The Instigator
FunkeeMonk91
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,433 times Debate No: 1876
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (31)

 

FunkeeMonk91

Pro

Capitalism is the most useful, most practical, and best economic system there is. It just makes sense.

First of all, many people say that the government has an obligation to help the marginalized. Their solution: take from others to give to the poor. While their intentions are good, this is not a healthy practice. Things like welfare are like legal theft. Yes, there are people who need my money more than I do. But it is for me to decide how I spend it.

In Capitalism, everyone has a chance to move up in society. Many will argue that this is a nearly impossible feat, but just look at the hundreds of thousands of stories about how our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers came to this country with nothing, but ended up being very successful. This is called the American dream, and without capitalism, that dream could not happen.

I think it can be safe to say that the sole purpose of the law is to maintain justice. Right? So to have things like welfare, and even things like Affirmative Action, are abusing the legislative powers that our officials have. When the government gets involved in things other than protecting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," things get messy. And to avoid this socio-economic "mess" we look to Capitalism. No, Capitalism is not perfect, but what system is? By being laissez-fare, we are ensuring that everyone has an equal chance.

Again, it isn't perfect, but Capitalism is the most inclusive and hands off, and therefore the best, most practical economic system.
Yraelz

Con

Alright, this should be interesting, thank you for posting it.

I am going to attack your point on two different points, those being Communism and Selective Socialism.

So let me begin with Communism which I will offer a definition for.

COMMUNISM - An economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Basically government has national control of everything. Through such a system the people work to support their community. They may get some form of a payed wage but it will be a national paid wage. Under this system every person will be guaranteed access to all major industries for no cost and have a set income to spend on luxuries.

Benefit you ask?

1. No one is starving on the streets, everyone has access to food. Everyone has access to health care, everyone has a house (you can even make your house pretty if you want).

2. Where as we currently have hundreds of companies in hundreds of different industries all competing against each other wasting million upon millions or even billions of dollars to competition, constantly running each other out of business Communism would stop this needless waste of money. The money then could be used for one of two things. A. Used to develop more efficient technology. B. Given back to the people as a means to purchase luxuries.

3. Efficiency, competition in the global market. How do you compete with an industry that funnels all of its money through one national company? How do you become more efficient than that? What country could possibly compete with the technological advances that would be inherent to such a country?

So onto my second ideal: Selective Socialism.

This is much like my communism idea only it allows for a mixture of communism and capitalism. This is often referred to as a mixed economy. In such an economy the government nationalizes only key industries. In my ideal it would be only the industries needed for life and an average standard of living. These industries include: Health Care, Transportation, Mail, Housing construction, personal power, and personal utilities industries.

So what is our benefit?

1. People once again are not dieing, yes a higher rate of tax is being paid but we don't have people dieing. In fact we have every citizen living at a fine standard of living.

2. Unlike the communism example however we still have many industries left to capitalism which allows for people to "get ahead of the game".
Capitalism : People have potential to become rich, but many are very poor.
Selective Socialism: People have potential to become rich through un-nationalized industries, but everyone has a fine standard of living to start with.

3. Minor benefits of the communism system in the nationalized industries.

So there you have it. I'm going to define two words for my next round just for fun.

Government - the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.

Ideal - a conception of something in its perfection.

I stand ready for your attacks and look forward to them.
Debate Round No. 1
FunkeeMonk91

Pro

Problems with Communism:

1. Your first point describes a utopia Communist society. But have you ever known any Communist nation to be successful in this regard. If anything, Communist countries only become poorer and more unstable. For example, in Cuba, you can only receive so much food before the government cuts you off. My grandpa had to steal from the government to keep his family from starving. I'm sure that he was not the only one.

2. You claim that competition is wasteful and unnecessary. But if we never had competition, what would prevent the one or two producers from making the same crappy products over and over again. Competition prevents this. Let's say I own a computer company and do fairly well. Then, someone else comes around, but is having trouble getting by because of my success. So, he improves on his design and makes something I can't. This competition drives innovation. Otherwise, companies would have no incentive to improve their products.

3. I'm not sure I understand your 3rd point. I get what you mean about "efficiency" but there is so much to benefit from foreign trade partners. I think that they benefits of international trade would outweigh any lose in "efficiency."

