The Instigator
LogicalThinker
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Capitalism doesn't work.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 12 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,741 times Debate No: 18043
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (12)

 

LogicalThinker

Pro

P1 Do you accept my challenge? If so; you may start the debate in round 1 or let me start in round 2.
I look forward to your response.
Lordknukle

Con

Debate Rules:

Round 1: Intro
Round 2: Main case/ body
Round 3: Clash
Round 4: Clash
Round 5: Conclusion


I will be arguing as to why capitalism works and should be kept as the primary economic system in modern countries.

I await the pleasure of debating with you.
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalThinker

Pro

Obviously this is a very large area to debate but I'll do my best to find a suitable start. I'm sure con won't mind if I start my debate in this round.
� The most obvious place to start I suppose is with the current recession we're in and the total collapse of the western economy. This will be my first premise.
� It creates a system in which hard working people are extremely likely to fail in the business world--my second premise.
� Capitalism is a relatively new thing. It has only existed since the industrial revolution began c.1800. This is my third premise.
� It causes war, destuction and crime--my fourth premise. I'll do my best to stick to these main points and in the order as above.
P1) In September of 2008 the global markets crashed with, as we all know, disastrous consequences. But this was not an isolated event caused by a couple of gung-ho, irresponsible bankers who lost control temporarily. There have been dozens of recessions over the last twohundred years, arguably the most notorious in America being the wall street crash of the late 1920s and the recession in the 1980s being the most notorious in Britain. So in that sence the current world leaders ought to bare no blame. In the current system recessions are clearly inevitable. But, I'm sure you'll agree, a system that hosts a recession every few years isn't a system that works.
Now; to cure a recession you need to get the banks trading again and to do this the banks need money. You must ask yourself: where will the money come from? The only two European countries that are barely keeping there heads above the water are France and Germany but even they can't afford to lend much more money. In south America you have countries that have never done well to sustain an economy, Mexico and Canada can't afford too loan money and the USA is getting closer to the condition that Greece, Ireland and Portugal are in every day. So want about Asia? Japan was driven back into recession by the nuclear disaster in Fukoshima south Korea has no money to give and china is already owed billions of dollars by the USA. African and middle eastern countries have no real economy as their best assets are already owned by the west. So unless the matins lend us a couple of trillion dollars these recessions are going to carry on happening every few decades.
But let's ask ourselves where the money is. Money doesn't just disappear overnight. What's happened is the money is in the hands of a few billionaires who have continued to get richer despite the recession. You may argue that these enourmous anounts of money are necessary to create an incentive for production, that, for example, people would no longer develop technology if they werent treated as better, more elite people for it. But I ask you: would you decide to no longer work or invent things if you weren't paid extortionate amounts of money to do so? Would you go back to living in the medieval ages just because you couldn't have a swimming pool in your house? Our curiosity, imagination and injenuity extends back to times far before the invention of capitalism, back, even, to times before money was invented. No-one paid the cave men to paint. No-one paid for the invention of fire or the Cerne Abbis Giant in Cornwall or the neolithic tombs of the British Isles. or the numerous other feates of human capability throughout history and the world. Money is about greed, not motivation.
P2)Despite the fact that I got a bit off course in my first premise I've lead myself neatly into my second premise. Not only would I say that capitalism is not an incentive for creativity - I would go as far as to say it stunts creativity. Why are there so few Bill Gates? Surely there are more people than that with the knowledge to create a business. Well, there are. The problem is people can't afford to create their own products, literature, art etc. This makes sense. For more billionaires to be created current billionaires would have to sacrifice money. Not something they'd be too keen on, is it? So, by definition not every-one can succeed.
P3)I've already explained that capitalism is a new thing and isn't peoples incentive to invent and be productive, so I won't elaborate further on that point.
P4)As I've already explained: not every-one can succeed in a capitalist society. So if, like at the moment, hundreds of thousands of people across the world find themselves unemployed--what are their options? They are offered social security; a small amount of money designed to merely keep people alive. But this simply isn't good enough for people who are capable of work and want to work. Some people think its their fault theyre unemployed and think that they must deal with the consequences and suffer. Others, though find themselves alienated from the system and gang culture increases. People who could be working end up vandalising and terrorising communities. The government plays this to their advantage by putting people into the prison system and hence the public think that crime is being fought. But the only long term solution to crime is to end unemployment--which capitalism can't do.
My final premise is war. Capitalism has always started wars. Did Sadam Hussein posses weapons of mass destruction? No. He had oil. America needs oil--it's worth billions of dollars to them every year. But they couldnt stop at Iraq. They claimed that terrorism was Americas greatest threat. So they had to carry on fighting terrorism or face the consequences for starting a war under false pretensions. They invaded Afghanistan and carried on killing innocent civilians whilst getting the odd radical as-well. Now they want to invade Iran. And what are they accusing Iran of? The ability to create weapons of mass distruction of course. And who owns enough weapons of mass distraction to destroy the world several times over? Britain and America, of course.
Lordknukle

Con

In this round I will as well provide the burden of proof.

