Topic: DC-Match 1 (HELM/MITAR vs FUZZPILS/RABBITWITHFANGS)

[Andail]

Match one has this subject:

Charity TV has a contra-productive effect

All the grand TV-shows that collect money to starving children in Africa etc, will in the long run only make the situation worse

Helm and Mitar support this theory, Fuzzpils and Rabbitwithfangs are con, and get the first post.

Let the debating commence.

[Fuzzpilz]

Look at those whom those charities ostensibly seek to help - starving children (plus starving adults; nobody ever seems to consider them worth mentioning) and other victims of poverty. Now, I'm not so naive as to claim or believe that the improvement of their lives is the true purpose of these shows; no, they're merely a vehicle of furthering the popularity of the participating celebrities or organizations with those who are. Sadly, most people fall for it. Try to criticise

"Wait", I hear you say, "aren't you on the wrong side there?" Not necessarily. It's a fact that hypocrisy is rampant in charitable organizations and events of all kinds. I cannot deny this. However, does this mean that they effectively work against their own alleged purpose? Let your mental eye rest for a while upon the target audience of such charity shows. While it is true that many of them are deceived into believing that enough good is being done, or even (especially in the case of the studio audience) that they themselves have done their part, do you really think that a substantial number of them would have done more to help? More importantly, would those whose money goes into the charity pot have given much without the opportunity of improving the view of them held by the public eye?

It is true that the goodwill of the public is being used. But it is also true that in order to exploit any good you do for your own advantage you first have to actually do it. To those who really need it, help given selfishly is still better than no help at all.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Charity TV has a contra-productive effect
* Eye of the tiger swells in the background. Luke prances in shadow boxing imaginary opponents. He then realises rocky was well... stupid.

Yes, Charity TV. The Fuzz has made some excellent points. I will re-iterate his conclusion, since it is indeed a good one. At the end of the day, the poor people have food and the rich people have a warm, fuzzy sense of wellbeing. What else can you ask for? There is no possible way Charity TV could have a contrapositive effect. At it's very heart, it's a win-win situation.

[shitar]

Well I can't say anything to big until Helm comes but my opinion. Though charity TV sounds like a helpful cause think it through. How much money those it cost to make a commercial. It's certainly no free or cheap. Where they get the money? Think about this. A portion of the money will go towards helping starving kids. 0% is a portion to. A portion goes towards the host and company. 100% is a portion also. Over to you Helm.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

So, Mitar claims that 0% of the money goes towards the charity. He also claims that all of the money received goes to the televison producers. What I'd like to know is who among the television producers this money goes to? Mitar hasn't given any evidence to show that either A) The proportion of the money going to each party is what he claims, or B) That any money is given to the producers at all. The producers are giving up their time and resources to raise money for charity. Mitar's claim is completely unbelieveable.

[Helm]

It's not really a matter of whether the money actually goes to where it's supposed to. In fact, even though that could be a debatable point, I'm willing to be play along with the whole procedure being clean and cosher.

The matter is, that as with any kind of charity, TV charity is counterproductive on a much more essential level. I propose the viewpoint, that any society that introduces measures that depend on the goodwill of the able to help the challenged, is ultimately a society that has lost it's focus. People in need should not have to depend on the kindness of others. They should be fortified by state regulation.

This is a problem that goes much deeper than one might originally think. It's the much debated issue of the social contract. If a person who is in need, turns to a faceless goverment institution that considers him a liability to be rid of, the essentially, the social contract forged between the people and the state has been breached.

In that case, does it matter that the priviledged, -even if it was of the goodness of their own hearts, which it's not- rush in to act as a replacement solution?

Does that occuring only serve to further distance the people in need, from a goverment seemingly faceless and distant?

For all the short-term good TV charity, or any other charity might produce, it ultimately undermines the societal structure on a much more essential level.

[Fuzzpilz]

Your point may be valid in some ways, but it only applies to local charities - and as we are talking about charity television in general, that is not enough. Besides, your "faceless government institution" argument works both ways. Is it really better to receive money from such an institution, where people are employed who do this same thing every day, so that they grow weary of it and begin treating the needy they help (according to a system as proposed by you) in such a manner that they might as well say "Here's your money, have it and be gone with you, you filthy, begging, useless old scumbeard! Next!" - is this better than receiving charitable gifts from people who, while they ultimately do it for one selfish reason or another, don't have this weariness that any daily job entails?

Also, assuming your point to be entirely valid: wouldn't then a society in which civic charity is a necessity need to be reformed? Would it not be a good thing if the populace grew less fond of the way such affairs are conducted by the state?

[Helm]

Is it really better to receive money from such an institution[...] in such a manner that they might as well say "Here's your money, have it and be gone with you, you filthy, begging, useless old scumbeard! Next!" - is this better than receiving charitable gifts from people who, while they ultimately do it for one selfish reason or another, don't have this weariness that any daily job entails?

