A system of true Capitalism is the most beneficial system for the world
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments, Pro is not allowed to rebut arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals of oponnents arguments, pro is not allowed to defend his arguments
Round 4: Defense of your arguments.
1.1. Don't troll.
2. Keep your arguments on topic, while K's are allowed if you are making a K keep it as relevant as you can.
3. No forfeiture.
4. No semantics. If you accept this debate you agree to the terms layed out by myself.
Failure to follow these rules results in full forfeiture of 7 points to the opposing side.
True Capitalism- The economic system of complete free trade with absolute minimal governemnt intervention with the majority of the economy being privately owned.
Most beneficial system- The system that causes the greatest good for the greatest number of people as well as the greatest for the planet we live in. This takes into account social, economic, political, and the enviornment
The world- Planet Earth
Good luck to my opponent and I hope we have a good debate. Now let's get started.
I will be arguing that a system of true capitalism would be a very bad thing for this world.
Contention 1: Capitalism is unsustainable
Capitalism is growth based. "It has to run to stand" "It has to grow bigger" says David Kitching, renewable energy consultant at the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. Kitching highlights many different reasons as to why Capitalism is unsustainable in his article is 'sustainable capitalism' an oxymoron.
It's like building a house of cards. It's gonna get bigger and bigger until it all comes crashing down. In growth based Capitalism there is an everincreasing supply and production. This is done because as corporations and companies make more money they increase production and grow their business in order to increase profits. This causes competitors to need to grow in order to keep up.
Growth is also simply what the investors want. They want the company to grow so their stocks become worth more and they make more money as well.
With everincreasing production that means everincreasing resource consumption. When these corporations are so caught up consuming resources they lose sight of the very source of how many resources there actually are. They forget how available said resources really are. Eventually the resources will either be ran dry, or they will be inaccessible for extraction in a profitable manner. When that point is reached it will result in economic collapse, the very foundation of what the economy is built on will disapear.
And, I'm not the only one who sees this. Writer Minqi Li writes about this in his book Minqi The End of the “End of History”: The Structural Crisis of Capitalism and the Fate of Humanity. Li is a proffessor of economics at the University of Utah, so he is clearly a fairly reliable source.
Li states that soon "its massive demand for energy and materials can no longer be sustained." Energy is a more specific example of how Capitalism is unsustainable, but it will happen much sooner than many of the other causes.
Contention 2: Unregulated Capitalism is a one way ticket to serious harm or destruction of the planet.
Resource depletion isn't the only harm of increased consumption of resources. A big issue is how we get the resources and how our methods and actions impact the world around us. Capitalism will often ignore this issue in the name of profit.
Let's take author Ted Trainer's writing "Towards a sustainable economy". To quote the man
"Our resource-affluent way of life also causes many serious environmental problems. We are destroying vital ecological systems. Consider, for example, the greenhouse problem, acid rain, the destruction of forests, the spread of deserts and the loss of plant and animal species. At the present rate, more than a million species will disappear in the next 25 years, because the expansion of human economic activity is destroying habitats"
One of the most serious problems that we have capitalist expansion to thank is our farming methods depleting soil of nutrients and just moving on. To quote Trainer
"One of the most unsustainable aspects of our society is the way we continually take large quantities of nutrients from the soil, eat them and then throw them away. We are depleting our soils at a rapid rate."
To take another quote: "Most of these ecological problems are direct consequences of the sheer amount of producing and consuming going on" As I proved in my last contention that this is because of growth based Capitalism.
So then there's the important question of why this happens and if Capitalism can be blamed. Well let me tell you why Capitalism can be blamed for this and true Capitalism would only make the situation worse.
The methods that cause the most issues are usually the cheapest methods. Capitalists will almost always work for short term profit instead of focusing on the long term situation. Why? Because, they are so distracted and caught up in the never ending journey to make more and more money they become blind to the effects of their own actions. In a system of true capitalism no one will be able to change this. No one will be able to stop corporations from only using the cheapest and most destructive methods. The only change will come once their methods no longer work and by then the damage done will be beyond irreversible. So then there's the question. What's the alternative? Government intervention. Governement control and regulation. The government needs to force corporations to use methods that are not the most profitable, but instead the most sustainable and the least invasive to the planet.