Since my opponent did not bother to provide a definition of Capitalism, I will.

"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"(1)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Poverty Reduction

Capitalism helps reduce poverty in developing and poor countries. Capitalism allows for free international trade. This lets countries grow their GDP. As you can see in this website, African countries have had a steady growing GDP from 1999.(visit source number 2). Except for the 2008 economic collapse, nearly all years have seen a greater rise in GDP.(2) They can not increase their GDP by 100% with free trade overnight, but it happens over a long upward line. Capitalism raises their GDP.

War Prevention

Many of you might disagree with me on this one, but it is in fact a very sound principle. Capitalism prevents war. In a communist society, countries have no vested interests in each other. Communism does not allow free trade. Therefore, everything is generated internally. As a result, countries often attack each other with no economic consequences (other than the obvious burdens of war).

However in a capitalist society, countries have a vested interest in each other. They are trading partners. For example, Japan provides the U.S with cars while the U.S provides them with weapons. It's a mutual agreement. Attacking one another would serve no obvious purpose. War would be a lose-lose action regardless if one country wins. It's economy of it would be greatly impacted because it has fewer exports and fewer imports. Therefore, this would slow down the entire system.

Rise to the top

The most obvious beneficial impact of capitalism is that everybody gets equal opportunities. Everybody, starts out in one spot and whoever is the smartest and most cunning rises to the top. Capitalism rewards the smart. The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system. Capitalism allows for loans, one of the most important principles of rising to the top. How would you get past Harvard with no money? You take out a loan.Other systems don't allow for loans, so you can't rise up. Once you rise to the top, you obviously have more opportunities. But the important thing is that everybody gets a chance to rise to the top.

Lets compare this to a communist society. Nobody has equal opportunities. This is because there are no opportunities. Regardless of if you are smart or dumb, you will still be farming the field for the rest of your life. Communism is a class-less society. Classes help the economy. The rich serve as an incentive for the poor to become rich. Communist societies pay the same amount to a garbage man, and a neurosurgeon. Is this fair? No. Neurosurgeons require a genius personality while any idiot can become a garbage man.

INCENTIVE

Capitalism is one of the few systems in which incentive plays a major role. Do you want to own 20 homes and 20 cars? Most people would answer yes. This is incentive. It is a person, place, or thing that serves as a motivator. Why should a communist worker make 20 toys when he would make the same amount of money if he made 1 toy? A capitalist worker on the other hand strives to make more toys because he gets paid more.
Capitalism's greatest invention is invention itself. People invent for money. Even if it isn't the first cause, very few inventors turn down the money (Bill Gates). Would have Ford built the first car in a communist society? How about Edison "creating the light-bulb"? Chances are that neither of these inventions would have happened.


Conclusion

In conclusion, Capitalism is an amazing system which awards the smart and hard-working. It prevents war by free trade. It reduces poverty by free trade. It gives everybody a chance to rise to the top, unlike some other systems. In the system, the rich serve as an incentive for the other workers to become rich. If this is not the definition of a perfect system, I don't know what is.












(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2)http://www.indexmundi.com...
Debate Round No. 2
LogicalThinker

Pro

I'm sorry for the lack of paragraphs in the previous round; for some reason my ipod didn't account for the gap between lines.

I shall argue why my opponent is wrong under each of his headings.



Poverty Reduction


My opponent labelled this argument rather poorly. He states that "Capitalism helps reduce poverty in developing and poor countries" but does not explain how. What the argument is about is South Africa's rise in GDP ( Gross Domestic Product ) . He does not suggest, however, that GDP lowers poverty levels. Open the following graph, entitled 'Poverty And Unemployment': http://www.ihsglobalinsight.co.za... alongside my opponent's: http://www.indexmundi.com... and you will see that while the GDP has increased very slightly the rate of poverty and unemployment has stayed the same over the same period of time! This would suggest that GDP and poverty are not linked.