A good point. Even in the light you put to it, without actually discussing whether this would indeed be the case or not, I think yes, it is better. Because at least a tax-based welfare system is dependable, and socially fortified even if it stops there and doesn't actually try to prevent proverty(which isn't what I'm suggesting, as you'll see below, but even if we stopped there). Even if it's abused, at least it's bound to do more good than harm on a percentage scale, because for every disgruntled, corrupt citizen that's using such a system to 'get back' at the faceless goverment, there's twenty people geniunely disabled and in honest need that stand to benefit from it, so as to not have to be degraded beyond what should be humanitarianly acceptable.

However, the attitude of the wealthy is fickle, their ambition selfish, and their attention span short; Not something one would willingly depend on, unless it's the last resort. And that it is.

Also, assuming your point to be entirely valid: wouldn't then a society in which civic charity is a necessity need to be reformed? Would it not be a good thing if the populace grew less fond of the way such affairs are conducted by the state?

Assuming my point is entirely valid: Yes. Social welfare would be the first step, not the only. There's always going to be people with incurable diseases or lame, and for them, social protection should always exist. However, for the ones in poverty, there should be made an effort on all fronts, to move towards a more social economic model, where one should be protected from the greed of the employer, and where his work is in direct relation to his needs. Even if such a system would be abused, the actual good it would do towards a goal of an educated and active society by far outweighs the occasional leech it would produce.

In this light, TV charity, or any other kind of charity is a sign that things have gone very wrong somewhere. It is a sign that private economic ambition is not only allowed, which is well and good, but also an integral part of the govermental structure, and at times substitutes a number of obligations the latter has towards the citizen.

[Fuzzpilz]

But that would not at all mean that TV (or any other) charities are in any way the cause of the problem; they would be a symptom. The changes you demand from a society that largely depends on charity are so fundamental that these charities' effect of cementing the status quo does not make enough of a difference to outweigh the good they do by helping those who fall through the cracks; their absence would not somehow magically cause this society to reform, no, it would be a symptom of the faults you assume having worsened in that the public that was previously unwilling or too lazy to help those unable to hep themselves is now not even interested in having the excuse that somebody is doing something.

Your argument fails similarly when applied to external matters such as starvation in various third-world countries. These countries are usually so extremely poor that their inhabitants simply can't afford to support each other via government means - and in fact, what government there is there tends to be rather corrupt and untrustworthy. There is so much wrong and broken there that external short-term and long-term help is strictly necessary, but whether you provide short-term or long-term help or both is merely a question of how you spend the money you're already willing to invest. Are you asking for a global system to help poorer countries develop? Here, the necessary changes are even greater and deeper than in the case of a single state's society. While I agree that charity can only be an intermediate solution, I would still say that the harm that it could possibly do (fortifying the status quo, as said before) is so minuscule compared to these obstacles that they are of no significance.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

In this light, TV charity, or any other kind of charity is a sign that things have gone very wrong somewhere. It is a sign that private economic ambition is not only allowed, which is well and good, but also an integral part of the govermental structure, and at times substitutes a number of obligations the latter has towards the citizen.

Helm has argued well, however he has not argued on topic. The topic of debate is that TV Charity has a contra-positive effect. Essentially, this means it has a bad effect. Helm hasn't argued this at all though. He has argued that it is a symptom of a breakdown in the socio-economic structure of nations. He hasn't shown that it has any negative effects though. He argues that Charity TV is merely a symptom of private economic ambition(although I fail to see why the ambitious would participate in Charity tv).  Even if Helm shows that charity tv is a direct result of the breakdown of the social contract(A flawed conception of the duties between man and state in anycase), he has not shown that Charity Tv has caused any negative effect whatsoever.

[shitar]

 I can only simply say being the con is easier. Its harder to prove something right, than it is to disprove something. I've been studying and written out the proper arithmetic. Only 6/10 people actually are in need of food when you send it over. Basically every TV charity has a scheme behind it.

 If people aren't smart enough to understand that if you don't have food you go to a better place to get food, that's not are problem. That has to do with their intelligence and survival. It causes a negative effect in a way towards the country. The country will look like it's smore powerful f it has food. Now what's the big deal with that. The government likely dosen't want the other countries  to know because the leader would feel emberassed because most of those countries in need have a bad, uncaring, snobby leader What happens countries think they're getting richer. "Hmmm, they are richer all of a sudden, they might have the money to make bombs, or other weapons (of mass destruction.)"

 I'm suggesting that in a crazy unlikely way it can lead up to a war, and TV charity is the most advertised charity. Look at North Korea. We were helping them 5 years ago, now we're going to kill them.

[Helm]

But that would not at all mean that TV (or any other) charities are in any way the cause of the problem;  they would be a symptom.

