The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

I do not think that the rich should have to give away thier money to be socially acceptable. It is thier money and in most cases, they have earned it. I reilize thier are some people who have inherited it. Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person? By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society.

Of course the rich have to give away their money to be socially acceptable. They must do this in order to survive. Already at this very moment a new revelution is being planned (headed by myself of course) to overturn the rich. The modern form of bourgeois are going to be slaughtered in their thousands unless they share part of their wealth.

"Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person?"

Because they'll DIE thats why!

"By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society"

Clearly not, their simply making the people on welfare become exceptionally grumpy and they will eventually rise up against the rich and their hard earned cash. They'll riot and the destruction will be devastating. These riots will send America into an even greater depression then the last one.

I urge the voters to vote CON, support the rioters and overturn the bourgeois!

Without the rich the country woiuld colapse, and many leadrs in the world agree that America is the leader of the free world. So you could say that the fre world would colapse without America. How would America fall apart? Simple. The top ten percent of America pays over 50% of the taxes in America. How? Because thery have more money to tax of cource. If you started a rebellion and overturned the rich by I dont know killing them I guess America would lose 50% of its money paying for those unproductive people to be on welfare. The rich have to be productive (to make them rich)so if you "overturn them busnesses would fail, meaning product prices would go up causing the poor to die from hunger esier. So overturning the rich is not an option. My openents only argument is that this would happen if the rich did not give away their money. I feel that I have disproved this argument about a rebbellion agiast the "bourgeois".

My opponent has based his argument on the fact that if we overturned the rich, their money would simply dissapear. America does not need the rich to survive, in fact it only need their MONEY to survive.

And by overturning them WE could take over their buisnesses, so they would not fail. The wealth of the rich would be spread out a bit more equally, therefore removing the people on welfare, meaning less taxes would be spent on welfare, therefore improving the economy and showing that overturning the rich IS an option

My oponent states that "we" could take over the rich's business. However if any of the people who are going to take over the rich's place as head of the business then wouldn't they have a suceseful business already. I don't know about you but I dont want any old hobo on the street running the economy of America. Here is the thing about the rich. Most of them are educated. Heres the thing about homeless people, they are generally not well educated.
Also when my openent talks about "spreding around the wealth", she is just saying Comunism in a fancy way. I hope you found this debate to be compelling, and my arguments to be good, the best of luck to my openent.

Of course any old hobo wouldn't be running these buisnesses. There are many poor educated people in america. And why couldn't a poor person run a buisness as well as a rich person. Ah, my opponent says that rich people are generallu more "educated". There are many people at the heads of buisnesses who havn't been "educated" or have buisness degree's.

Here are a few who were in fact COLLEGE DROP OUTS:

1) Bill Gates-founder of Microsoft
2) Michael Dell-founder of Dell Computers
3) Steve Jobs-co-founder of Apple Computers
4) Steve Wozniak-co-founder of Apple Computers
5) David Geffen-co-founder of Dreamworks, SKG
6) Larry Ellison-founder of the database company Oracle
7) William Hanna-of the cartoon producers Hanna-Barbera
8) Sheldon Adelson-real estate and casino owner
9) Jack Taylor-Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Source: http://www.helium.com/items/794842-something-really-surprised-began

These people were not fully educated, they dropped out of college. So according to my opponents logic, they should not have become the great buisnessmen they are today.

"Spreading the weath a little more equally" is not communism in a fancy way. I really don't see where communism comes into this now. I'm not trying to become a dictator or anything... or am I....??? >:D

Best of luck to ye' in yer future projects, thanks for the debate