War Prevention


"In a communist society, countries have no vested interests in each other". This is completely untrue. England, for instance, requires -and always will require- metals ( precious metals especially ) , minerals and wood, etc. from all over the world and exports manufactured products in return. Why are you suggesting that this would be any different in a non-capitalist society?

"War would be a lose-lose action regardless if one country wins". Then why -and bare in mind that you are against the war on terrorism- did the USA invade two countries ( Iraq and Afghanistan ) in the last ten years and why, do you suppose, are there suggestions of invading Iran? Not only have they got no evidence for Iran possessing ( or planning to posse's ) nuclear weapons but the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war - http://www.icanw.org... . In fact; the USA has the second highest number of nuclear missiles ( after Russia ) .



Rise To The Top


"The most obvious beneficial impact of capitalism is that everybody gets equal opportunities. Everybody, starts out in one spot and whoever is the smartest and most cunning rises to the top". Incorrect once again. Children under 18 account for 27% of homeless people-- http://library.thinkquest.org... . On the other hand; many children start their lives with millionaire parents. They are two very different spots to start out from.

"The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system". Actually, according to this graph[1], almost 5% of people with a bachelors or higher are unemployed ( There's a similar chart for the Philippines[3] ) . That works out at 1.75 million people, according to the census of 2000[2], and that number is rising.

"How would you get past Harvard with no money? You take out a loan". The problem the system of loans is that this puts people off going to university or college. As I already showed; you are not guaranteed success. What if you are part of the unlucky 4%? Then you would have no job and a massive loan to pay off. Also; if a family is in debt ( not the child's fault ) then they won't be able to take out a student loan.

The best system would allow every-one who wishes to attend college; attend, and let them pay back society by ensuring that they have a suitable job to go into.

"Lets compare this to a communist society. Nobody has equal opportunities. This is because there are no opportunities. Regardless of if you are smart or dumb, you will still be farming the field for the rest of your life". Are you suggesting that in a non-capitalist society every-one would have to become a farmer? Yes; there would need to be farmers; but perhaps with degrees in ecology or biology. 'Farmer' doesn't mean 'stupid'.

"The rich serve as an incentive for the poor to become rich". As I stated in P2): for every-one to become a billionaire the current billionaires would have to lose money. Well; they're going to do their best to make sure that doesn't happen, aren't they? So no matter how much the poor want to become rich; they're almost certainly not going to.

"Communist societies pay the same amount to a garbage man, and a neurosurgeon. Is this fair? No. Neurosurgeons require a genius personality while any idiot can become a garbage man".

In a system where every-one is educated properly; no-one would want to be a Bin Man, I'm sure you'll agree. Well this can be combated quite easily. A lot of the work can be done roboticlly, such as placing the bins in the rubbish truck. Other things, such a driving the truck, could be done by students or volunteers, etc. No matter what way you look at it both neurosurgery and refuse collection have to be done. Throughout history people have always taken responsibility for the jobs that need to be done to form a society; capitalism can't take credit for this.




Incentive

"Why should a communist worker make 20 toys when he would make the same amount of money if he made 1 toy"? Because the worker knows that there are twenty children and twenty toys are required. They would have to be totally heartless to give only one of the children a toy. It is that sense of care and love that sets us apart from the rest of the animals on the planet, and it is that that has always motivated us and given us incentive.

Would Thomas Edison have invented the light-bulb in a non-capitalist society? Most certainly! Do you think he would have decided not to create inventions just because he couldn't own twenty houses and twenty cars? If you ask a baby or toddler what capitalism is you'll get a blank, curious stare. The reason they learn is because they enjoy doing so. The need for intellectual stimulation is hard-wired into our brain. Capitalism can't take credit for this.

In fact, as I explained my round one; capitalism is a disincentive

Conclusion

As I have shown why my opponent is wrong on all other accounts I must, therefore, come to a condemning conclusion:
Capitalism is a system that does not reward the hard-working. It causes war by free trade. It increases poverty by free trade. It does not give everybody a chance to rise to the top. The rich provide a false-incentive for the poor to rise to the top. It is clearly not the perfect system.



Finally; I request that you don't refer to communist systems in your arguments as the alternative for capitalism. Try 'non-capitalist' instead. It may lead the voters to assume that I support the system the USSR used or the system that China uses. Stalin used slave labour and China is the country that the USA relies upon to make its system work. In fact they owe China 541 billion dollars--
http://tinyurl.com...

