CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
65
This is why No it's not
Debate Score:104
Arguments:117
Total Votes:119
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 This is why (31)
 
 No it's not (36)

Debate Creator

Harvard(666) pic



Why poor people are poor (read)

While poor people are out at the bar drinking, the soon-to-be rich guy is reading books on investing;

While poor people are complaining about the govt., the soon-to-be rich guy is purchasing stocks at great valuations, and bonds with beautiful yields;

While the poor are watching TV or on dates at the movies, the soon-to-be rich person is acquiring new skills-set;

While poor people are being irresponsible by having children they can't afford, soon-to-be rich guy is around successful people that he can learn from;

While poor people are buying unnecessary things (birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, child snacks, games, movies, etc.), the soon-to-be rich guy is purchasing assets;

But I have respect for the poor who rise to the top because they see that money is everywhere and understand NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO REMAIN IN THEIR SITUATION (in the US of course);

Lets sum it up, Poor people waste time, are lazy (not wanting to read, or go around selling themselves), are pessimist, don't read anything resourceful, spend their money on unnecessary things, don't try and better themselves, put themselves in their own situation (having kids, etc.), and are irresponsible. And any poor person who say's 'I don't want to be rich' is a liar, for when their child needs a heart transplant or brain surgery, or gets accepted into ivy league schools, or wants to travel abroad, they can't therefore their parents are saying 'I don't want my child to get ahead in life (or live) because I want to be poor'

 

This is why

Side Score: 39
VS.

No it's not

Side Score: 65
2 points

Whilst the ambition to be successful and rich isn't necessarily a congenital characteristic of the wealthy it must develop at some stage in their lives. Those whose impoverished background and/or poor education has meant that they have been conditioned to assume a lowly position in life and, understandably, many in this category will accept this status for the rest of their lives. However, there are countless numbers of enterprising entrepreneurs who look around them and observe the wealth being enjoyed by others and decide, hey, I want to be up there with the achievers. Who doesn't? So, what do they do. Some of the qualities required to be successful include, ( not necessarily in order of priority) ambition, drive, a commercially viable idea, ability, tenacity, access to finance, an eye for detail whilst concentrating on the ''big picture''. No one specific skill is required, as the ability to identify the expertise needed for the venture and the good judgement to choose and appoint those with the talents needed for the business is what is required. For instance you may not be able to type proficiently, drive heavy goods vehicles, operate machinery, perform heavy manual labour tasks and so forth. But all these skills can be hired, and when shrewdly combined along with a little luck, they might, just might produce a successful business. Most people who missed the boat educationally wouldn't be bothered even starting out on such a daunting road, others will set out and become discouraged, whist the few will persevere until they've achieved, more or less what they set out to do. Down side for the successful, you eat, drink and sleep( if you can get to sleep) your business. There is no guarantee that your market will always remain stable and you must therefore be constantly on the lookout for changing market trends and/or opportunities for diversity without compromising your core business. Those who take the easy option will find a certain solace by criticizing those who successfully made the effort and wallow in the delusion that there is some conspiracy which has excluded them from entering the tough, cut and thrust world of the rat race.

Side: This is why
2 points

It's worth pointing out that it's the risk takers who use their talents to achieve their ideological goals, as much as their drive for wealth that create the jobs and opportunities for those who want an easier life. The ''sheeple'' prefer to follow and regularly rationalize their reluctance, or lack of courage to stick their necks out by damning and trying to demonize the leaders of industry and commerce as money grabbing ''fat cats''. Pigeon holing and labeling the successful with various derogatory names gives them a feeling of self righteousness and an excuse for backing away from participating in the 'dog eat dog' world of competitive business. Their sanctimonious mindset, which they have worked hard to develop permits them to live comfortably in the more relaxed world of cloud cuckoo land.

Side: This is why

It's absolutely the poor person's fault. It was their choice for not working hard in school and going to University.

Side: This is why
1 point

When taking into account the argument the poster made, it is clear that the difference between the rich and the poor is ambition and risk-taking. So, yes, that is why poor people are poor. For the most part, poor people either accept their position as poor people, or they merely have no ambition or talent in life. However, the variable that is missing in said person's argument is overall happiness. As cliche as it is, money does not create happiness, so while the poor may be poor and the rich may be rich, that poor person might be far happier than the rich person, just for the reason that they have the free time to do what they want to. Like the poster said, while the poor person is doing nothing, the rich person is out doing something, and this is true. But the missing piece is that that poor person might be completely happy doing nothing and that rich person might be completely upset with his life. It all depends on the overall happiness of the people involved.

