The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
innomen
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Capitalism cannot fullt accomodate human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
innomen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,056 times Debate No: 14963
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

socialpinko

Pro

I will be arguing that capitalism cannot function in a manner in which it fully accomidates human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies.

I will only list two socialist policies which I will argue that capitalism must adopt if it is to truly accomidate human needs. These two policies are nationalization of certain industries(firefighters, education, healthcare, police)and some form of government regulation of the free market.

I will list my arguments in round 2 as this round will be used to set up rules, and to make sure we both clearly understand the resolution. The rest of the debate will go as follows:
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Counter Arguments
Round 4: Closing Arguments

Definitions:
Accommodate:to provide suitably; supply
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Human needs:
Life
Food
Clean Water

Socialist: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Policies:a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The reason why I am being so specific is because I recently had a debate very similar to this and I think it was too vague. I don't think either of us argued as a result.
innomen

Con

Thank you to my opponent for this resolution, and i look forward to a fruitful debate where perhaps we might both learn something from the experience.

I am arguing to counter the precise policies that my opponent will claim that capitalism cannot accommodate.

I also ask that the definition of Socialism as cited be used in its entirety: "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels".

It is an important distinction for the purpose of my counter arguments.

Other than that i agree to the rules as put down by my opponent and his definitions, and look forward to his first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

Government Regulation-My argument will go as follows. The forces of capitalism usually coincide with the needs of the people. This is what distinguishes capitalism from other economies in which the free market is replaced by economic planning. The principle of supply and demand governs almost everything. Capitalism in many cases is capable of functioning to create the needs of the people while still making a profit. If this were to happen all the time every time then logic follows that there would be no need for regulation. It would be wasteful and unneeded. Opponents of mixed economies state that the free market is completely capable of running itself or that nationalization would lead to an even worse condition than capitalism does. It seems that my opponent is arguing the first so my main goal is to present a possible scenario where the needs of people are trampled by the quest for profit. I will try to keep this scenario short. My scenario would play out in the presence of several factors, none of which are impossible. They are as follows:
A)A researcher working for a large multinational corporation(a corporation which among other things, makes and sells prescription drugs)discovers a cure for all forms of cancer. They're are many private and public institutions working towards various cures so this is within probability.

This is at the very heart of the idealistic capitalist system. Driven by competition, companies work hard to create products better than the others and sell more to bring in a larger profit. This usually creates relatively low prices and fair quality products. But so long as supply and demand are at a reasonable level. The discovery and inferred end to cancer is attributed to the capitalist system.

B)The corporation this researcher works for contractually have the rights to all discoveries and the researcher is rewarded a large sum of money for his discovery. He receives his reward so long as the corporation keeps rights on the cure. They patent this cure in a way that it is impossible for any other corporations of the same nature to create their own version of the drug. This corporation now, through legal capitalist means, owns the only cure for the world's most deadly disease.

C)This corporation, seeing the huge possible profit, decide that they will make the most of this golden opportunity. This corporation decides to start selling the cure to the public but at an astronomical price. The leaders of this corporation see that they control the entire supply and that demand will always be high so long as the disease s not cured.

This is a big point. It is not economically in the corporation's best interest to cure this disease. The clear economical and capitalist choice is to keep demand high by keeping supply low. They control the entire supply and through manipulating the supply can also control the demand.