Contention 3: War
Capitalism is a driving force for war. Under Capitalism a nation will be willing to go to a war or escalate a conflict for the simple purpose of attemptng to maintain corporations' resource supply. This can be seen with intervention in the Iran-Iraq war.
To quote Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of naval staff of India "corporate driven military might unleashes pre-emptive wars, invasions and occupations"
"The unlimited quest for establishing monopoly over the planet earth’s resources and markets , has led the world to witness unending wars"
Bhagwat claims that Capitalism is "accelerating the death and destruction that we have witnessed , all across the globe be it in Angola , Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan , Iraq , Palestine , Central and Latin America , Yugoslavia , Lebanon , Gaza and earlier in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia"
Another source who agrees on the matter is John Foster, a proffessor of sociology at Oregon University. Foster is clearly a reliable source as he is a proffessor of the topic that is heavily involved in the Capitalsim debate. Foster argues that a global system of Capitalism ensures imperialistic practices that result in resource wars. If a global system is kept these resource wars will not stop, and as weapon technology advances, bombs become more deadly, and more nukes are made the problem only will grow as a threat to humanity.
Contention 4: Capitalism is immoral
For Capitalism to exist and function there has to be a division of people by classes. With globalizations this function has done a good job to expand across the world. The lowest class in the American system of Capitalism is insanely different from the lowest class in the global system of Capitalism.
Under the system of true Capitalism the low classes are not helped. They are exploited and trapped in place, because they are needed to do the systems manual labor. They are needed to produce resources and manufacture them in sweatshops. Because Capitalism makes this process as cheap as humanly possible these jobs are dangerous, ridiculously low wage, and mindnumbing long hours of work.
The richest corporations are raking in billions off the backs of the starving and the desperate. Sure it's easy to just pretend this issue is'nt there for us in the 1st world countries and just reap the benefits of the labour, but it's just not moral. Something needs to be done and first things first the problem and the reason for this injustice is Capitalism.
You know what one of the worst things about it is? Most of them aren't out there making MRIs or vaccines or medication. No, they're out there making Iphones. Their out there working for Niki making the next coolest shoes, or they're out their mining blood diamonds for our Capitalist society because we tell ourselves that for a man to tell a woman he wants to spend his life with her he has to spend thousands on a diamond mined by starving African child. These waged slaves and sometimes legitimate slaves are out there giving their lives and getting worked to death to make corporations money and make our lives slightly more convenient.
We can not morally sit here and do nothing about this.
I'm not the only one who believes Capitalism to be immoral. The famous philosopher Slavoj Zizek is on my side with this one. In his book "Violence" he talks about how under the system of Capitalism the situation of the economy is all that is cared about by Capitalists and the people are treated like dirt. To give an analogy Capitalists treat people in society like the bees in the beehive. They don't care about the bees' situation in the hive. They only care about the honey that is produced. The bees could all be dying of disease or prospering and living happily. They just don't care.
The example Zizik gives is that there is a society where the people are miserable. People's lives are falling apart. The enviornemnt is decaying. The situation is obviously horrible. However, the economist report comes in and according to it everything is going amazing because they are still producing. The workers are dehumanized, uncared for, and seen as just another way to make a few dollars.
Next to quote the author Laura Kerr "during the best of times capitalism’s dependency on social hierarchies — coupled with its unpredictable cycles of growth and retraction — raises anxiety, sometimes to the level of traumatic stress"
"capitalism creates a state similar to the psychological domination when people are held in captivity"
Capitalism works workers so hard and throws them into a cycle of constant anxiety and soulcrushing work their condition is so bad it's similar to those held in captivity.
Just think about that for a minute. Is a system that puts people in that condition moral? No. It's not.
Capitalism is the "most beneficial system for the world" because it provides a framework in which people are free to pursue their self-interests, yet the end result is the maximization of the collective good. Everyone in society engages in voluntary transactions to obtain what they don't have, and because all these transactions are based upon the same, consistent standard -- the maximization of self-interest -- well-established economic principles (e.g. laws of supply/demand, marginal utility, comparative advantage, etc) are able to operate on macro and micro scales to organize the production, distribution, and circulation of resources in a way that the vast majority of people in society have their needs fulfilled.
