The Instigator
Knuckles
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Chicken
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Can Communism Be Successful?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Chicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,162 times Debate No: 30278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Knuckles

Pro

My opinion is that Communism can be, and will have to be successful in the future. I will further elaborate later in the debate. I think Karl Marx was right in critiquing Capitalism the way he did and that the Proletarait are the gears of the economy.
Chicken

Con

I love Marxist Sociology, and am a Communist at heart, but even I must admit, Communism will not ever be successful, the flaws of existence make it impossible.

Resolutional Analysis:

1st- The Resolution questions whether Communism can be successful or not. Disregard Pro's remarks on Marx critiquing Capitalism.

2nd- Pro attempts to slip in a "will have to be" with the connotation that Communism "can be" successful. The resolution posses the question of whether or not Communism CAN be successful, whether it must be or not is another debate, for another time.

3rd- Definitions: Before we go anywhere, In hopes of having a real debate, the following definitions must be adhered to (If Pro believes these are too abusive, feel free to attempt to counter)

Communism- A totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production. [1]

Successful- gaining or having gained success [2]

With that said, I assume this round is for acceptance, good luck and have fun Pro.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Knuckles

Pro

I guess I should have defined my terms in the beginning. What I mean by a successful communist society, is not the kind of authoritarian state ruled by one party. Communism is an economic system not a political system. The kind of Communism I support is a communist democracy. If that were to happen, everyone would have a say and everyone would be truly equal. I, personally, don't think it will happen anytime soon. But, like you stated, is another discussion.
Chicken

Con

Structure- Pro then back to Resolutional Analysis:

PRO CASE:

1st-Wheres the argument? Note that pro fails to actually give an argument this round, rather the entire summary of Pro's round 2 is rooted in the definition of Communism.

2nd- Definitions- I will allow Pro to change the definition of Communism to reflect an economic system, rather than a political system. I apologize in advance for my misunderstanding of what Pro meant exactly. HOWEVER, I will not allow Pro to mix and match, he cannot support a Communist Democracy BECAUSE it was not made clearer in the Opening round. Therefore, to keep this debate fair, allow Pro to try and show a Communist Economy can be successful, but within the bounds of standard Communism (as labeled by my definition). This isn't abusive because
A) Pro doesn't give me any insight of the resolution until round 2, putting me at a disadvantage and
B) Pro lacks sources

3rd- TURN- Go ahead and look at Pro's statement (notice I do not call it an argument, it doesn't progressively affirm). According to Pro, If it WERE to happen, everyone would be truly equal, but Pro states himself/herself, "I, Personally, don't think it will happen anytime soon." Pro then attempts to justify this statement by saying I said it was another discussion, but Pro is strawmanning my Analysis. Con said, whether Communism MUST be successful is another debate, never did I say if Communism CAN be successful he/she is going off on a tangent. We are still arguing whether or not Communism CAN be successful, and Pro's statement only justifies voting Con due to the fact that Pro immediately raises more arguments:

A) Communism, if achieved, will not happen anytime soon (which now begs for a timeframe)
B) Con now begs the question of what equality is, and why the impact matters if we are talking about an economy (equality in relation to others, Pro doesn't define economic equality, only equality, which Con will percieve as same-status among individuals)

Onto the Resolutional Analysis:

1st- Extend- Pro has yet to prove Communism can be successful. I await an argument.

2nd- Extend Definition of Successful- Pro has yet to adhere to the definition.


As the Burden of Proof lies within Pro, I still await an argument.

IMPORTANT NOTE- If there is not an active reason to affirm, default to Con, because Pro has not fulfilled their burden.
Debate Round No. 2
Knuckles

Pro

Knuckles forfeited this round.
Chicken

Con

Pro forfeited. Extend the voter: BOP is on Pro to provide a case to support whether or not Communism can be successful.

Extend the Resolutional Analysis. Pro has yet to meet his BOP, and therefore has not proven Communism can be successful. Vote con due to the automatic negation of the resolution until pro creates an actual case.

Finally- Extend the turns, only actual topical ground in the round past analysis and definitions, these give automatic reasons to vote con.

I will allow Pro to create a case in round 4, but conduct should be deducted from pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Knuckles

Pro

Knuckles forfeited this round.
Chicken

Con

Another FF, Extend Turns, Analysis...
Debate Round No. 4
Knuckles

Pro

Knuckles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
chicken- why do you say you are a communist at heart rather then supporting a possible form of government. You yourself say it isn't possible, thanks.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 3 years ago
ockcatdaddy
KnucklesChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I strongly disagree with pro
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
KnucklesChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con because of pro's FF. Arguments to con because it seems pro does not know his info as well as con does, and he does not elaborate enough. FF didn't help with that either. Sources are even becuase dictionary definitions do not necessarily count as arguments, and pro didn't have them either. S&G is even also.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
KnucklesChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to support BOP. F.F.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
KnucklesChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct speaks for itself
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
KnucklesChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is preposterous, but that aside PRO forfeited, offered no arguments which might even remotely have the characteristic of being compelling, and offered no sources. CON, in contrast, did not forfeit rounds, made arguments which were sufficient to overwhelm PRO, and made use of sources which were superior to the non-existant ones of PRO.