We know that it is right in capitalist terms to financially exploit millions of people and let countless thousands die just to keep up revenue. Be assured that most people will choose life over money. People with cancer at least. But is it ethically right to let countless die and send countless more into poverty just to make money. Most will say no when looking at the problem through a human perspective. But through a capitalist perspective it would be illogical and irrational to let all that potential money slip away. Conflict between the free market does not happen very often but it does happen. Just look at exploitation of child laborers in Britain during the Industrial Revolution. The story I created was an extreme version, albeit a possible version. When ever this happens it usually happens on a smaller scale like employers trying to act economical and therefore lower wages and create poorer working conditions. This is especially problematic in countries where unions are weak and workers are especially expendable. Should government step in to try to make sure these things don't happen? In order to keep exploitation to a minimum government needs to try it's best to keep exploitation down. The free market as we have seen only works to the employers benefit. It is irrational to leave EVERYTHING to the free market to decide. Sure, you can leave most to the free market and even argue for limited government interference, this is a more rational position. It's a way of fixing problems when the quest for profit conflicts with basic human needs. Nationalization of some industries is basically the same idea. Take the police force for example. Most would agree that it is good that we have a police force. Sometimes one might disagree with actions taken by the police, but most reasonably agree that the country, while not being free of crime, is more safe with public police who are by a set of rules then a police force of hired mercenaries. Take education. Sure their are also private schools and some of them are better then public schools, but with a nationalized school system, it is harder for radical groups to subvert important teachings from any given curriculum. Science is a great example. There are tons of members of the christian right who would teach american history as a country founded by christians for christians or teach that science and evolution in particular are evil and the work of satan while rational people know this concept to be ridiculous in nature and not backed in evidence. Nationalized education also makes school mandatory til a certain age. Nationalization of education slowly raises and raises the intelligence of the average person. Forced education may seem authoritarian but it is necessary so that we don't become a country of people intellectually stuck in the eighteenth century.
I will end my arguments here to let con post his arguments.
innomen

Con

Thank you to my opponent for his argument.
However, I am somewhat challenged in seeing the argument as illustrated. My opponent has manufactured a scenario that really doesn't exist, nor has he offered socialism as a solution to this fabricated scenario. I will offer actual examples of where capitalism is superior to socialism in providing for the needs of its people.

It would be helpful for us to look at what we must assume from his resolution to be a better alternative, i.e. the socialist model. In essence socialism is where the state controls production and distribution to meet the needs of its people. To best illustrate this point let us look at the Soviet Union; a socialist system that I am intimately familiar with and exemplifies as pure of a socialist society as you will find.

My opponent points out the basic needs of people, and how something like food is a basic need, so I will stick with that, because the examples are easy to analyze and find. Under the original Soviet model collective farms were centrally managed. "The theory behind collectivisation was that it would replace the small-scale unmechanised and inefficient farms that were then commonplace in the Soviet Union with large-scale mechanised farms that would produce food far more efficiently. Lenin saw private farming as a source of capitalist mentalities and hoped to replace farms with either sovkhozy which would make the farmers "proletarian" workers or kolkhozy which would at least be collective in nature."[1] However the theory was a tragic failure and resulted in famine, and starvation. "The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization……The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, "Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings." Yet one of Stalin's lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay."[2].

Quickly they began to understand that the socialist model of providing basic needs, like food was failing, and incorporated some miniscule capitalist private alternatives, which proved to be much more successful. After Stalin died, Khrushchev made a visit to the US, and was very interested in learning how the capitalist farmers in the US were far better at feeding the people of the US, and beyond than their own farmers back in the USSR. He visited a farm in Iowa and was impressed by the yield per acre, and the quality of the product. He was further fascinated by the meat yield per pig. The capitalist model of supply, demand, competition was obviously better prepared to provide the basics of food distribution and production than the socialist model [3].

I will now indulge my opponent in his manufactured scenario of a drug that can never be recreated which is created by the evil capitalists for sale to the highest bidder. This isn't exactly the way things work. So drug X is created by this drug company, and it is proven to be a success. To get to this point the drug company had to invest huge sums of money to create this product, i.e. costs. So now the product is ready for market. The assumption my opponent has is that there is a fairly arbitrary price that can be charged, and that competition is not a factor, both are false. First, in arriving at a price, yes profit is definitely the prime factor, but not simply profit margin on the individual sale of the product, but rather striking a balance in profit margin, and volume of sales [4] to offset the costs and achieve a net profit. Volume is an important factor, so providing this product to as many as possible without eroding the profit margin is optimum. Now, for competition. Name a product where the monopoly via a patent has actually held true in a capitalist environment. The competition of your fictitious drug company is not going to sit by and let market share of a product be taken from them. They will do what the need to in order to regain their stake in the market. They may not make an exact match, but will most likely find a similar product with a similar function in order to compete, this is the nature of capitalism.

Again, I will point out that socialism hasn't been pointed to by my opponent as a better system, or solution to his perceived problems with capitalism. I will point out that in a socialist society such a drug as the fictitious one he created would probably never be produced. Capitalism is the mother of innovation, and socialism is the mother of inefficiency. The unique characteristics of innovation within capitalism is clearly demonstrated by Baumol [5] in his book (see footnote) where he does a comparative analysis of economic systems, and how the best system to address the needs of men is capitalism.

