Replace Voting With Spending

I believe my opponent's committing a strawman fallacy; a misinterpretation of my stance then proceeding to refute said misinterpretation.Defense:"It's true that, if voting is replaced by spending, a rich person will have more influence than a poor person. But if it's truly beneficial for everyone to have the same influence, then why have any spending at all?"Money's made to be profit. Big companies like Nintendo need money to make video games, which they sell video games to make money."Why not replace all spending with voting?"Because that would be ridiculous. Who would be voting that I should get a new video game? Money's a thing because profit. If it's whoever gets the most funding becomes president, the system can be abused. For buying groceries, then money would become obsolete."Right now a rich person can donate more money to the Red Cross than a poor person can. Right now a rich person can buy a bigger house than a poor person can. Right now a rich person can buy more food than a poor person can."Common sense. Your point is?"You seem to think it's harmful that some people can spend more money than other people. But you haven't argued that we should entirely replace spending with voting. Why is that?"Because technically buying groceries is irrelevant to this debate, which is soley about whether we should fund for presidents or vote. This is a strawman and a red herring."You think it's detrimental to have inequality in the public sector, so shouldn't you also think it's detrimental to have inequality in the private sector as well?"Not sure what you mean by that, but I don't know if it's relevant. You're starting to ask me questions about why I think funding in general is bad, which is 1) outside of the scope of the debate, and 2) avoiding my arguments altogether."The reason that inequality happens is that people don't spend their money equally."I mean, yeah. My family isn't Donald Trump or anything. But this inequality is exactly where my argument is coming from, but specifically in terms of rich people would spend more on their favorites."Imagine you harvest some poison oak and take it to the farmer's market to sell. Are people going to give you any money? Are people going to equally divide their limited money with you and the vendors selling artichokes, corn, tomatoes and other beneficial, delicious, nutritious and useful things? Of course not. People aren't crazy."1) Why would I be touching and selling poison oak? That's an awful idea, since it makes you itch. 2) I'd rather be making video games, which would be at a set price. If they can't afford it, they don't get it. That's how economy works, even with groceries. 3) You aren't proposing that politicians sell things to make money, you're proposing we spend on them; funding. 4) If I was a politician and I knew some rich people, I'd get them to fund me $10,000 or maybe more. (If I wanted to be president that badly, anyways.) [After looking through this again, I see where you're going. Most politicians wouldn't outright say they're evil, since that's a poor move. Doesn't mean they can't go to their rich friends to fund.]"In a market, we all use our money to rank/judge/valuate how other people are using society's limited resources. If people think you are stupidly using (aka "wasting") society's limited resources... then they won't give you any money. This logically and naturally limits the amount of resources that are wasted."I'm not following. What resources get wasted? If anything, it's the customers who waste their money if they buy an Iphone just to break it. (there's a few videos on Youtube for this)"Everyday everybody judges how well everybody else is using society's limited resources. You want to disregard the results of this powerful process and give everyone equal influence in the public sector. But if you're so willing to disregard people's evaluations of each other's uses of society's limited resources, then why not do so entirely? Why not replace all markets with democracy?"I never said spending is bad. Because how society works, money is very important. Resources cost money, which is why charities ask for funding. A politician doesn't really need resources, unless they're redirecting the funding into charity (which the original spender could do themself).Money isn't a way to judge whether something's better than another thing. It can also mean lots of rich people funded for Person A because they're friends. Unless thousands of people's funds can outweigh a few $10,000 from the rich people, the voices of the poorer people are irrelevant in this system. To make sure rich people don't make an election one sided, we instead let the people have 1 vote each, then judge based on popular preference instead of "Who can afford to spend $10,000 on this politician?".So I'll restate my stance: If we change the system to funding, this asbically means richer people can 'vote' many times by spending $2,000, whereas some can only afford to spend $50, which quickly becomes irrelevant when the rich people spend a collective $5,000,000 on Person A, and Person B only has $1,000 of funding. The system can be abused too easily. Economy doesn't care about popularity or rich people as long as they can afford the product so the creator makes profit.