CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes because revenue can be made from advertising and people should pay if they want ad-free programs. Those who don't mind ads should be able to use the software freely.
It is true you can make money back from buying this expensive software but what about software such as acrobat, that is $100 (really!), that students and businesses use to make pdfs so that their documents are uneditable. This generates no revenue for the user and it really only addresses a need that is desperately needed in the original windows. Also what about those people who need that software to develop for leisure? Photoshop is world renowned for being the best image editing software out there right now and no free programs have even half the features. What if you needed a feature in photoshop that you could only use if you paid the massive amounts of money? Would you pay it? Or would you settle for mediocre. Or would you want the best?
Only if a specific company wants it to be free. I think a company should allow its software to be free if a consumer has purchased a product of theirs.
Ads can be used to make back the money spent on developing software but ads can be very annoying to the user, especially if they are pop ups and advertisements that contain sound clips. Even if a user has the option to pay to remove the ads, most people will just complain about the ads and possibly stop using the software because of it, demanding that the ads should be taken down. Take for example Google Play, even though most apps and games are free, people still complain which results in the user giving the app a bad rating. This could essentially be the same for software.
Only operating systems should be free and nothing else.I dont think that everything should be free just a couple, for example of you insist on buying a expensive software you are committed to it and if you're really good at using it you might make money out of it.Also Which will help you payoff the price of the software which makes it worth it.
If software is free, people might get the wrong idea and copy the software and create their own using the same characteristics and possibly taking parts of the code which breaches intellectual property.
Software represents many hours of thought and work by the developers. If they want to charge money to be compensated for their work, they should be allowed to charge money for their software. If they think they can make enough money through ads, they should be able to use ads. If they want to give away their software, it is their choice. How much software costs should be up to the creator of the software, or the company that pays that creator.
If software was free, there would be no incentive for software developers or programmers to create software due to the fact that they gain nothing out of their product.
Although it would be a plus for the users of these softwares for it to be free, there is a lot of hard work and dedication put into the development of these softwares, although you may say that all these big company's won't miss the money that they are loosing, there are thousands of small developers and company's that do suffer from the little things.
Software should be sold because the people who wrote the software spent a lot of time to make the software and just don't want it ruined by advertisements
Saying software should be free is the same as saying programmers shouldn't get paid for their work. Programmers spend hundreds, sometimes thousands, of hours writing and testing code. Why should they work for free?
You're not looking at the entire picture... When someone says about something being free I immediately think of "Yes, it should be, just as should be everything else."
Look at it like this, everyone works not for getting paid for it, but for the necessity of the job, of the production (or because they like the job, want to do it, etc., anything but money, and at the same time know it is necessary for the continuance of progress). No one gets paid but everyone's work is essential to everyone else. People produce for themselves and others. Everything is free, you need you get it. This can easily go completely out of topic since everything is connected, so I'll just leave it as it is.
I'm not following you at all. Explain to me how I'm supposed to pay my bills if I don't get paid for my job? The ONLY reason I write software is to get money to pay my bills. If I don't get paid, I don't write software. A few programmers may do it for fun, but the vast majority of them do it for money, just like every other job. Writing software is a job just like any other job. If you don't pay someone for their work, they won't work. It's as simple as that.
I'm not following you at all. Explain to me how I'm supposed to pay my bills if I don't get paid for my job?
That's why I said "Yes, it should be, just as should be everything else."
Money is not what keeps our society working, people doing their jobs is.
The ONLY reason I write software is to get money to pay my bills.
So you are living for money? You don't actually like what you are doing? That's bad for you.
In current society people are forced to work to pay for something that is produced for them, and even by them, to be used in the first place. It's simply idiotic.
Writing software is a job just like any other job. If you don't pay someone for their work, they won't work. It's as simple as that.
This is exactly the point I've talked about in other similar debates. The fact is that money is negative to humanity's progress, and you just proved it. The reality is that in order to keep humanity progressing, advancing, surviving, people have to keep working for it. Currently, as you say, they work for money, because of money, if to remove that they'd simply do nothing and everything would collapse - back to stone age. The values our civilization is based on are completely wrong. The goal is to keep going without anything that creates an illusion that you have keep working without knowing why it really has to be done. Working for money keeps people ignorant, it keeps them from thinking what really matters; all they see is money and that's all they will care about, and that is just wrong.
In the past people were forced to work for their masters through force, now people are forced to work because of money. Sorry, but forcing people has never and will never persevere, it will fall apart eventually. People have to want to do their job, they have to like it, they have to understand why. Right now all they see is money and if there is none they will not work, as you say, you only do it for the money.
People work, they produce stuff. That stuff is to be used by anyone who needs it. Now why should people get a permission called "money" first to begin using that stuff, the stuff that was produced for them, the stuff they need, the stuff that keeps them and everyone else alive and well and happy?