Although not a perfect system, as there is no such thing as perfection in such things; capitalism is the best hope in satisfying the fundamental needs of men, and is far superior in doing so to socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.loc.gov...
http://www.isbnlib.com...
http://www.businessdictionary.com...
http://press.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

"It would be helpful for us to look at what we must assume from his resolution to be a better alternative, i.e. the socialist model."
If you would read the resolution I am not favoring socialism by itself but a mixture of certain tenets of both systems.

"Although not a perfect system, as there is no such thing as perfection in such things; capitalism is the best hope in satisfying the fundamental needs of men, and is far superior in doing so to socialism."
Again, I am not saying that either system is superior to the other. I am pointing out that there are faults with capitalism as you admitted. I am sorry if I was not clear enough in pointing to implementing some parts of socialism as a remedy to the faults of socialism. And I am not saying that socialism is a perfect system either. I pointed out that while the fault of capitalism is that at times, profit comes above human needs. Conversely, the problem of socialism is putting human need above profit at all times.

"My opponent has manufactured a scenario that really doesn't exist"
I am not saying that this scenario exists, I am using it as an example of how in an unrestricted capitalist system, exploitation like this is possible. I provided a real time example of low wages, poor working conditions, and long days that child workers had to endure during the industrial revolution. This is because it was easy to exploit children as there were no minimum wage and child labor laws. Laws like these are examples of a system, in some situations, putting human need over profit when they come into conflict.

"It would be helpful for us to look at what we must assume from his resolution to be a better alternative, i.e. the socialist model. In essence socialism is where the state controls production and distribution to meet the needs of its people. To best illustrate this point let us look at the Soviet Union; a socialist system that I am intimately familiar with and exemplifies as pure of a socialist society as you will find."

You assume I am saying socialism is better but I am not. I am pointing out a fault of capitalism, it is not perfect, and I am pointing out that some socialist policies, not all of them, like minimum wage and child labor laws, help keep exploitation down. Socialism does not imply state control of the means of production, just look at libertarian socialism. The Soviet Union is not the best model of a socialist system. This would imply that they are all the same. However there area few types. Democratic socialism, utopian socialism, libertarian socialism, and authoritarian socialism. The Soviet Union is the best example of an authoritarian socialist system which I never defended. I completely agree with you that authoritarian socialism is not a good system. And again, I am not saying that any form of socialism is better then capitalism. I AM SAYING THAT CAPITALISM HAS SOME FLAWS WHICH I BELIEVE CAN BE REMEDIED WITH SOME SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES(minimum wage, government regulation, child labor laws).

And I am sorry if I was not specific enough with the answer to the healthcare monopoly scenario. I point in the United States to antitrust laws. When a monopoly on a market occurs, it cannot be denied that this can lead to poor quality and high prices. Antitrust laws can put restrictions on intellecual property rights, making sure companies cannot completely copyright something, like a cure for a disease. These laws do in some form stifle competition but competition does not always lead to what is best for human needs. More examples of antitrust laws are: Sherman Act
The Federal Trade Commision Act
Clayton Act
http://www.ftc.gov...

Without antitrust laws, there would be nothing to stop a healthcare monopoly. Antitrust laws are a socialist concept in that it takes the needs of people into account over profit. This socialist concept goes against free competition. However it is possible to keep competition in cases that are not especially exploitive.

"I will point out that in a socialist society such a drug as the fictitious one he created would probably never be produced."

Here you are speculating.

My resolution stated clearly is that there are some times in an unrestricted capitalist society where people are exploited for profit. I am saying that while free trade is important, the government should intervene, in the form of antitrust laws for example, to stop exploition.

Full socialism always puts human need in front of profit which makes it inefficient. Full capitalism always puts profit over human need which makes it exploitive. Neither is necessarily better then the other. That is not what I a arguing. I am arguing that some socialist principles go good with some capitalist principles.
innomen

Con

There does seem to be some poor communication. Your resolution does indeed bring in "socialism" as a means to deal with what you deem as a shortfall of capitalism. You further defined socialism and we agreed to this definition in both PM and on this debate. Now I expect to use that definition as a means of disproving your argument.