Problems with Selective Socialism:

You say, "In such an economy the government nationalizes only key industries..Health Care, Transportation, Mail, Housing construction, personal power, and personal utilities industries." Our current capitalist government already supplies several of these services and more (mail, utilities, education, etc). So what, then, makes selective socialism so great or different? The way you word it, you make it sound like selective socialism is just capitalism with just a lot of welfare-like programs.

1. Similar to the 1st point on Communism, every single real world case has not shown to hold your statement of "higher living standards" true.

2. Again, this just makes selective socialism seem like a welfare based capitalist economy. So I don't see why you brought up selective socialism at all, since, from your definition, it is so similar to capitalism.

3. I'm not sure what you're getting at with number 3.

In your own definition of government, do you mention economic regulation at all. The sole purpose of the law is to uphold justice, not to steal from people with welfare programs. Even though the will is good, things like welfare really is legal stealing. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Just because other people may need it, doesn't give the government the right to take my paycheck and give it to others.
Yraelz

Con

Right, was definitely prepared for this one.
Note: THIS WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH ON MY SIDE AND WHAT VOTERS SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. What I say after this point will just be reiterations and pulling arguments through.

So going on your points 1 by 1.

1. "Your first point describes a utopia Communist society......"

>>Yes this is correct and I definitely saw this coming. Look to the topic of this debate, "Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal". We are debating Economic ideals here. I have already defined what an ideal is and you have agreed with that definition by not offering me a counter definition or even saying anything about it. Had you wanted to debate "Capitalism is the Greatest Economic system in practice" you should have made the topic such. As it stands I am talking about Communism as an Economic Ideal, a utopia if you will.

To further strengthen my argument look to my definition of a communism and then check your examples. None match my definition and thus all fall.

Thus my first point, people live and with quality, stands and is the most important point thus far in this round.

2. ".....if we never had competition, what would prevent the one or two producers from making the same crappy products over and over again.......companies would have no incentive to improve their products."

>>This I consider to be very false. A communist system is more than just a system, it is an entire way of life just as Capitalism is. Think about it, anywhere you are raised ideals will be thrown at you from society and you will conform to them. For instance in America, every child grows up with the "success = getting rich" but in a communism this is not the case. In a communism children would grow up with "success = help society" this is an entire different world.

And yes the difference is incomprehensible to most people in a different type of society. Stop and think for a minute about everything society has told you about growing up and how this has effected your life. "Go to school" "Earn a degree" "Get rich" "Support your family" "Have a great physique" is society hadn't said these things would you be different? Of course you would. Want proof?

Santa Clause. You grew up for years and years believing Santa Clause was true what changed your mind? Society told you that it wasn't true. Society told you what to think. But this is far different than Santa Clause. The ideas inherent in a capitalist system have been entrenched in the people their entire lives their entire histories. In a communism the same effect occurs and the people approach life with a different mind set. A simple redefinition of what success entails.

This is why my second point stands in this round. Instead of making crappy products people would make what would help society the most. In fact I turn this argument back on you. In a capitalism people cut corners in order to increase proficiency and profit; to undercut the competition.

3. "I think that they benefits of international trade would outweigh any lose in "efficiency.""

>>You misunderstand. I'm saying a Communism because of its efficiency can create products to sell on a global market that would be unbeatable by any other nation. Thus international trade would dramatically increase which would in turn increase the communisms wealth.

With my three point in tact I can only see my communism argument as standing. Thank you and please vote for it. Onto my second argument.

"You say, "In such an economy the government nationalizes only key industries..Health Care, Transportation, Mail, Housing construction, personal power, and personal utilities industries." Our current capitalist government already supplies several of these services and more (mail, utilities, education, etc). So what, then, makes selective socialism so great or different? The way you word it, you make it sound like selective socialism is just capitalism with just a lot of welfare-like programs."

>> On he contrary you can take two different takes on this as it is still disputed throughout the world. 1. The U.S is not a capitalism it is a minor selective socialism with very few nationalized industries and some subsidies. 2. The U.S is a capitalism with many subsidies and a few parts that aren't capitalistic.
However one way or another you must concede to me that the U.S is not a total free market due to these facts and therefor is not a true ideal capitalism.