Explaining how each of these principles works and how they interact with each other to organize the economy in 10,000 characters is impossible, so instead of trying, I am just going to refer the readers to a generic introductory economics textbook, in which all such knowledge can easily be found . The only role which the government needs to play in society is guaranteeing protection of people's property rights, which is necessary for people to be willing to engage freely in voluntary transactions. The point of all this is that Capitalism is theoretically flawless. As for the empirical aspect of things, one need not look far to find evidence that countries with higher levels of economic freedom (i.e. being closer to "true capitalism") tend to be the ones with higher standards of living .
That's all I've got. The resolution is affirmed.
I would like to thank my opponent for his response and if that is all he can offer due to time restraints I understand. Hopefully a better responce can happen for round 3.
Because my opponent's arguments are meshed together I will do my best to separate it into two different contentions. Now to begin my rebuttals I will kritik my opponent's arguments.
Rebuttal/Kritik: My opponents arguments are all centered on the 1st world
All he talks about is how Capitalim benefits those in the 1st world. They are a small percent of the worlds population relative to the rest. To put it simply my opponent isn't looking at the big picture. By only focusing on a small part of the real process you become blind to what your actions really do. We need to look at the whole picture to determine what is the best thing to do.My opponent simply fails to do this.
Let me give you a scenario.
Well we don't really know what happened here, but by my opponents logic what was done must be good because the end result was good. Right? So, by my opponent's logic it would make sense to have this process repeated despite not really knowing what it is and not knowing if it is moral or if it is harmful.
Now let's reveal the truth about what happens.
Process: Mugging innocent people.
Aren't we glad we did not follow the logic of my opponent so we did not continue having something immoral as that despite it benefiting us.
Now you may be asking, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Well let me tell you. Pro's logic and arguments about Capitalism is similar. He is presented with the end result and likes it without taking into account the proccess of getting to that end result. That is a logic that needs to be rejected. So based on this K you should reject Pro's arguments on the basis they do not take the whole picture into account.
Now I will rebut his points about why Capitalism is good.
Rebuttal 1: Freedom
I will be making multiple points to rebut this argument.
1. True capitalism is not the only system that give it's members freedom. Some may say "well communism or socialism isn't very free so Capitalism seems to give the most freedom." Well now let me explain to you why that's not true. It's not 3 points where you chose one or the other two. It's a spectrum. A system can not be a system of true Capitalism while still offering a great deal of freedom. For example let's take the U.S. It's a capitalist country, but it is far froma system of true capitalism. There is a lot of governement regulation of corporations and moderate to high taxes. However, citizens of the U.S. have a decent amount of freedom.
Now let's take an even better example. Western European countries. They are far from a truly capitalist system, yet they have a lot of freedom and some of the best living conditions.
2. Capitalism creates situations for people that are anything but free. For example, let's take sweatshop workers. They are a result of capitalist production. That is for the most part an undeniable fact. Let's ignore the governement in this scenario and how much freedom the government gives them. Let's focus on their job and situation in life. They are not in a free position. Now you may be saying how is that Greg? They're free to walk away from their jobs at any time right? Can they really? Think about it.
They are in that position of horrible conditions not because they want to, they're doing it because they have to. They have to feed their families and themselves. They're so desperate for any means of survival they are willing to put themselves in those horrible condition, and corporations capitalize of that. They take advantage of their desperation to make money and throw them into a hellhole they label as a workplace. These people don't have freedom. They're trapped. They are stuck in this system even though they technically can leave.
They're like slaves, but just slaves with a wage.
Rebuttal 2: Economy
I have a few points to rebut my opponents arguments.
1. The credibility and use of sources is very important here. I have used plenty of sources from a variety of different places from credible authors. My opponent litterally just dropped a link to somewhere we can buy a textbook about economics. Come on. You can't just drop a textbook hundreds of pages long in a debate without sumarizing it or bringing up specific points from said book and just say read this it proves I'm right.
The book doesn't even argue that true capitalism is the best system in the world. That's not even the point of a textbook. Textbooks are there to give objective points about facts, not subjective views of opinions. You could have at least linked a site where we could read the book not a site where we can pay 100 to buy it. You can find a pdf for the book here: http://sangu.ge...;
My opponent fails to point out any quotes or sections of said textbook, which means this source should not be considered as it is next to impossible to read the textbook in the 24 hour timeframe I have to post this round.
The only other source my opponent gives is a map of where in the world has the most economic freedom, while useful information it does not back up any of his claims. So this source should also not be considered.
Therefore my opponent has no sources backing up his claims and they are bare assertions.