Socialism being the key word in your resolution as a means to solve the problems of capitalism. So let us be clear that the solution to your perceived problems of capitalism lies in the state controlling the means of production to satisfy the needs of the people. Or more precisely ""an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels". [1] This was the definition that my opponent cited.

My opponent then brings to the argument "I AM SAYING THAT CAPITALISM HAS SOME FLAWS WHICH I BELIEVE CAN BE REMEDIED WITH SOME SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES(minimum wage, government regulation, child labor laws)." I ask those who are reading this debate, and indeed my opponent to apply the definition that he opened with for socialism to these problems and help me understand how they are solved by the state controlling production. My opponent complains that I am using the definition in its totality? He means only certain aspects of socialism should be applied, which particular part of the definition would solve the problems you cite? I believe my opponent is confusing socialism with some other sort of humanitarian version of governance that might make laws restricting business practices, but that is not socialism as he defined. Socialism =/= Big overreaching government. If that were the case fascism and socialism would be the same thing. Forgive me for drawing upon real life examples, but many socialist societies have far greater abuses in these areas than capitalist ones. The profit motive for the state can produce far more horrendous results to its people than private ones.

My opponent then goes on to cite anti-trade laws as being socialist. Again, I draw upon the definition that my opponent provided. Anti-trust laws were put in place to prevent monopolies in a capitalist f societies. Socialism is actually a system of monopoly. Which particular aspect of the definition of socialism are you drawing upon to conclude that the anti-trust laws are socialist? By outlawing collusion as stipulated by the Sherman Act of 1890 [2] we have an example of the state controlling production? I am further confused when my opponent says " Without antitrust laws, there would be nothing to stop a healthcare monopoly." Which one would come to the conclusion and think a monopoly in health care is a bad thing, and yet, is not that the goal of socialism? Oh right, you're only talking about certain aspects of socialism which I really haven't seen yet. Then he says that the anti-trust laws are really a socialist concept. In 1890, there really wasn't much of a formalized socialist construct, and again the goal of anti trust legislation is to further promote competition and further enable the capitalist process. It was looking to keep the free market more free. The goal was to diminish anti competitive activity [3], not to have government control production.

My opponent then accuses me of speculating. Well of course I am speculating, it's a fictitious scenario that I speak of, what else can I do but speculate.

My opponent then asserts that "Full socialism always puts human needs in front of profit which makes it inefficient' - the inefficient thing is the only correct part of this statement. One is to assume that the profit motive for the state is less a factor than if it were private. That would be a different debate, but I would provide loads of examples of where the profit motive of the state is as avarice and corrupt as any private entity could be.

My opponent also says "My resolution stated clearly is that there are some times in an unrestricted capitalist society where people are exploited for profit." Actually, I am trying to find in your resolution where it actually says this, particularly about "people are exploited for profit", your argument does at some point, but I don't see it in your resolution.

I will conclude this round by my opponents hyperbolic assertion "We know that it is right in capitalist terms to financially exploit millions of people and let countless thousands die just to keep up revenue." Of all the private interests that may have perpetrated something along these scales, how many of my opponent's big government, socialist countries have waged, and continue to wage at levels that stagger the mind. We need only look at the entire continent of Asia and its history to see how well socialism served it's people. I fear my opponent doesn't fully understand the economic theory of socialism, but rather holds an idyllic notion of what it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

"an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels."

Again read the resolution. It says " certain socialist principles". Not all of them. The principle of socialism where there is absence of competitive economic activity. Not completely however. I ave stated repeatedly that I do not advocate an entirely socialist economy. I am advocating that the free market only go so far. Socialism is characterized by "production for use rather than profit". That is, for the needs of the people. I seek to partially apply this principle to areas where capitalism exploits workers or consumers.

"I ask those who are reading this debate, and indeed my opponent to apply the definition that he opened with for socialism to these problems and help me understand how they are solved by the state controlling production."

Again, you apply the whole definition. I said CERTAIN socialist policies. I never said that government owned production was the answer to capitalism's pitfalls.

"Then he says that the anti-trust laws are really a socialist concept."

I say this because the antitrust laws go against the profit motive(by the absence of competitive economic activity). Not fully but to a degree.

"The goal was to diminish anti competitive activity [3], not to have government control production."

Again you seem to think I am seeking to implement an entirely socialist economy. I am beginning to think you didn't read the resolution.