A true ideal selective socialism in this case would be a market the nationalizes 100% all of the key industries, so onto your three points.

1. "Similar to the 1st point on Communism, every single real world case has not shown to hold your statement of "higher living standards" true."

>>Cross apply my definition of ideal. If you wanted to focus on real life probabilities don't debate ideals. Ideals are essentially the utopian form of ideas.

2. "Again, this just makes selective socialism seem like a welfare based capitalist economy. So I don't see why you brought up selective socialism at all, since, from your definition, it is so similar to capitalism."

>> No, it simply has benefits of both Capitalism and Communism. It is a system that disallows for unneeded death under the inherent exploitation of a capitalist system as you described it and at the same time allows for monetary wealth.

3. "I'm not sure what you're getting at with number 3."

>>Same as last point basically. Sorry I should have grouped them, I just felt it was very important so I made it its own point.

Once again I can only see how ideal Selective Socialism triumphs over ideal capitalism thus I must once again urge voters to vote for I.

Onto your conclusion paragraph and my counter conclusion:

"In your own definition of government, do you mention economic regulation at all. The sole purpose of the law is to uphold justice, not to steal from people with welfare programs. Even though the will is good, things like welfare really is legal stealing. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Just because other people may need it, doesn't give the government the right to take my paycheck and give it to others."

>>I agree with your statement that part of the purpose of the law is to uphold justice but I disagree with what you consider justice to be. You say my ideals would steal from their people but I disagree. Is it truly just for one man to live with more wealth than he could ever need when that wealth could be split between him and 100 other men, starving on the streets, and they could still end up at an above average standard of living? Is that justice to you? You factor your equation on monetary loss but is monetary loss truly a factor in comparison to human life? Can you seriously tell me that justice is served through monetary wealth?

A government runs how the people wish it to, and maybe in some societies that's what they believe. But in my ideal communism and selective socialism human quality of life is measured as the greatest factor and perhaps thats the main difference between our arguments. =)

Anyways, I stand open for your final speech.
Debate Round No. 2
FunkeeMonk91

Pro

1. I understand what my topic says, and I admit that it wasn't the best choice of words. But you're basing your argument on my bad semantics. If I had simply put "Capitalism is the Best Economic Policy In Use," then at the very least, your first point is invalid. In other words, you shouldn't try to win a debate because of (or lack of) semantics.

2. Although your second point sounds nice, it isn't very practical. No matter what you do, it is impossible to make everyone "help society." Even if we ignore the real world examples that prove this to be wrong, it's just human nature. Do you honestly expect every single person, or even the group of people in unnationalized industries, to work for the greater good? It's unreasonable and honestly unfair. It's unfair to force someone to work long and hard for someone else who may not be willing to work at all.

"In a communism [sic] children would grow up with success = help society...." Again, how do would you manage to go about brain washing all children into the mindset of extreme selflessness? People like to prosper from their own success; not to be held back by forced "charity." Can we agree that when you take from someone without asking, it's stealing? That is what you are proposing: legal stealing. People deserve to keep the fruits of their work.

"Stop and think for a minute about everything society has told you about growing up and how this has effected your life. 'Go to school' 'Earn a degree' 'Get rich' "Support your family.'" How are any of those things bad? Is it bad to want to better your life by going to school, getting a degree, getting rich, and supporting a family? These things should be encouraged. And, again, isn't it just human nature to want to be wealthy. It's not necessarily greed, it's just wanting to ensure a bright future for yourself, and your loved ones.

Society didn't tell me that Santa Clause wasn't real, my logic did. And my logic is what tells my that Communism is an awful ideology that should never be practiced. But I'm not the only one. Ask almost any civilian of a Communist country and odds are that they would wish to live in a place where they can try to better their situation, without any interference from the government. I use this example because I think it demonstrates my point very well:

Merriam-Webster defines "law" as "the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs." I think we can substitute "redressing wrongs" with "upholding justice." This is the sole purpose of the law. It's not there to over see business, it's not there to make sure that your paychecks are taken and given to complete strangers. It's there to make sure that everyone is given the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Communism interferes with this. But don't confuse this legal stealing you talk about with taxes. When we are taxed, we are receiving things in return, like police, schools, mail, and even senators and congressmen. When a Communist government takes from me, they are giving it to the people I don't even know. My living standard goes down so someone else's can go up. Is it my responsibility to make sure they have money? No. Sure, it's sad, but people should give to charities because they want to, they shouldn't be forced. No government has the right to take from me what doesn't belong to them.