2. My opponent only looks at Capitalism in the realm of economics. While I concede that true Capitalism is good for the short term economy that does not mean that Capitalism is the most beneficial system to the world. My opponent fails to explain why a better economy is best for the world. My opponent also does not look at Capitalism in aspects such as social or enviornmental which are critical to the world and are very important factors in deciding if this is the most beneficial system for the world.
3. Capitalism is not best for the economy long term because it is unsustainable. You can see the sources and arguments provided in my previous round to prove this point.
4. Many of my opponent's arguments are based on the teachings of Adam Smith and only economists such as Adam Smith. While Smith was an absolute genious and his ideas are very
important today there are a few problems with only bases your beliefs on Smith's teachings.
A. Smith's work took place in a time period where very little was known about the effects of production, therefore those critical factors were left out of his ideas. For example the knowledge of enviornmental impacts of our production were unheard of in Smith's time. Therefore, basing all of your ideas on teachings such as Smith's is like taking one fourth of the picture and thinking you understand the whole picture based on just that one fourth.
B. Karl Marx started a path of new ideas about the effects of production that are critically important to understand and consider while concluding your stance on Capitalism. Smith's ideas came 50 years before Marx's ideas. In other words Smith's arguments are missing a whole side of the debate that is critical to know.
C. Smith was simply too optimistic for realalistic views on the world.
5. "Capitalism is theoretically flawless" Theorieticly is the key word here. You know what else is theoreticly flawless? Communism. Does that mean its a flawless system? Hell no. If a system is theoreticly flawess caries no weight whatsoever in the debate of the real world.
I understand Capitalism is arguably an amazing system saying that it is perfect is absolutely ridiculous.
Contrary to what Pro said, the resolution is negated. I rest my case.
I had to write this in about 15 minutes, so please excuse any errors...
I'll start off by saying that the voters should stop reading here and VOTE PRO because even if Con's case is 100% true, he still hasn't made even a single drop in the bucket of his burden of proof, as he has not described any alternatives to capitalism. He can sit there and list off bad things about capitalism all day and it still will not show that it isn't the best system; as long as there are no alternatives to it, capitalism will still technically be the 'best', as far as this debate is concerned. Con has failed to fulfill his BoP at all, whereas I have at least provided a topical argument -- that capitalism is theoretically perfect (a claim validated with empirical evidence) and therefore necessarily the best. Thus, my BoP is more fulfilled than Con's, and it's too late for him to do anything about it. Vote Pro.
Now onto the actual substance of his case (just for lolz)
Pro argues that because capitalism results in economic growth, the economy will eventually outgrow the carrying capacity of the planet and the world will end. However, this is a non-unique objection, as it can be applied to any economic system. No matter what the system, population growth is inevitable, and with that naturally comes economic expansion. As long as there is a finite amount of resources in existence, *all* systems are "unsustainable".
I agree that, left unregulated, the activities of corporations will destroy the environment. However, note that the definition of capitalism does allow for some very minimal government intervention in order to protect people's rights. The environmental repercussions of corporate activities harm everyone in society through property damage and sometimes even death toll. Thus, the government is justified in regulating interactions with the environment on the basis that doing so preserves the rights of its citizens. Capitalism does not prohibit that sort of government intervention.
Con is factually wrong, here -- historically, capitalism has *reduced* the amount of international military conflicts; this is a concept known as the "Capitalistic Peace", and it is widely accepted among economists and political scientists . When a country becomes economically interdependent through capitalistic free trade (which almost all of the world's countries are, at this point), the welfare of the population (and, by extension, the government) becomes tied to the success and continuation of international trading relations. As a result, waging war becomes *extremely* costly (beyond just the military expenses and risk of losing) -- war results in the halting of trade and therefore incurs severe economic repercussions. One study which incorporated data from nearly every country in the world showed that for the average country in today's globally capitalistic world, the domestic economic costs of war actually *exceed* the military ones . In that way, capitalism actually deters wars.
The flaw with this argument is very simple -- it assumes that morality exists. The wordings of the resolution to not give us any reason to assume that, as it is purely about the pragmatic benefits/harms of capitalism. Without first warranting belief in moral realism, this argument falls completely flat. Moreover, none of his bold claims in this section have sources supporting them (check the links for yourself), and therefore can be be dismissed off-hand.
The resolution remains affirmed.
Now I will be moving on to defense of arguments.