"My opponent also says "My resolution stated clearly is that there are some times in an unrestricted capitalist society where people are exploited for profit." Actually, I am trying to find in your resolution where it actually says this, particularly about "people are exploited for profit", your argument does at some point, but I don't see it in your resolution."

My resolution says that capitalism "cannot fullt accomodate human needs". This happens when workers or consumers are exploited for profit.

"We need only look at the entire continent of Asia and its history to see how well socialism served it's people."

Here you equate every form of socialism with authoritarian socialism.
innomen

Con

Once again, I thank my opponent for his response, but am further confused. In this debate my opponent asserts that there are socialist policies that must be combined with the capitalist system to prevent some sort of errors that he deems are inherent in the nature of capitalism. My opponent neglects to actually identify which part of socialist economic theory, as defined in the first round, would accomplish this until this fourth and final round where he asserts " The principle of socialism where there is absence of competitive economic activity" – Now I would agree that this is a characteristic of socialism, and let us stick to this principle that he has finally asserted within this debate.

My opponent asserts that the component of "some" absence of competition is good for the capitalist model in providing for the needs of people, and use the anti-trust laws as an example of limiting competition for the good of the people. However the motive behind anti-trust legislation is to ensure more competition, and reduce the likelihood of monopolies [1]. "Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace"[2]. He also asserts that anti-trust legislation are based on socialist principles which is certainly incongruent with the intentions of anti-trust legislation if he believes that it is based on the intention of anti-competitive activity. In this there is contradiction and confusion.

My opponent asserts also asserts that "I say this because the antitrust laws go against the profit motive(by the absence of competitive economic activity). Not fully but to a degree." The anti-trust laws are not designed to work against the profit motive, not at all, but to further engage the profit motive with as many parties as possible, and I have already explained how the intentions of the anti-trust laws are the exact opposite of what my opponent asserts, i.e. "absence of competitive economic activity", but rather to preserve and promote further competition between private entities.

My opponent believes that I have not read the resolution, but I have. Within his resolution he asserts that there are "certain" socialist policies that should be adopted within the capitalist system, however for clarity and coherence it is within his responsibility to explain which of these certain socialist policies are to be applied. When he makes vague references to abuses within society, and the remedy are socialist I question how they are socialist in nature. If we are to apply the socialist economic theory as agreed upon in the opening definitions, we can easily see that socialism isn't the answer. Indeed plenty of socialist countries are far more abusive of their workers than many capitalist based countries.

Therefore con is somewhat confused with the assertions that pro makes, and the clarity of the resolution put forward. When pro has made efforts to provide clarity, greater obfuscation results. On the one hand he seems to value aspects of monopolies or limited competition, as a solution to problems and cites a fictitious example of a drug company where there is a fictitious problem of a lack of competition. He then cites anti-trust laws as an effort in limiting competition, and I have already explained why that doesn't make sense.

My opponent has repeated that I haven't properly addressed his resolution, and I would counter that he has not properly addressed the resolution. ‘Capitalism cannot fully accommodate human needs' – Not only has he failed to demonstrate that capitalism doesn't, but he has also failed to demonstrate how aspects, any aspects of socialism as my opponent has defined, can remedy the problems that haven't even been proven yet.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this resolution

Vote con.

http://economics.about.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skyler827 3 years ago
Skyler827
Wow. I can't believe this.

Pro has argued against capitalism by claiming that granting authors and inventors monopolies on their works will cause them to abuse their monopolies and that therefore capitalism doesn't work.

While it is questionable a big corporation would price gouge and withhold a cure for cancer from the healthcare market, it is very possible that they might want to do that if thy were granted the exclusive right to their innovation. If that's what you mean by capitalism, then I'm against it!

But capitalism is self ownership, ownership of labor, and ownership of physical goods. There is no right of taxation, and no right of anyone calling themselves congress to grant monopolies for the authors life plus 70 years over ANYTHING. If the cure were found in a capitalistic society, everyone who could would be making this cure at full production without regard to what the innovator wants. He cannot tell other people what to do with their property in a capitalistic society.