[1] http://tipstrategies.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

[3] https://lh6.googleusercontent.com...
Lordknukle

Con

First, I would like to say that I will continue using the term "Communism". If you didn't want me to use it, then you should have specified in the first round. I will not change my argument because you are afraid of being associated with the USSR.

I thank my opponent for his arguments. I intend to prove them wrong on all accounts.

"My opponent labelled this argument rather poorly. He states that "Capitalism helps reduce poverty in developing and poor countries" but does not explain how. What the argument is about is South Africa's rise in GDP ( Gross Domestic Product ) . He does not suggest, however, that GDP lowers poverty levels. Open the following graph, entitled 'Poverty And Unemployment':http://www.ihsglobalinsight.co.za...... alongside my opponent's: http://www.indexmundi.com...... and you will see that while the GDP has increased very slightly the rate of poverty and unemployment has stayed the same over the same period of time! This would suggest that GDP and poverty are not linked."

You have got to be kidding me. GDP and poverty are greatly interconnected.

'The total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year'- GDP (1)

http://www.google.ca...;

"The most common way to measure a country's wealth or poverty is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. GDP measures the value of the goods and services that a country produces"(2)

http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au...

GDP refers to the value of goods that a country produces. Logic and common sense dictate that if GDP increases, production and output increase as well. As a result, the economy goes up and the people living under the poverty line decrease.

"This is completely untrue. England, for instance, requires -and always will require- metals ( precious metals especially ) , minerals and wood, etc. from all over the world and exports manufactured products in return. Why are you suggesting that this would be any different in a non-capitalist society?"

True Communism, which is what we are discussing, does not promote contact with other cultures. It is an isolationist worldview. Therefore, free trade, and communications are prohibited. It doesn't matter if England needs precious metal, no other communist country will give it to them. This would be very different in another non-capitalist society such as fascism, but since the second round, we have mutually picked communism as our "anti-capitalism" ideology.

"Then why -and bare in mind that you are against the war on terrorism- did the USA invade two countries ( Iraq and Afghanistan ) in the last ten years and why, do you suppose, are there suggestions of invading Iran? Not only have they got no evidence for Iran possessing ( or planning to posse's ) nuclear weapons but the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war - http://www.icanw.org...... . In fact; the USA has the second highest number of nuclear missiles ( after Russia ) ."

Please quote my entire argument or don't quote it at all. By doing this, you are manipulating the facts. Not all countries have a vested interest in each other. What did Iran and Afghanistan provide the U.S? Virtually nothing. There was a HUGE incentive to go to war. OIL. Oil makes money and money makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm. If the U.S had a serious vested interest in Iran, they would not have went to war. If they had a vested interest, the economy of the U.S would have dropped due to no goods being exported and imported from Iran and Afghanistan. Did it drop? No.

"Incorrect once again. Children under 18 account for 27% of homeless people-- http://library.thinkquest.org...... . On the other hand; many children start their lives with millionaire parents. They are two very different spots to start out from."

Yes, that is true but can they rise to the top? Yes. Due to Capitalism, they can take out loans, go to nice universities, and do other stuff that allows them to rise. This would not happen in a Communist society.

Also, I hate to say it but it is the parents’ fault that they are homeless. They had an opportunity to make Capitalism work for them but they screwed it up.

"Actually, according to this graph[1], almost 5% of people with a bachelors or higher are unemployed ( There's a similar chart for the Philippines[3] ) . That works out at 1.75 million people, according to the census of 2000[2], and that number is rising."

I said and I quote "No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless." Apparently you and me have different definitions of genius. Today, any person can get a Bachelors degree. It is not a challenge. The smart people are the ones who make the system work for them. Not the ones who have a degree.

Also, it's clear that Capitalism doesn't work for some people. No matter how hard they try. However, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, a 5% unemployment rate is amazing because 95% of the people are employed.

"Because the worker knows that there are twenty children and twenty toys are required. They would have to be totally heartless to give only one of the children a toy. It is that sense of care and love that sets us apart from the rest of the animals on the planet, and it is that that has always motivated us and given us incentive."

Emotions have no place in a debate other than LD. If you gave most people a choice of whether to make 20 toys or 1 toy and get the same pay, most people will choose to make less for the same amount of money.

And your "love and care" comment is obsolete. Many if not all animals care for their young in the way that we care for our own children. Just because we believe that we are smarter and more advanced than them, doesn't mean that they don't have the same feelings and emotions as us.

