be at the top of the mountain. But sometimes, we have to start from the bottom. Are we saying that those at the bottom must stay there, and those at the top should look down on them and not lend a helping hand?

For you see, people’s human rights are adversely affected by the government taking money straight from the pay cheque of the working man to fund schemes and programs that are aimed at people who are clearly not interested in working or making their own money.

You see, I have a problem with this. Sure its easy to target the loafers and the slackers who laze around all day and collect a payment for doing nothing. But this is a HUGE generalization on your part. Sure, these cases do exist, I understand, whether you live in Australia or Scotland, but you must see the good that comes of the redistribution. There are people who ARE doing it tough. There are people that DO want to work, but for some reason, can't get a job. Maybe they have an illness or a criminal record.

You can't just say "stop helping other people" just because a few people bludge and do nothing. This made me think of that Year 6 teacher that said "Right. Tommy stuck gum under the table, so now, everyone in the class can't have gum". Is it the classes fault? Hell no, so why are they suffering?

Now, I don’t think I would have a major problem with it if that money was being used to fund programs that would help me, if I was the one being taxed for it. Yet, it isn’t!

But I'm certain that in someway, the wealth IS going back to you in some way. Any public service is something that you payed for. Hell, other people payed for it too. If you went to a public school, that was payed for too. If you've ever needed the police, or the fire department, you payed for that too. If you've ever gone to kick a football down at a local park. You payed for it. It does benefit you.

No! It is being used to fund the poor and the unmotivated in vein attempts to get them out of their houses and into jobs.

Is this a bad thing? I mean, besides the generalization of these people being unmotivated, is this really that bad? To want to help each other?You want to talk about it being unfair that you have to give so much money away. Think about how unfair it would be if you were on the other end of the stick. If you were down and out, and no one gave two shits about you. If you couldnt find a job and didn't know what to do. This is the reality we have to face without redistribution of wealth.

To say they do not "deserve" it is wrong. We all deserve it. That's why people are giving up their money to pay for us. Just as we should do for them in return.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'm so fucking pissed that you guys waited until that late in the week to start. You could have an epic debate. Instead, I get one post apiece to judge on.

I don't agree with MRC, but he makes several good points. I do agree with Dave, but he didn't have the chance to refute.

I am going with MRC, although I wish Dave could have defended his positions.

MRC38
Dave 37

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

To be honest, it should really be Dave's debate for the taking. I was far too late, and I would score him higher.

 

[Dave]

I really did try and get a rebuttal done but we had a busy time of it in the eFed and I just never had the time. I did attempt it too but my time was so consumed that whatever I wrote just sounded lazy and would have detracted from what I already had.

 

[gd]

It was a real close one, but MRC said himself that he was too late, and that did give him an advantage, so I'll give this to Dave. Could've been a hell of a debate though.

Dave - 35
MRC - 34

 

[Mr. TM]

I liked it, both had two good works written out, and both seemed to care about their arguments. I guess it didn't come out to a debate, just two persuasively backed thesis. Dave was the clear winner for me in the debate, Ill give him 35 points. MRC, I wont dock you for being late, because I believe there is nothing against that here in this league, and you had a decent post, so you get 30.