People differ. For example, some need more food than others, but they all get paid just as much. You think that is right? You think it is right to deny some their needs fully, while others can get even more stuff for the same simply because they are physically different?
I used to like it, but now it's just okay. I don't hate it, but it pays so well that I will be able to retire at age 45 instead of 65, which means i will have 20 extra years to go out and travel the world.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. In once sentence you said, "money is negative to humanity's progress." Then in the very next sentence you said, "The reality is that in order to keep humanity progressing, advancing, surviving, people have to keep working for it. Currently, as you say, they work for money, because of money, if to remove that they'd simply do nothing and everything would collapse - back to stone age."*
So, in one sentence you say money is negative to humanity's progress, and in the next sentence you say it's what drives progress.
Money is not what keeps our society working, people doing their jobs is.
But the primary reason they do their jobs is money. You take away the money and they don't do their job, bringing the progress of our society to a grinding halt. How could our society possibly function without money? What other incentive is there to get people to do their jobs?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. In once sentence you said, "money is negative to humanity's progress." Then in the very next sentence you said, "The reality is that in order to keep humanity progressing, advancing, surviving, people have to keep working for it. Currently, as you say, they work for money, because of money, if to remove that they'd simply do nothing and everything would collapse - back to stone age."
I didn't contradict myself.
"money is negative to humanity's progress." is about money.
"The reality is that in order to keep humanity progressing, advancing, surviving, people have to keep working for it. Currently, as you say, they work for money, because of money, if to remove that they'd simply do nothing and everything would collapse - back to stone age." is basically about working for survival, not for money.
So, in one sentence you say money is negative to humanity's progress, and in the next sentence you say it's what drives progress.
That's not at all what I said. One is about working for money, which is very bad. The other is about working for survival and not for money.
But the primary reason they do their jobs is money. You take away the money and they don't do their job, bringing the progress of our society to a grinding halt.
Exactly my point. Our society must be able to progress and keep going without money. If there is no money and everything is moving on, then there can be no such scenario where progress could stop because money is no more.
How could our society possibly function without money? What other incentive is there to get people to do their jobs?
It's like asking how can other animals living in groups function without money... It is that similar.
Different values, obviously. Different and better education.
If everything was free do you think many children presently growing in poor families would grow up, basically, as damaged morons? No, they would not, 'cause there would be no struggle because of money. The parents would not have their minds so messed up that they couldn't raise their children to be healthy and good persons. They would have everything they'd need, always, and for free, that's much less to worry about, in fact that's almost everything less to worry about. They'd live a happy life.
The incentive would be because it is necessary, because if it was not done everything would fall apart. Everything would be free, anything anyone would need they would get. If people would get anything they needed for free, you think they would just stop working while knowing it would destroy the entire society, while knowing if they stopped they would get nothing at all anymore? If everything was free they also wouldn't have to worry about getting enough money to acquire something essential, like food, they would simply get it for free, get it because it is essential for their life, and so essential for humanity's progress.
If you wouldn't have to worry about getting money, if everything was free, would you still be like you are now? Or would you be that much happier and more content with your life? There'd be a lot less causes for stress, or rather one major cause would be gone. Would you then work because you liked the job, you liked the challenge, or because you liked to create quality products? Or you think you would do nothing, just waste your life away doing nothing essential, nothing important? Even if you had clear talent for something, even if you were naturally good at something? Would you rather waste away your skills, your talent, your life like that or would you rather make yourself useful?
Another thing money promotes... low quality crap. Products made to look good but produced as cheap as possible and as fast as possible, simply to charge as much as possible. There would be none of that either, there would simply be no incentive to create crap. There would be point to create crap, greed through money would be impossible 'cause there'd be no money.
So many current issues would be solved because they would be rendered impossible.
It may sound great to have everything free, but the reality is if people got everything for free they would not be productive. Do you really think people would work all day instead of goofing off and being unproductive if everything was free? You have far too much faith in humanity. No one is going to work at a sewage treatment plant or any of the other crappy jobs out there just because it's necessary.
It may sound great to have everything free, but the reality is if people got everything for free they would not be productive.
You base that on what?
They would be productive, very much so. In fact, instead of going for quantity they would go for quality. Sure, that would mean slower work. But hey, ten tons of shit is ten tons of shit. What would be the point of a produce if it is practically worth nothing? We should strive for quality, not quantity, anyway.
You think people would not be productive, as they would simply stop working? I said why they wouldn't. If they did everything would fall apart, they'd get nothing at all, nothing they needed. I doubt people are that stupid and that short-sighted as to stop working if things actually were to change, say, right this moment. You are giving me the impression that you are like that...
Do you really think people would work all day instead of goofing off and being unproductive if everything was free?