"As I stated in P2): for every-one to become a billionaire the current billionaires would have to lose money. Well; they're going to do their best to make sure that doesn't happen, aren't they? So no matter how much the poor want to become rich; they're almost certainly not going to."

Incorrect once again. "According to an article published in the Post-Autistic Economics Review it amounted to $2 trillion dollars in 2009-10, with another £1 trillion coming this year." (3) $2 trillion dollars are produced each year. Therefore, the current billionaires do not need to lose money. New money is being printed. On a side note, the money doesn't have to come from the billionaires. It can come from middle-class people.



Conclusion

I have effectively proved my opponent wrong on all of his accounts. Capitalism does indeed demote war, reduce poverty, and give equal chances to everybody. The rich are the biggest incentive for the poor to rise to the top. Capitalism is indeed the best system for our modern and evolving world.

(1)http://www.google.ca...;

(2)http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au...

(3)http://www.energybulletin.net...

Debate Round No. 3
LogicalThinker

Pro

Topic under debate

The debate is clearly entitled 'Capitalism doesn't work'. I make no suggestion that a communist system does work, hence it has no part in this debate. I should not have had to specify this in the first round.

"I will not change my argument because you are afraid of being associated with the USSR".

Communism isn't part of your argument. The following is what you said you would be arguing:

"I will be arguing as to why capitalism works and should be kept as the primary economic system in modern countries"

...We have mutually picked communism as our "anti-capitalism" ideology.

I made no mention of communism in the second round, It was not a mutual agreement andI will continue to refer to a non-capitalist society as a 'non-capitalist society'.


Poverty-GDP relationship

"Logic and common sense dictate that if GDP increases, production and output increase as well. As a result, the economy goes up and the people living under the poverty line decrease."

OK, so my opponent saying that the greater the GNP the lesser the number of people under the poverty line. Yet my opponent goes on to say:

"Capitalism rewards the smart. The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system".

Also; my opponent didn't suggest why the graph depicting the South African poverty line[1] didn't reflect the South African GDP rate[1].


International Relations

As I have already explained; communism is not what we are discussing. However, for arguments sake and for this point only, I shall assume communism to be the alternative to capitalism.

"True Communism, which is what we are discussing, does not promote contact with other cultures. It is an isolationist worldview. Therefore, free trade, and communications are prohibited. It doesn't matter if England needs precious metal, no other communist country will give it to them"

Unlike most animals we do not have razor sharp teeth, powerful muscles or venom. Instead we have powerful brains. Our powerful brains allow us to work together to survive and this is why a strong society is important. If Brian has a lawnmower but needs a pair of sheers and Dave has a pair of sheers but needs a lawnmower they will trade items as they trust each other. Con has not provided any evidence to suggest that this can't happen on an international scale other than that communism won't allow. I must reiterate that this debate has nothing to do with communism.


War Prevention

"Please quote my entire argument or don't quote it at all. By doing this, you are manipulating the facts. Not all countries have a vested interest in each other".

PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING I DID NOT DO! What I quoted was: "In a communist society, countries have no vested interests in each other". Then you went on to say: "However in a capitalist society, countries have a vested interest in each other. They are trading partners". You made no suggestion that only some countries have a vested interest in each other.


"What did Iran and Afghanistan provide the U.S? Virtually nothing. There was a HUGE incentive to go to war. OIL. Oil makes money and money makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm. If the U.S had a serious vested interest in Iran, they would not have went to war. If they had a vested interest, the economy of the U.S would have dropped due to no goods being exported and imported from Iran and Afghanistan. Did it drop? No".

What did you define as a vested interest?

"However in a capitalist society, countries have a vested interest in each other. They are trading partners. For example, Japan provides the U.S with cars while the U.S provides them with weapons. It's a mutual agreement".

So; if two countries have goods that they can trade with each other then they have a vested interest in each other. Well; Iraq and Afghanistan have oil and the US has commodities such as cotton and tobacco. Why is there no vested interest? I think the answer is: the US wanted CHEAP oil. It didn't matter that 100, 000 innoccent people had to die[2] as long as it 'makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm'.


Rise to the top

"Incorrect once again. Children under 18 account for 27% of homeless people[3]. On the other hand; many children start their lives with millionaire parents. They are two very different spots to start out from."

Yes, that is true but can they rise to the top? Yes. Due to Capitalism, they can take out loans, go to nice universities, and do other stuff that allows them to rise. This would not happen in a Communist society.

Also, I hate to say it but it is the parents’ fault that they are homeless. They had an opportunity to make Capitalism work for them but they screwed it up".