In conclusion, you can't say that Communism will produce more innovative products. What will their motivation be? And you can't say "because they want to help society." For most people, they don't care about other people, and that won't change with Communism. Money is a big motivator, and the lack of it pushes people to think beyond what they thought possible. This is how new inventions are born.

3. "I'm saying a Communism because of its efficiency can create products to sell on a global market that would be unbeatable by any other nation." I already proved in point two that a Communist nation wouldn't have innovative products that would sell well in a global market. So how can you say that a Communist nation would be "unbeatable?"

None of your previous arguments work. They are all based on the assumption that people won't mind being oppressed by a government that holds society back whenever it steals from them, as long as its for the "greater good."

Now to pick apart your rebuttals:

I never said that the US was purely Capitalist. I'm just saying, as far as other nations go, we are one of the closest to getting there. So the fact that the US is not purely Capitalist, or is slightly Socialist, doesn't hurt my contention at all.

1. Again, most of your arguments are based on my bad word choice. If I has used different words, you wouldn't have much to argue with. But I recognize that that is the topic, so I'll leave it to the voter to decide.

2. Well, lets go back to that first thing you said about the US. "The U.S is not a capitalism it is a minor selective socialism with very few nationalized industries and some subsidies." So, let's say that is true, that the US is Socialist. Isn't there unneeded death in America? And then just look at every other Communist nation. Isn't there unneeded death, and in some areas, mass murder? So, your idea that, in Communist, or even semi-Socialist countries, people don't die unnecessarily, is not valid as seen by the real world examples. And you can't say that those countries don't follow your definition, because you said your self that the US could be considered Socialist.

You ask whether it is just for one man to live in wealth while one suffers in poverty. Well, you don't know what that poor man did to get in his situation. He could have been a huge junkie and wasted his whole life and money on drugs. I'm not saying all poor people are drug dealers, but it's not like every poor person got poor and they couldn't help it. This is one reason why I believe in Capitalism: because people should be held economically responsible for their actions. But wait, there's more! In Capitalism, everyone has an opportunity to work hard and get on the same level as the wealthy man you mentioned earlier. In Communism, there is no social mobility, and your have no opportunity to advance or better your situation. Also, it's unfair to take from someone to give to another. Like in the stories of Robin Hood, "I steal from the rich and give to the poor." Isn't that still stealing? There are other ways to make sure that everyone has food to eat without taking hard earned money from people.

I understand what you mean by wanting to help other people and that's good. But it's not good to force people to give up their things for others. You should give to charity becuase you want to, not because your forced to.

Another reason why I hate Communism is because my whole family is from Cuba. Their lives were ruined by Che/Castro and Communism. They ended up having to leave and (legally) moved to New York to start fresh. My grandpa did well for himself, and was able to send all four of his children to college and 2 kids to grad school. Now, my dad has done even better and we are living quite comfortably in a nice house, and I am going to a great Jesuit prep school. If that's not the American dream, I don't know what is.

My point is is that I know first hand how awful Communism is and how great Capitalism is. They both have their downsides, but Capitalism allows for opportunity, while Communism holds people back. Why else do you think so many people immigrate here, and not to Communist nations? Communism causes chaos, violence, and oppression. Capitalism, while it may provide gross profits for rich executives, also gives EVERYONE the opportunity to make something with their lives. Everyone has an opportunity to start fresh and where you come from can't change that. You can't do that with Communism.
Yraelz

Con

Why are my debates always so long.... Oh well. I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph on the most important arguments you made. My rebuttal will be more concise than my other arguments hopefully and just hit the key points.

"1. I understand what my topic says, and I admit that it wasn't the best choice of words. But you're basing your argument on my bad semantics. If I had simply put "Capitalism is the Best Economic Policy In Use," then at the very least, your first point is invalid. In other words, you shouldn't try to win a debate because of (or lack of) semantics."