All day? Are you kidding me? A workday is about 8 hours long (not every occupation)... that's not all day. Plus, there would be no problems with unemployment. Those who otherwise would be unemployed would get a job, and because of that the 8-hour long workday could actually diminish in some areas. So people would have more time for themselves, yet the job would still get done. The unemployment problem would disappear.
Do you really think people work only because of money? How narrow minded are you? Many people do their job because they like that job, it's what they want to do!
The goal is to find something a person likes and wants to do, and absolutely not do it for and because of money!
You have far too much faith in humanity.
Faith? It has nothing to do with faith, nothing has. I have zero faith in everything. Faith is irrational and pointless. I'd much rather look at how things are and then conclude with logic and objectivity how they could be.
No one is going to work at a sewage treatment plant or any of the other crappy jobs out there just because it's necessary.
Yes they would. As you might be aware, people differ. There would definitely be those who'd regard that job as very important (exactly as it in reality also is), and do it to enable everyone else to live their lives comfortably, including their own. Some people are naturally good, some people like to help others, even get a sort of "high" out of it. Ever thought that some might actually like the job?
How do you think the society would regard those who didn't work simply because they didn't want to? They would not regard them well, they'd be regarded as something like social rejects. Now who would want that?
Here, where I live, most people would rather be useful than useless and worthless bags of meat.
This would is full of freeloaders. I've disowned friends because I was so disgusted by how they took advantage of the system. They collected unemployment for years even though they weren't even trying to get a job. The unemployment office makes you apply for jobs, so this person would only apply for jobs they knew they were under-qualified for knowing they would get rejected. Many people commit disability fraud because they don't want to work. Just search YouTube for "disability fraud" and you'll find tons of examples. Many people who are on welfare use that money on drugs. They don't have jobs, they just collect tax payer money and spend it on drugs.
These are just a few of the countless examples of people taking advantage of the system because they are too lazy to work. It's such a problem that many people's jobs are dedicated to trying to figure out which people are taking advantage of the system.
In the United States 23.5 million people over age 11 needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol abuse problem in 2009. That's 9.3 percent of the population over age 11. [1] Do you really think all those drug addicts are going to be productive members of society? How about all the criminals? They clearly couldn't care less about making society a better place. "In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole)." I'm guessing you are still very young if you think that there won't be millions of freeloaders. Once you've lived 40 years you'll see that freeloaders are everywhere.
Lets examine your scenario of a society where everything is free. If people decide they want a 20,000 square foot mansion, 2 private jets, one of each type of sports car, and a yacht, they would get all that for free, right. Explain to me how you are going to determine when people's requests are unreasonable. Are you going to keep some global database that tracks every possession people have so you can see if they are asking for too much free stuff? How are you going to see that people give as much as they get? If everything is free you are going to just end up with a bunch of hard working people doing all the work and a bunch of freeloaders doing nothing but taking advantage of them. Here's a prime example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDrwskLYCrY
How do you think the society would regard those who didn't work simply because they didn't want to?
The people they are getting the free stuff from wouldn't know how hard they work. Even their friends may not know they are deadbeats, because people don't keep track of how many hours their friends work.
They would not regard them well, they'd be regarded as something like social rejects. Now who would want that?
That doesn't seem to stop the millions of criminals in the world.
Here, where I live, most people would rather be useful than useless and worthless bags of meat.
How do you know that? Have you gone door to door with a questionnaire? Did you know your country has the highest number of per capita drug fatalities anywhere in Europe? It's known as "the overdose capital of Europe." [2] "The crime rate in Estonia is high compared to other industrialized countries." [3] So, clearly where you live has "worthless bags of meat" just like every other country.
You don't seem like a good person at all.
You don't know the first thing about me, so don't get all high and mighty on me. Just because I can be realistic and point out the fact that a lot of people are lazy freeloaders, does not mean that I am one.
Show me one example of a modern society that functions without using money? There are none, because it doesn't work. There are hard working people and there are lazy people. If the lazy people can take advantage of the hard working ones they will. It sucks, but it's just a fact of life.
Even though some software are expensive such as Adobe, a person with the right knowledge and skills can use the software in order to create something that is good such as using Photoshop to create calendars or using Fireworks to create buttons or images on websites and games. With this, people can use the software to make back the money that they spent on the software which will most likely result in a profit.
I believe that software should not be for free, it is good to help people out with there inquiries and questions about the program, however to make a whole software for free, you will be spending lots of time and effort to produce code and we would make little to no profit of our hard worked time to write a program.
No, because there are people being paid to take the time to create this software. The company making the product would need to turn out some sort of profit or they couldn't make these softwares. Maybe the price are a bit higher sometimes, but good things do cost money.
How could the companies that make the software make money and stay in business if they didn't charge for their products? They could put ads in, but I doubt that makes a whole lot of money and they're just plain annoying.