Side: This is why
1 point

whynotboth.jpg

seriously, why the dichotomy?

Side: This is why
0 points

jbkdjhblejknlekrjhnblfdkenglfekrngbvlkernflbvkenflbkvne.fknb;lekdfb;lkenb;elkjmg;e.lmjfg;elmfg;m;ldm

kjhslikrjgfs

Side: This is why
10 points

While the soon to be rich guys are out at the bar drinking and persuading others to join in on a pyramid scheme, the poor guy is in the back washing dishes.

While poor people are complaining about the govt., the soon-to-be rich guy is on the golf course negotiating to be a lobbyist.

While the poor are watching TV or on dates at the movies, the soon-to-be rich person is snorting cocaine and throwing parties.

While poor people are being irresponsible by having children they can't afford, soon-to-be rich guy is calling his lawyer and claiming those kids aren't his.

While poor people are buying unnecessary things (birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, child snacks, games, movies, etc.), the soon-to-be rich guy is vacationing in the Caribbean.

This is closer to the truth than the pack of lies the poster stated.

Side: No it's not
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
3 points

I'm pretty sure the activities you attributed to the 'soon to be rich' here are more accurately attributed to the 'already rich.'

If you aren't yet rich, extensive barhopping, golfing, cocaine, high-end paternity dispute lawyers, and Caribbean vacations are either going to prevent you from becoming rich, or will simply be unattainable.

It's not that these aren't valid criticisms of the rich, so much as they aren't really applicable to the hypothetical 'soon to be rich.'

Side: This is why
agnotology(3) Clarified
3 points

I can see why you read these examples that way, but the curse of the straw men started in the original prompt, was continued in structure in that reply, and now you're reading their reply like it's something it's not.

The spirit of these examples for poor, rich, or soon to be rich are about intentions, willingness, approaches, etc. The examples of behavior given are about divining general motivations, not explaining exact behavior. It's not that the person who is trying to be rich actually calls the lawyer, it's that they would or can afford it. The poor person might not be able to afford disputing paternity. It's not that the poor person makes risky decisions to become a parent, it's that the rich or soon to be rich people have been able to get out of their mistakes, often through means the poor person doesn't have.

Side: This is why
Harvard(666) Disputed
2 points

I can’t even ascertain the cause of so many up-votes for such an unintelligible illogical point. Shows the comprehension skills of a typical CD user.

Most of the examples are directed towards 'already rich' guys not 'soon-to-be'. A soon-to-be rich gut wouldn't be celebrating, he would be working on how it is he will acquire so much money- a point which was simple enough discern.

While the poor are watching TV or on dates at the movies, the soon-to-be rich person is snorting cocaine and throwing parties

First problem with this is that it is a misperception of rich people based on cinematic projections (e.g. wolf of wall street). The second problem is you should be intelligent enough to distinguish between theatre and reality. Lastly, the third problem is that this, again, implies that 'soon-to-be rich guy' is already rich.

While poor people are being irresponsible by having children they can't afford, soon-to-be rich guy is calling his lawyer and claiming those kids aren't his.

Again, the first problem with this is that it only helps the case that they are irresponsible for allowing this soon-to-be rich guy to impregnate them. Secondly, a DNA test would solve everything and it normally is the poor guy denying the children given that they probably wouldn't be able to afford child support (unlike the rich guy). Lastly, I am sure you meant 'lawyer' implying that this soon-to-be rich guy has his own personal (expensive) lawyer on standby- but of course he cannot afford such lawyers because he IS NOT RICH YET.

While poor people are buying unnecessary things (birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, child snacks, games, movies, etc.), the soon-to-be rich guy is vacationing in the Caribbean

I'll assume that he swam there given the likelihood of being able to afford to go there in a more conventional manner...

-

This is further from the truth than comprehensible. As a matter of fact, this is completely illogical, your premises presupposes richness yet your argument is grounded on a man in the process of becoming rich.