Ownership of property is key. If you own your paper and ink, you can make a copy of any book you want. If you own a computer, you are allowed to make as may copies of other people's music. It doesn't matter whose music it is, it's YOUR COMPUTER. Copyright is monopoly, incompatible with capitalism.
Posted by innomen 3 years ago
innomen
Pro: i think you were flawed in your definition of socialism. There is nothing in that definition that denotes the use of minimum wage, or even an implication of minimum wage. You repeatedly said that you were not speaking of full socialism, but wouldn't really explain which part of socialism as you defined it would apply. Had you defined socialism as the system characterized by those countries in western Europe, or some such you would have been on a better footing, but instead you tossed out examples of what might be considered the abuses within a capitalist system, but poorly applied a socialist remedy. It may be self explanatory how mandatory wage lowers exploitation, but it isn't apparent to me that this is a socialist mechanism. A fascist government could very well have minimum wage.
Posted by J.Kenyon 3 years ago
J.Kenyon
"it's pretty self explanatory how a mandatory minimum wage lowers exploitation."

Please debate me on this.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
No. How do you force a poor company to pay minimum wage to its employees if the standards are high? You did not explain much.
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
it's pretty self explanatory how a mandatory minimum wage lowers exploitation.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
Yes, but you were not clear, and you did not explain how e.g., minimum wage would work better.
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
"Con efficiently rebutted Pro's arguments, and explained why capitalism is a superior system to socialism."
I was not arguing that socialism was better then capitalism or that capitalism is better then socialism. I personally do not agree completely with either system. I was merely arguing that parts of both systems go well together.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
Pro 0: Con 6
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
I have not voted, but I will give a short RFD because Con asked me for one.

.: I agree with Con all the time.

.: The conduct was fair on both sides. Disputes over the resolution are common.

.: Con's grammar was more fluent, although he also made minor mistakes, including in spelling.

.: Arguments:

Pro did not define socialism very well, and he did not support his assertions well at all. He did not clarify what kind of socialist economic theory would apply as an efficient solution to the problems of capitalism. His arguments were unclear and often erroneous. On the other hand, Con efficiently rebutted Pro's arguments, and explained why capitalism is a superior system to socialism. Besides that, he also pointed out that Pro did not clarify what kind of socialist principles would needed, and by mentioning e.g., minimum wage, he did not explicate how implementing such a socialist principle would accommodate human needs better than if it is not implemented. Mentioning something is not equivalent to arguing for it.

.: While points on use of references is technically about the most 'reliable' sources, I still think that this point goes to Con, even though both used 'reliable' sources. Con used them more properly, and his arguments are more reliable throughout his use of reliable sources, therefore this point also goes to him. While Pro used certain sources, they neither supported his arguments well, nor did they rebut any of Con's arguments. On the other hand, Con's sources not only further strengthened his own arguments, but they clarified that Pro's stance and opinions are weak. Technically, Con clarified that, but again, the correlation between his use of sources and arguments is very balanced.

All in all, it was a simple debate and quite interesting to read. I would advise Pro to clarify his opinions a bit better. I think Con does an excellent job, and I think a few of his sentences should be a bit clearer, and besides that, all is good.

Pro 0:
Posted by Silver_Falcon 3 years ago
Silver_Falcon
It seems that Pro is trying to defend interventionism. I will recommend books by von Mises or Henry Hazlitt. Mises describes in detail the principles of capitalism, socialism and interventionism. The intervention usually create more problems then it resolves thus creating urge for more intervention to resolve new problems etc. until it becomes socialism (or the economy crash during the transformation).
Best example of progressive interventionism is EU. As with Germany hyperinflation, US Great Depression, USSR economic crash, Mises was always quite spot on.
Frederic Bastiat wrote some interesting texts dealing with protectionist and interventionist fallacies.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jallen289 3 years ago
Jallen289
socialpinkoinnomenTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro gave little sources and there are multiple contradictions in the debate.
Vote Placed by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
socialpinkoinnomenTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: RFD: Conduct- both sides oscillated in and out of the debate, but with time they both got further and further away from the topic. Tie. S/G- Pro had several sentence fragments, as well as grammatical and spelling errors Arguments- in comments section Sources- Pro only had one, and it supported some point that was ultimately not resolutional. Con wins sources. Also in the comments section is a critique of innomen, as per his request.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoinnomenTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate wandered, however Con could not refute the argument from pro (1/3)
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
socialpinkoinnomenTied
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: This debate became a hopelessly unproductive muddle because Con insisted on trying to debate something other than the resolution. Arguments on both side were weak, when they addressed the resolution at all.