As I have already explained: if children are born into debt then they can't take out a loan, especially in recessionary times. In a non-capitalist society people would not be prohibited from succeeding due to money issues. Education would be available to every-one and only the best would be provided.


"I said and I quote "No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless." Apparently you and me have different definitions of genius. Today, any person can get a Bachelors degree. It is not a challenge. The smart people are the ones who make the system work for them. Not the ones who have a degree".

A genius is some-one who can invent, create, do, or think of something that no-one else has invented, created, done or thought of before. Some-one who can make the capitalist work for themselves is lucky. In fact; you reiterate this:

"Also, it's clear that Capitalism doesn't work for some people. No matter how hard they try. However, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, a 5% unemployment rate is amazing because 95% of the people are employed".

If we said that just 5% of the population (~6.5 billion) is unemployed. That works out at 325 million people. If each of those people had one child that doubles the number affected. Of course the actual unemployment figure is closer to 9%[1] in the US but, according to my opponent, 5% of the population in unemployment is the acceptable figure for the number of people that 'capitalism doesn't work for'.


Incentive

"Emotions have no place in a debate other than LD. If you gave most people a choice of whether to make 20 toys or 1 toy and get the same pay, most people will choose to make less for the same amount of money".

Choosing to make one toy instead of twenty involves two emotions: they're called laziness and thoughtlessness. Emotion plays a large part in our lives; that's why we both used emotion as an example in our debates.

"And your "love and care" comment is obsolete. Many if not all animals care for their young in the way that we care for our own children. Just because we believe that we are smarter and more advanced than them, doesn't mean that they don't have the same feelings and emotions as us".

Yes; animals care for their young -- they have to for their young to survive but they don't care about each other. You teach a dog to behave by feeding it. You teach a baby more than just behaviour, though. You teach them to care and love by giving them care and love, not by feeding them.


"$2 trillion dollars are produced each year. Therefore, the current billionaires do not need to lose money".

I quote from that same page: "This money is being given to US financial institutions in the hope that they will lend it and thus stimulate economic activity". This is a bail-out in disguise. The financial institutions probably won't lend the money out (if Ireland's anything to go by) but the extra money will cause inflation, driving the price of goods and services up. So the majority of people will have no more money but they will have to spend more on goods and services.

Conclusion

So: capitalism promotes war, increases poverty, and gives unequal chances. Capitalism isn't going to last for much longer.


See comments for sources.




Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument.

I will not argue with him about whether we will use communism as the anti-capitalism but since our whole debate is now centered around it, I will continue to use communism. Remember, place your rules in Round 1.

OK, so my opponent saying that the greater the GNP the lesser the number of people under the poverty line. Yet my opponent goes on to say:

"Capitalism rewards the smart. The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system"


Yes, the greater the GDP the less people under the poverty line. GDP refers to the amount of products exported or produced in the country. More products equals more jobs which equals a better economy. I don't know why your graph state the GDP and poverty are unrelated, but according to practical and common sense, they are greatly interconnected.

"Unlike most animals we do not have razor sharp teeth, powerful muscles or venom. Instead we have powerful brains. Our powerful brains allow us to work together to survive and this is why a strong society is important. If Brian has a lawnmower but needs a pair of sheers and Dave has a pair of sheers but needs a lawnmower they will trade items as they trust each other. Con has not provided any evidence to suggest that this can't happen on an international scale other than that communism won't allow. I must reiterate that this debate has nothing to do with communism."

This debate has everything to do with communism. Communism is the only large scale recognized politcal and economic system which opposes all aspects of capitlaism. Fascism, democracy, and conservatism all support capitalism in either a full-on or mixed stance. So lets stop arguing about whether 'our anti-capitalism is communism' and down to the facts.
"Con has not provided any evidence to suggest that this can't happen on an international scale other than that communism won't allow". That is all i need to provide. If we are talking about an international true communist society, there is no way that countries could communicate with each other. Free trade and communicats are prohibited. My opponent can not seem to grasp this idea.


"What did you define as a vested interest?"


When two countries have a strong economical link between each other. If it were to break (them going to war) the results would be disastrous.

"So; if two countries have goods that they can trade with each other then they have a vested interest in each other. Well; Iraq and Afghanistan have oil and the US has commodities such as cotton and tobacco. Why is there no vested interest? I think the answer is: the US wanted CHEAP oil. It didn't matter that 100, 000 innoccent people had to die[2] as long as it 'makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm'. "

There was a vested interest to some degree, but not enough to cause serious consequences if a conflict ever occur. There is absolutely nothing bad about wanted cheap oil. This is not a debate about morals and ethics. Money in many cases, especially with the government , is more important than third world people.