" he still hasn't made even a single drop in the bucket of his burden of proof"
Really now? Have I not. Up until this point I have 4 times the sources you have. The sources I provide are from credible authors. Your sources don't even back up the claims you make. If anything I have provided my side of the burdon of proof and you have failed to do so.
"he has not described any alternatives to capitalism"
1. I don't have to. If I can prove true capitalism is very bad for the world then I should win this debate. The resolution contains no requirment of an alternative.
2. This isn't even true. In my seccond contention I talk about the alternative to true Capitalism of high government regulation and control. I have proved this alternative avoids the reasons I give of why Capitalism are bad for the world.
" Con has failed to fulfill his BoP at all, whereas I have at least provided a topical argument"
You did the exact same thing I did. You just listed off some good things about Capitalism. If my argument isn't topical, then neither is yours.
"that capitalism is theoretically perfect (a claim validated with empirical evidence)"
Really? Where's your evidence. No evidence that you offered proves or even supports that Capitalism is theoretically perfect. Anyways, as I stated before how great something is in theory holds no weight in the discussion of reality. Let's take communism. On paper, it's a great idea. In theory it's perfect, but is it a perfect idea? No, it's far from it.
Contention 1: Unsustainable
"Pro argues that because capitalism results in economic growth, the economy will eventually outgrow the carrying capacity of the planet and the world will end"
That's a very small part of my argumnt, but ok.
"However, this is a non-unique objection, as it can be applied to any economic system. "
Not nessasarily. Sustainable development is a huge possibility, however it is impossible with no government intervention meaning sustainable development under Capitalism is impossible. I went more in depth with this on Round 2.
"No matter what the system, population growth is inevitable, and with that naturally comes economic expansion. As long as there is a finite amount of resources in existence, *all* systems are "unsustainable"."
However, due to the nature and practices of Capitalism the system is far more enviornmentally unsustainable than any other economic system.
Contention 2: Enviornment
"I agree that, left unregulated, the activities of corporations will destroy the environment."
Then why do you support Capitalism? In the system of true capitalism there is absolutely minimal governement intervention. Under true capitalism this will just become an ever increasing problem.
"However, note that the definition of capitalism does allow for some very minimal government intervention in order to protect people's rights. "
Ok there's a few key conepts here. "Minimal" and "In order to protect people's rigths"
Minimal government intervention is nowhere near enough to mitigate or stop the problem of enviornmental destruction caused by Capitalism.
And, once these problems get to the point where these regulations are protecting people the problem has simply gone too damn far. Not to mention by that point in time we likely will be past the point of no return.
Contention 3: War
The sources Pro provides do not back up his claims that Capitalism reduces war. The first source he provides is just a general overview of Capitalism. The seccond source you provide is stating that the domestic costs of war exceed the military costs.
On the otherhand my claims are backed up by reliable sources while Pro has failed to back up any of his claims with evidence so far.
Contention 4: Cap is immoral
Ok I will admit that I worded the contention badly, however if you actually read my arguments in this contention I talk about how Capitalism negatively affects the people that live inside the system of Capitalism. That still counts as reasons why Capitalism is bad for the world in general.
"none of his bold claims in this section have sources supporting them"
I honestly wonder if you actually read the sources I gave because they do in fact back up my claims. The one person who's evidence doesn't back up their claims here is you.
This is easily the worst debate I've done recently because of how rushed I was while writing each round (including this one). Maybe we can redo the debate eventually.
== My Argument ==
To summarize -- I argued that capitalism is based on a set of principles which in theory function to drive the economy and allocate resources in a maximally efficient manner (which is necessarily the 'most beneficial' for the world). This was backed up with:
(i) the fact that economists universally accept the accuracy of these principles as fundamental assumptions necessary to continue with any study of economics
(ii) the evidence that the closer a country is to the ideal of 'true capitalism' (i.e. the more economic freedom a country has), the more prosperous it is.