I did not imply this, nor do I believe it. I believe that (TV)charities are a flawed measure that is inherently counterproductive. Let's keep things in prespective.

The changes you demand from a society that largely depends on charity are so fundamental that these charities' effect of cementing the status quo does not make enough of a difference to outweigh the good they do by helping those who fall through the cracks;

Indeed, what I am proposing is a reevaluation on a number of cognitive social issues, one of them being charity, as it were. It fits to a grand sceme that would be current social politics, and to consider it outside it's context is naive.

Therefore, the point you make here is moot. The changes I desire, or rather, how fundamental they are does in no way undermine the validity of my position. You are essentially saying 'It's not worth the trouble, because to do what you propose would be too much work, for too little in terms of result'. That is not a proactive approach to this argument. The social reformation I propose stands to help society in a number of ways, not all of which are partaining to the discussion at hand, but that does not mean they are not there; In proposing this course of action, then, I say that great things can happen in terms of education,  culture and political awareness, and a trivial, minute byproduct would be the casting of charity redundant. Whereas I do not expect you to adress all those issues within the context of this debate, you must aknowledge their existance, and their importance.

Your argument fails similarly when applied to external matters such as starvation in various third-world countries.

To the best of my knowledge, no TV charity organizations exist that further the cause of helping third world countries. There are of course, a number of non-TV such organisations, but they are not directly relevant to the case at hand. Applying my argument to 'external matters' such as this, is going outside the strictly defined context of this debate, even if it's a logical furthering of my point.

But because I am not at all afraid to tackle this issue, and I do not want to come off as a rules lawyer, even if I could probably get away with it, this time, as irrelevant as it is, I will tell you that

Are you asking for a global system to help poorer countries develop?

Yes, I am. A sanctified UN approved system that does exactly that. And it exists.  The fate of no man should ever be left to the 'good will' of the wealthy benefactor,  for this would essentially be a round-about way to make that man a slave on a much more essential level than physical restrain would.

That sums it up pretty nicely. Now,

Helm has argued well, however he has not argued on topic. The topic of debate is that TV Charity has a contra-positive
effect. Essentially, this means it has a bad effect. Helm hasn't argued this at all though. He has argued that it is a symptom of a breakdown in the socio-economic structure of nations. He hasn't shown that it has any negative effects though. He argues that Charity TV is merely a symptom of private economic ambition(although I fail to see why the ambitious would participate in Charity tv). Even if Helm shows that charity tv is a direct result of the breakdown of the social contract(A flawed conception of the duties between man and state in anycase), he has not shown that Charity Tv has caused any negative effect whatsoever.

The byproducts of a negative procedure such as the breach of the social contract cannot stand to be anything but negative themselves. The ends do not justify the means. Moot.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Helm has argued well, however he has not argued on topic. The topic of debate is that TV Charity has a contra-positive
effect. Essentially, this means it has a bad effect. Helm hasn't argued this at all though. He has argued that it is a symptom of a breakdown in the socio-economic structure of nations. He hasn't shown that it has any negative effects though. He argues that Charity TV is merely a symptom of private economic ambition(although I fail to see why the ambitious would participate in Charity tv). Even if Helm shows that charity tv is a direct result of the breakdown of the social contract(A flawed conception of the duties between man and state in anycase), he has not shown that Charity Tv has caused any negative effect whatsoever.

The byproducts of a negative procedure such as the breach of the social contract cannot stand to be anything but negative themselves. The ends do not justify the means. Moot.

Again, Helm hasn't argument is not on topic. His model for this debate is that A) Hobbe's Social Contract Theory is true, B) The Social Contract has been broken and C) Charity TV stems from this breach and must therefore be bad.
Helm has not offered any argument as to why anyone should believe in the concept of a social contract. He has offered some argument as to why, if true, the social contract has been broken. However these arguments are not unique to social contract theory. None of the four major current ethical movements would claim that the current state of the world is ideal.  
More importantly, Helm has not argued in any way that Charity TV has a contra-positive effect. He has not shown that it directly causes negative social effects in itself, and that is what this debate is all about. Helm seems to address this is by making a blanket statement that any effect of a breach of the social contract (Which he hasn't given any evidence for) cannot have any positive effects. This position is ridiculous at best. Some good can come from anything. Not only is it far fetched however, he hasn't made any argument for why it is the case, simply an assertion. To re-iterate, helm has not offered any argument that Charity TV has direct, negative consequences. He has attempted to turn this debate into a showcase for Social Contract Theory, which is not it's topic. He admits that Charity does have some positive effects when he says "For all the short-term good TV charity, or any other charity might produce". He fails to show that Charity TV has any direct negative effects.