Side: This is why
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
3 points

What you cannot fathom is the behavior of rich people is inclined toward the examples I provided, not the actual acts. This is why so many people up-voted this arguments, because they understand this.

Side: No it's not
Cuaroc(8827) Clarified
1 point

looks like someone missed that it was a troll post.

Side: This is why
5 points

Gross generalizations about large populations are generally unreliable, and this is certainly no exception (for reasons I have already elucidated to OP at greater length, and to which I am yet awaiting reply). In short, this stance assumes equitable starting ground - equal education access, equal parental involvement, equal social privileges, equal health, etc. - and further neglects the not infrequent hand of luck.

Your dismissal of the willfully lower income is equally over simplistic, not the least due to your assumption that all such people have children (let alone treat them as you assume).

Side: No it's not
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

Well I specified that anyone can overcome their situation 'in the US'. I said this because just about anywhere in the US is access to just about any type of book (Free if you read it in the library). Moreover, if the library doesn't have the type of book (I am interchanging 'education' with 'books' for obvious reasons), they allow access to a computer wherein in millions of books (amongst many of other resources) can be looked at for FREE.

It amuses me when I walk past some street discussing their financial problems all while walking past a free-to-public library wherein they could find a book on finances but they intentionally choose not to, why? Well... because who wants to read that boring stuff? right?

I might add that majority of teens that have babies are in poverty, so given the amount of teen births that have risen over the past decades, in conjunction with the already average US citizen above 25 having at least one child, it would follow that the general peoples in poverty have children. Do I need to do the math on how much it cost to raise just one child (without being extravagant) conjoined with the amount of money that classifies someone as being in poverty?

Side: This is why
Jace(5187) Clarified
4 points

I am not disagreeing with your general premise that many people who remain in poverty do so consequent to their own (in)action. My point of contention lies in the absoluteness of your unfounded generalizations that all people who succeed financially worked harder and that those who did not worked less; this is not uniformly the case (or, at least, you have provided no substantiation for that claim). Similarly, your conclusion regarding teen pregnancy and poverty is drawing an over generalization wholly unsupported by the evidence. Once again, I am not contesting that most people have children but rather your categorical dismissal of those who live in poverty willfully by reference to their assumed children. This is in no small part owing to people I know who defy your view on the matter.

Side: This is why
3 points

If your assumptions on poor people are your true beliefs then you have a very jaundiced view of being poor. There are many and varied reasons why and how people may be poor, and poverty is a far to broad an issue to summarise here.

There are many people who are poor that have fulfilling lives because they do not need or want the trappings of a society that is dependent upon the ideology you ascribe to those who are not.

Side: No it's not
Harvard(666) Disputed
1 point

Their lives are fulfilling until they gat into a car crash, or get fired from a job, or has a major health problem that falls outside of the realm of their insurance.

Or maybe when their child wishes to study overseas to learn better, or maybe go to a school like Stanford which costs $58,000 a year.

These examples are not 'fulfilling' their 'unfulfilling' given their limitations. Now if you don't mind dying or your child dying, not having the best education, and not having opportunities (such as studying abroad), then I suppose you can have a wicked fulfilling life.

Side: This is why
3 points

HA! Bullshit self-professed Harvard daddy's boy tosser bollocks. That's what I think. Come up with some useful material not your fucking schoolyard poetry or whatever you call what you posted xD If this site had any dignity left you'd have been laughed out by now.

Side: No it's not
Atrag(5556) Banned
2 points

Hmm.. This debate written by someone that owns at least three companies that make a profit of less than someone working night shifts as a 'lowly' security guard. Mummy and daddy's money and contacts are why many rich people are rich.

And this thing about not wanting to be rich... I don't want to be rich if it means working 100 hour weeks (I guess anything less is lazy). I want enough money to support myself and maybe a family in the future and still have enough free time to enjoy what I have.

Side: No it's not
1 point

It is an integral part of the American myth that anyone who sets his mind to it can succeed, that diligence eventually pays off. It seems to follow, then, that people who do not succeed can be held responsible for their failure. Failure, after all, is prima facie evidence of not having tried hard enough. This doctrine has special appeal for those who are doing well, first because it allows them to think their blessings are deserved, and second because it spares them from having to feel too guilty about (or take any responsibility for) those who have much less.

Some how I think these people credit themselves for being born with arms and legs.