Now to address a couple of the objections Con brought up.
a. Just because I didn't quote parts of the textbook doesn't mean voters should dismiss it offhand. My point was that the principles which form the theoretical basis of "true capitalism" are so fundamental to the study of economics that they are explained in literally every introductory economics textbook. In other words, economists universally accept that the principles governing "true capitalism" work as they should.
b. Con misunderstands my Heritage study regarding economic freedom, perceiving it to mean "freedom" in the traditional sense of the word. However, in the context of my source, "economic freedom" specifically means having a lack of government intervention and allowing private institutions to control the economy; thus, true capitalism is essentially the epitome of economic freedom, and my source demonstrates that being closer to that ideal results in greater prosperity.
c. Communism isn't even close to theoretically perfect; economists have identified multitudes of problems with it on the conceptual level, such as the lack of incentive to work and Marx's theory about labor defining a good's value (rather than supply/demand) being fundamentally wrong. Moreover, whereas I have been able to provide evidence that "true capitalism" is empirically beneficial, no such evidence exists for communism-- most communistic societies have crashed and burnt.
d. None of Con's claims about the alleged irrelevance of Adam Smith's ideas are sourced, and should be appropriately dismissed. The human tendency to pursue self-interest in their transactions has not changed since the 19th century, and therefore the principles of economics which Smith popularized still hold true today. Furthermore, Con does not show that the non-inclusion of Marx's ideas is a bad thing... as he himself noted, most of Marx's economic ideas were flat out wrong.
e. It is worth noting that the current world order is NOT the result of "true capitalism". It is the result of imperialistic actions in the past which were violations of others' property rights and therefore inherently ANTI-capitalistic.
f. Con's claim that a good economy isn't necessarily good for society is absurd. A good economy is *by definition* beneficial because it means that resources are being distributed in a way which increases utility to society.
** Re: Environment / Unsustainability **
I argued that because environmental harm results in the violation of people's property rights, even the minimalist government of "true capitalism" is allowed to place regulations on corporations to prevent them from destroying the environment. Con just responds by emphasizing "minimal", but like I said, the definition of "minimal government" in the context of libertarian 'laissez-faire' capitalism is that it only intervenes to preserve people's rights. Since environmental protection is a form of rights preservation, a minimalist government *is* allowed to put such regulations into place.
== Conclusion ==
Now onto the reason why you should vote Con in this debate
Last round, I brought up the criticism that without presenting an alternative system and showing how it's better than capitalism, it is impossible for Con to negate the resolution (because as long as capitalism is the only potential system in existence, it is technically the 'best' one). The only way Con really responds to this is by pointing to a statement he made in Round 2: "What's the alternative? Government intervention. Governement control and regulation. The government needs to force corporations to use methods that are not the most profitable, but instead the most sustainable and the least invasive to the planet." Not only is this alternative incredibly vague, but he never actually shows how it would solve for any of capitalism's problems; the only thing he says is that government intervention could solve the problem of environment unsustainability, but as I have already explained, even the minimalist government of "true capitalism" could engage in such intervention, so that's a non-unique advantage.
So as far as this debate is concerned, we have seen three "systems" mentioned. The resolution asks which one is the "best for the world".
-- Communism, which Con concedes is a terrible system.
-- "True Capitalism", which I have demonstrated with theoretical and empirical support to be the best system (because it allocates resources in a maximally efficient manner i.e. generates the most utility to society). Con lists off a bunch of problems with it, but the world has scarce resources, so it is to be expected that even the best possible system will have problems. Con must show that some other system has *less* problems in order for his arguments to have any impact.
-- Capitalism w/ government intervention, which Con has failed to give *any* positive argument in favor of, or demonstrate *any* actual advantage it has over "true capitalism".
It is clear that, out of these three, "True Capitalism" is the best for the world.
The resolution is affirmed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision:  Conduct: PRO violated one of CON's rules, thus I gotta give it to CON. Full forfeiture seems inappropriate since the debate structure is somewhat ambiguous. I didn't initially catch it myself.  Spelling/Grammar: Equal Convincing Arguments: PRO. See comments for detailed analysis.  Reliable Sources: Equal.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Con made the debate and is against the resolution, both sides hold the burden of proof to indicate why true capitalism is or isnt the most beneficial system for the world. Now, con kicked absolute a** in proving that a system of true capitalism has its faults and shortcomings, but in addition to proving that much, con also holds the burden of proof to present a better system for the world, not just sh** on true capitalism. Had the debate been 'True capitalism has no faults', then con would have won this debate in a landslide, but because the debate is whether or not it's the most beneficial system, con is required to present and argue for an alternative system that is more beneficial for the world than true Capitalism. Con failed to do this, and thus partially failed to substantiate the Burden of Proof he held in the debate, so arguments go to con, but only on technicality, not because of con's arguments, which were strong as hell.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.