[shitar]

And you, have clearly failed to notice my previous posts. Well simple terms bad effect, people lose money by giving it to donations. Unless you yourself can tell me a reason why it's bad i would suggest you look more closely at ours.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

And you, have clearly failed to notice my previous posts. Well simple terms bad effect, people lose money by giving it to donations. Unless you yourself can tell me a reason why it's bad i would suggest you look more closely at ours.

You yourself admitted that the scenario you have drawn is unlikely. Not only have you admitted this however, you haven't noticed the difference between Charity TV and Government Aid. There has been no Charity TV for Korea. And if you are going to kill the North Koreans, it has nothing to do with any charity they might have previously received, and everything to do with the fact you elected cowboys as leaders.
On a more direct note however, people don't lose money by giving to charity as you claim. They are essentially purchasing a service. Instead of a massage, or a manicure however, they pay for a child to eat. They give money and get something in return, the knowledge that they have helped someone. I don't think that by helping someone and gaining a strong sense of wellbeing you have really lost anything.

[Fuzzpilz]

What I intended to say was not that the changes you propose are impossible or unattainable, or even that we shouldn't try, but that charity, whether on TV or elsewhere, is a minor obstacle, if it is one at all. That is why I pointed out how fundamental your demands are - there are so many things in the way that charity's one negative effect, that of cementing the status quo (I love this phrase for some reason) does not outweigh the short-term good that it does.

Again, I cannot see charity as anything but a symptom (in the context of your argument), albeit one that fortifies its cause - but not on such a scale that it can be viewed as counterproductive.

[Helm]

A) Hobbe's Social Contract Theory is true,

Jean Jacques Russeau. Written in 1762, 'The Social Contract'. Some respect to history, please.

Helm has not offered any argument as to why anyone should believe in the concept of a social contract.

It is not a matter of believing in it. You're experiencing it. Most western goverments abide by the 'concept' of the social contract, thus the loose, ambigious current meaning of a socialistic goverment. Go check your country's constitution, if you will, and then make an effort to at least hide your ignorance, please.

However these arguments are not unique to social contract theory. None of the four major current ethical movements would claim that the current state of the world is ideal.  

The uniqueness of my argument has to bearing to it's validity. Void.

Some good can come from anything.

No, it can't. You're undermining your effort with this statement in such an essential way, I find it somewhat humourous. Would you say something good came out of the Aryan ethic cleansing? Did killing 10 million jews and assorted, help towards decreasing overpopulation, maybe, to make a hyperbolized statement? Your naive usage of 'good' leads me to believe that you hold it at some juvenile level of percentages, or happiness v.s. harm or somesort. Well, the benefit of the people lies in their freedom to choose for themselves and in that only. Any effect that undermines this freedom, cannot be, in any way of advantage, even if it results to the wellbeing of some, because it harms in a more essential level. And, to make this relevant, I suggest that a social system that depends on TV charity, as in any form of charity, has essentially sold the fate of some people to the priviledged. Get it now? I hope I will not have to repeat my point a fourth time.

The rest of your post is of no consequence.

--

TV or elsewhere, is a minor obstacle

To admit to that it is an obstacle, no matter how minor, is to say I'm right. Which pretty much sums this debate up.

Oh, and of course my demands are fundamental. Have you ever seen any social problem be magically 'fixed' with no relation to all the other aspects of communal life? I haven't.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Jean Jacques Russeau. Written in 1762, 'The Social Contract'. Some respect to history, please.

Firstly, His name is Rousseau not Russeau. Secondly, The social contract is Hobbes' idea. You'll find it in chapters 13-15 of Leviathan published in 1651. So, Some respect for history please

It is not a matter of believing in it. You're experiencing it. Most western goverments abide by the 'concept' of the social contract, thus the loose, ambigious current meaning of a socialistic goverment. Go check your country's constitution, if you will, and then make an effort to at least hide your ignorance, please.

The fact that government has been informed by the concept of the social contract does not mean it is true. If you wish to rely on it as the foundation of your debate, you need to prove it true.

The uniqueness of my argument has to bearing to it's validity. Void.

Firstly, your sentence makes no sense. Secondly, You are arguing using inductive, and thus necessarily invalid reasoning. By logical definition, your argument cannot be valid.

No, it can't. You're undermining your effort with this statement in such an essential way, I find it somewhat humourous. Would you say something good came out of the Aryan ethic cleansing? Did killing 10 million jews and assorted, help towards decreasing overpopulation, maybe, to make a hyperbolized statement?

No, I don't think it has any bearing on overpopulation. However, If the effects of the Holocaust and subsequent education programs serve to stop similar events in the future, then I think some good at least has come of a bad situation. Hence the line "every cloud has a silver lining".

The rest of your post is of no consequence.

The fact you haven't addressed the topic of the debate is of "no consequence"?

[Fuzzpilz]

HELLO, YOU TWO. THE MATCH IS OVER. STOP POSTING.