Side: No it's not
daver(1771) Disputed
2 points

Opportunity in America is no myth. Today, people from all parts of the world, come here to make the best of the opportunity we offer. Still today, their hopes are turned into realities, because of this opportunity. To be sure, luck has a large hand in individual outcomes. Not every single opportunity leads to great wealth, but the general standard of living in America remains much higher than most of the rest of the world. Thousands join us every day. This is not because of a myth, but because here they have an opportunity to at lease try.

Side: This is why
1 point

hwoirhgkrhgfkrjhsglkfjhdrlgkhdlkhngldtkhnlgkhldkthngldkhntdlkhnglknhtlkrnhglkhtndlkhgldtjhl;ojdm.klgkhnglkjnht

gdkjhdgkjhdlkih,mjbe,jhdlihd,hd,jbd,jh,jhd,jhldhbtjbtl

jbbdkjbdlkhldtikhnkntd,bnkj

Side: No it's not
1 point

I think only a small percentage of poor people fit any of those criteria. And, I think an even smaller percentage of the soon to be rich people.

Side: No it's not
Harvard(666) Clarified
0 points

Oh? So a lot of poor people are focused on becoming rich? Wow, didn't know that. Didn't know that poor people handle their money perfectly with majority having no kids and the majority being able to afford to send their kids (if any) to private schools etc.

Side: This is why
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Poor people don't have money to handle improperly, that's a huge reason why they are poor. Many poor people work 2 jobs to survive. These blanket statements have not actually captured why poor people stay poor or why people become rich.

Side: This is why
1 point

I find more agreement with the post by Kalamazoo. I agree with the stated virtues required for productive wealth acquisition. The problem is that poverty is relative, and when a person says "I don't want to be rich", they are often already doing fine and are poor only by comparison. The hard work and time that goes into being a self-made person of wealth can be be spent virtuously on other less profitable (though still fulfilling) endeavors.

Furthermore, the summary of the argument implies that rich people are acting on behalf of their children while we must assume that poor people love their children and are thus lying.

It may be that rich people are rich as a result of virtue, but it need not be the case that relatively poor people are poor solely because of vice.

Side: No it's not
1 point

I think poor pelle are poor because they have no money. If they had money, they woulwouldn't be poor.

Basica'lly, it is like karama. They were born poor. If they were to stop complaining, then maybe they would get more karma points and reincarnate as a rich person.

But if a meteor hit Wall Street, then the rich people wouldn't have the skill set to make money and the poor people would. For example, the poor people could make money by teaching the rich people how to dumpster dive and live under bridges. Poor people would would also sell the rich people their shopping cart and make money that way.

Genetics also plays a part. Some people are born whiter than other people and/or smarter and that has to do with genetics. Show me a poor person and I'lI show you a person with bad genes.

Side: No it's not
2 points

This is true. I have noted as well that poor people are disproportionly ugly. ie damaged genes. People have equal rights, but equal abilities and potential is a fantasy.

Side: No it's not
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

You'd be surprised how well some of the poor clean up. If you were to control for negative factors during pregnancy/infancy/childhood such as improper nutrition and generally unhealthy/uncleanly conditions (both of which can result in an individual being far less attractive than their genetic potential, and both of which increase the risk for certain childhood diseases that can result in the same), I don't think you could establish a genetic factor making them overall less attractive, at least not at a higher incidence than the general population.

And of course, I presume you aren't accounting for cosmetic surgery, high end cosmetics, professional make-up artists and designers, and all of the other expensive means by which the wealthy can artificially enhance their physical attractiveness either.

There are a number of unattractive wealthy people as well, many from long-standing wealthy families. Given the availability of the aforementioned options, and the historical proclivity of the wealthy to limit potential mates to a very small pool, I think genetic factors are far more easy to both establish with the wealthy- particularly given that the wealthy tend to maintain better genealogical records.

By comparison, the lower class (and to somewhat of a lesser extent, the middle class) tend to be less discriminating in their selection of partners overall. This results in higher genetic diversity, which itself tends to result in fewer damaged genes, though it can certainly also result in less-than-ideal combinations of undamaged ones. Of course, the same conditions I mentioned before can also sometimes cause damage to the genome, but does it do so as much as or more than generations of breeding within a relatively limited gene pool?

Side: This is why