"As I have already explained: if children are born into debt then they can't take out a loan, especially in recessionary times. In a non-capitalist society people would not be prohibited from succeeding due to money issues. Education would be available to every-one and only the best would be provided "

The debt of the parents isn't the debt of the child. As soon as the child reaches 18 (21 in US), he can take out a loan. The debt is not transferred onto the child, it stays on the parents.


"If we said that just 5% of the population (~6.5 billion) is unemployed. That works out at 325 million people. If each of those people had one child that doubles the number affected. Of course the actual unemployment figure is closer to 9%[1] in the US but, according to my opponent, 5% of the population in unemployment is the acceptable figure for the number of people that 'capitalism doesn't work for'. "

It's obvious that a system can't work for everybody. There is no system for which 100% of the people will benefit. A 5% unemployment rate is quite good. Also consider that the people that are unemployed get welfare and unemployment benefits (unique to capitalism.

"Choosing to make one toy instead of twenty involves two emotions: they're called laziness and thoughtlessness. Emotion plays a large part in our lives; that's why we both used emotion as an example in our debates. "

It's not laziness and thoughtlessness, its called effectiveness and being smart. Why labour for x hours to make 20 toys if for the same pay you can create two toys for X/2 time.


"I quote from that same page: "This money is being given to US financial institutions in the hope that they will lend it and thus stimulate economic activity". This is a bail-out in disguise. The financial institutions probably won't lend the money out (if Ireland's anything to go by) but the extra money will cause inflation, driving the price of goods and services up. So the majority of people will have no more money but they will have to spend more on goods and services. "

All the money that financial insitutions lend out all make it to the common person. Example. Buisness x borrows y amount of dollars. They use the y amount of dollars to pay their employess. Therefore, the money makes it back to the worker.



Conclusion

I know this is ad populum, but if over 6 billion people are effectively ruled and governed by capitalism with no revolutions or rebellions, this makes it a quite effective system. It's hard for 6 billion people to be wrong. Anyways, capitalism demotes war, reduces poverty, and increases chances of rising to the top. Capitalism is here to stay for a very long time.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicalThinker

Pro

It's obvious that a system can't work for everybody. There is no system for which 100% of the people will benefit. A 5% unemployment rate is quite good. Also consider that the people that are unemployed get welfare and unemployment benefits (unique to capitalism.

There is absolutely nothing bad about wanted cheap oil. This is not a debate about morals and ethics. Money in many cases, especially with the government , is more important than third world people.


My resolution was that capitalism doesn't work. I did not have to prove that there is a better system and, if for third world people and for 5% of western people capitalism does not work then therefore my opponent and I are agreed that my resolution is true.

I don't know why my opponent points out that the unemployed get benefits as he is against welfare and has no opinion on social security.

As it is clear that my opponent has agreed with my resolution there is no need for me to draw any conclusions other than that Capitalism doesn't work.
Lordknukle

Con

"My resolution was that capitalism doesn't work. I did not have to prove that there is a better system and, if for third world people and for 5% of western people capitalism does not work then therefore my opponent and I are agreed that my resolution is true. "

I would like to say that I have not agreed on my opponent's resolutions. I would like to quote myself from a previous round:

"Also, it's clear that Capitalism doesn't work for some people. No matter how hard they try. However, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, a 5% unemployment rate is amazing because 95% of the people are employed."

The main word here is Utilitarian.
Utilitarianism: "The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority."(1)
http://www.google.ca...

This debate is not about whether capitalism will work for everybody. Any proposed system will not work for everybody. The key here is that it works for the majority of people.

"I don't know why my opponent points out that the unemployed get benefits as he is against welfare and has no opinion on social security. "

Just because I argued against welfare doesn't mean anything. Debaters know that often they will purposely argue against their own views just to gain a broader understand of the subject.


Conclusion

I believe it is obvious that capitalism works. It has worked in our world for nearly a millenium(2), and will continue to work for many more. I have demostrated that it is the best system possibly available. It reduces poverty, decreases wars, and gives everybody an equal chance in the working world.

I urge you to vote CON

I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate and await many more.