>> Ummm.. You made the topic. The word ideal did not need to be in there but not only did you put it in there but you didn't bother outlining your first contention as if you were talking about real life application. Which left me with two things. A. The definition of ideal which I didn't even need to bother twisting in some strange way. and B. The assumption that we were talking about ideals. Don't shift your advocacy for the debate halfway through.

(the next three paragraphs are quotes from you that i'm grouping)

"2. Although your second point sounds nice, it isn't very practical. No matter what you do, it is impossible to make everyone "help society." Even if we ignore the real world examples that prove this to be wrong, it's just human nature. Do you honestly expect every single person, or even the group of people in unnationalized industries, to work for the greater good? It's unreasonable and honestly unfair. It's unfair to force someone to work long and hard for someone else who may not be willing to work at all."

In a communism [sic] children would grow up with success = help society...." Again, how do would you manage to go about brain washing all children into the mindset of extreme selflessness? People like to prosper from their own success; not to be held back by forced "charity." Can we agree that when you take from someone without asking, it's stealing? That is what you are proposing: legal stealing. People deserve to keep the fruits of their work.

"Stop and think for a minute about everything society has told you about growing up and how this has effected your life. 'Go to school' 'Earn a degree' 'Get rich' "Support your family.'" How are any of those things bad? Is it bad to want to better your life by going to school, getting a degree, getting rich, and supporting a family? These things should be encouraged. And, again, isn't it just human nature to want to be wealthy. It's not necessarily greed, it's just wanting to ensure a bright future for yourself, and your loved ones."

>>This is why I defined government. No where in that definition does it say that a citizen must agree to the policies of a government. Every citizen is free to leave the country at any point in time. For a sweet example look at the quakers. Nice society, idea of helping each other without modern technology. No not every child grows up agreeing with their governmental system and those children leave. Leaving the people who do agree. Look at America for an example. If you don't agree with America's policies then the ideal solution is to leave.

Once again you go back to your legal stealing point. Definitely not true, with each person helping everyone else in a communism a person will naturally receive so much more than they give.

Then you go onto tell me that we can't "brainwash" children and turn around and ask me how any of the examples I listed are bad. I'm not saying they are bad or good (personally I feel like getting rich is a lame goal) I'm saying that under our current society you have already been "brainwashed" to see those things as good. In a communism you are "brainwashed" to think that helping others is the way to go (this I agree with) and no, not everyone will agree. But because of the societal influence so many more people will.

"Merriam-Webster defines "law" as "the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs.""

>>Great but then you go on to link all of this directly to the US. The idea of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all US orientated. And once again you prove my point. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness all US ideals that have been given a new definition under the US. For instance in the U.S the pursuit of happiness is often taken to mean "being free to become wealthy". Where as in my ideal communism it would better be defined as "being free to improve the community as a whole".

"In conclusion, you can't say that Communism will produce more innovative products. What will their motivation be? And you can't say "because they want to help society." For most people, they don't care about other people, and that won't change with Communism. Money is a big motivator, and the lack of it pushes people to think beyond what they thought possible. This is how new inventions are born."

>> In conclusion I can say it will. Because of the increased efficiency, higher standard of living, and yeah, their want to help society. Maybe in your life people don't care about people; for you joining this communism wouldn't be a good idea. I feel human relationships are a far greater motivator than money will ever be. (Falling in love over winning a million dollars? Which do you choose? Choice is obvious to me)

And no that isn't the only reason things are invented. How many famous scientists were also filthy rich?

CONCLUSION: Even if my voters do not want to vote on my communism argument notice that my opponent completely drops my Selective Socialism argument. He even says,

"I never said that the US was purely Capitalist. I'm just saying, as far as other nations go, we are one of the closest to getting there. So the fact that the US is not purely Capitalist, or is slightly Socialist, doesn't hurt my contention at all."

and then goes onto tell me that we still see unneeded deaths in current Selctive Socialisms such as the U.S.