(1)http://www.google.ca...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 4 years ago
magpie
Logicalthinker?: Let me enlighten you. Capitalism, goes all the way back to the pre-dawn of civilization. It is written into our DNA. All other economic models are contrived. Period!
BTW, even socialism is a form of capitalism, in that capital is a requirement of significant production. The real difference in socialism is that capital is the ostensible property of the public, instead of private.
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
I'm 16 years old. I think you guys were born to debate each other! you guys are still debating! first your debating about grammar, then you debate about red harring, lol! but sorry, I agree with LordKnukle, lol you guys remind me of rick perry and mitt rommeny, lol!
Posted by LogicalThinker 5 years ago
LogicalThinker
What I was trying to demonstrate was that no matter what system we end up with: IR will never cease. I used the communist system as an example to try to make my opponent concentrate on the point that international relations are not unique to capitalism rather than the political system used as an example.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
@raisor:
Thanks for all your insight. I will certainly organize my future debates better.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
@Logical

Ya I know its a tough balance...

My point on the War subject is you need to keep the end goal in mind: affirming the resolution.

Theres a big difference in the argument if you just add a few sentences clear stating how all your arguments tie back to the point you are defending. Ultimately you need to tell the judge "forget about communism it isnt relevant, capitalism inevitably causes war like I said in R1, my opponent sez capitalism provides economic incentives against war but admits they dont always work. Line all this up and you can see how on the whole Capitalism pushes toward war." In your Conclusion you dont even mention the war issue.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
@LogicalThinker

You did explain (successfully) that the Rez doesnt require you to defend communism. However, in R4:
"As I have already explained; communism is not what we are discussing. However, for arguments sake and for this point only, I shall assume communism to be the alternative to capitalism. "

And you have a whole paragraph elaborating on why communism could work in IR. I mean you can say "well this doesnt commit me to the impacts of communism" but at the least it is very bad form. You make the argument that you arent committed to it then launch into a defense of it, at the least you are confusing the judge.

All this aside, you needed to be more aggressive showing why capitalism leads us into war. I think Con wins that Economic ties are a disincentive to war and you win that they dont always prevent war. Ok, so does that really mean the system doesnt work? Maybe, but you didnt put forward a strong case in round for that.
Posted by LogicalThinker 5 years ago
LogicalThinker
Yes; I do read a lot of political literature. I just couldn't put enough time into proof reading and adjusting my arguments while balancing school work along side it.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
@Lordknuckle

"I have to point out that Communism is the only system that completely opposes all concept of capitalism.. Therefore communism is the anti- capitalism."

This is not true. There are distinctions between Communism, Socialism, Anarcho-socialism, Collectivist Anarchy, and many more.

Anyways you dont have to oppose every element of capitalism to oppose the system. I could accept that private property should exist while refuting capitalism.
Posted by LogicalThinker 5 years ago
LogicalThinker
I didn't defend communism. I simply explained that that had nothing to do with the resolution.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Equality (Rise to the top):
Pro points out how everyone doesnt start on equal footing in Capitalism, but Con shows that there are mechanisms to rectify this (and makes many dubious claims in the process; claiming that all homeless people are lazy during a recession that has put many hard working middle class families out of a home is sort of silly). Again I just dont feel enough force in Pro's arguments to back the claim "Capitalism doesnt work."

Conclusion: I think Pro could have easily won this debate if he has done just a few things differently. The decision wasnt easy. Both sides would strongly benefit from putting some more time into organization. Pro, go read read some Habermas or Marx if this is a position you really want to develop.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: counter bomb to willoweed
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't to impressed by either debator
Vote Placed by Samdeman90 5 years ago
Samdeman90
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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: Con Won,
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very good debate. I think Con use better sources than pro and made more convincing arguments. Con focused alot on how communism is bad and talked about how efficent and ambitious capitalism is for people.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully affirmed the resolution. I didn't feel like Con stayed consistent to the resolution at hand.
Vote Placed by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am un voting
Vote Placed by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con continued to use communism when requested not to Both had some really funny mistakes Con showed it worked Con used more prestgious sites
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Detailed RFD in Comments. Conduct against Con for a somewhat rude remark in R3.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution says that capitalism doesn't work. Pro affirmed the resolution in a reasonable way. Con tries to prove that communism doesn't work either which he successfully proves but that doesn't negate the resolution. Pro's arguments about loans not being available to everyone and, his refutation that capitalist countries go to war as well won him arguments. Both sides took quite a few swings at each other so Conduct is tied.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
LogicalThinkerLordknukleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments went to pro as con wanted him to give a different system (not the resolution) and sources were pretty much tied.