So first off notice we are talking about ideals here. In an ideal Selective Socialism this would not be the case. Secondly even in his real world example there are less unneeded deaths in a selective socialism such as the U.S than in a purely capitalist society. Thirdly my opponent drops every point I made on a Selective Socialism still having the opportunities of a capitalism with the added benefit of a fine standard of living. Therefor there is absolutely no reason to vote for a capitalist society when you can have the same opportunities with a higher standard of living.

Finally my opponent brings his real life experience from Cuba into this. Cuba is definitely not an ideal communism! But even if this topic just said "the greatest economic policy" I would still oppose such an example. It is not my job under this resolution or that resolution to support corrupt regimes and/or unstable governments.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
This was a good debate. But something that the con didn't understand was that selective socialism leads inevitably to communism.
Posted by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
Well done on both sides. I personally prefer Capitalism, but the whole Idealism argument bought me.

Excellent from both sides
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Hey, not over yet, people still vote. Well done to you also. Very nice debate.
Posted by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
I agree with all of you about my lack of semantics. It's just frustrating to make such an obvious mistake like that, but well done Yrealz.
Posted by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
I am going to have to go with Yraelz on this one.

Regardless of semantics, Yraelz produced definitions that FunkeeMonk failed to counter-define. Funkee created a resolution, which he himself got to write, and then admitted he didn't choose the best words to get at his resolution that capitalism is best. And I would have to agree with an earlier post, if you get to write the resolution, semantics clearly DOES matter, because if I say "Fascism is the most Ideal form of Government ever" I can't later, when I have no points to make in a situation where I am losing, turn around and go against my own resolution by saying "I meant it would be really cool if we were fascist, given that I feel now my resolution is worded poorly" or the like. I vote for Yraelz here.

As the debate continued, Yraelz merely used his own definitions to outline that the debate was about Ideals, which the resolution says as much, and argued them very well. He proved, in my opinion, that the society you grow up can influence the way you think, such as the goals to get rich or to help the community. I feel that the point made about human life outweighing the concept of monetary gain is very true: human life has NO price. If you would like an example, would you rather make one million dollars or should we stab this baby? Maybe even your baby? Or let's kill your brother? Your friend? Even the hobo on the street, who in the system of "Capitalism" is suppose to be able to get ahead, but due to the concepts of capitalism, such as interest and corrupt health insurance, etc., which forced him on the streets due to him losing his house because he couldn't pay a bill, and so on. Would you see that human life which tried and failed not on his own accord, but due to the system that you are advocating, die because he couldn't "Get Ahead" all for monetary gain?

It's quite simple. Yraelz produced the facts better, gave better points and refuted FunkeeMonk's in what I feel to be a clear cut way.
Posted by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
Sweet, this is totally awesome.
Posted by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
I think it is very said when a debater refers to the ideals of another debater "stupid."
Don't you, rshortman?
Posted by rshortman 9 years ago
rshortman
Although well presented on both sides, I have to go with Pearl Jam guy because arguing against Capitalism using Communism or Selective Socialism as a the alternative solution is just stupid, no matter how well presented.
Posted by ellyphant 9 years ago
ellyphant
I was very impressed by the focus and attention to detail both parties provided. It made it an excellent, if somewhat long, read. It's difficult to decide who to vote for; I think, however, that Yraelz continued stance regarding the "ideal" of certain economic systems should somehow have accounted for the fact that, every time the system has been employed, it has failed miserably. This perhaps has something to do with the near-necessity of a revolution to change government, and the necessity of a leader for any revolution; as soon as a leader gains any power in their attempt to enforce Communism or Socialism, nothing stands between the newly defined Proletariat and a corrupted and restricted government. Lenin in Russia and Chairman Mao in China provide a few examples of the ease with which human selfishness or error can bring suffering to an entire nation. If the system has no "ideal" way of being instituted, it might as well not be considered among potential economic systems; no hypothetical or actual evidence can be provided in favor except for dictionary definitions.

Therefore, I vote for FunkeeMonk.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
Wow! In a format where you get to make your own topic, you really shouldn't lose on topicality. What is debate if not semantics? Good work Yraelz.
31 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Killer542 9 years ago
Killer542
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by bones 9 years ago
bones
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by dkincaid 9 years ago
dkincaid
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by geekygator 9 years ago
geekygator
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
FunkeeMonk91YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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