The Instigator
Lasagna
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,588 times Debate No: 18580
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (9)

 

Lasagna

Pro

Let's see if Ragnar is up on his game. 1,000 char maximum, 1st round for intros.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Accepted. In the spirit of vague terms:

"Intro."
Debate Round No. 1
Lasagna

Pro

1) Capitalism obeys the definition of a game: "a form of play or sport, esp a COMPETITIVE one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." Even the "play or sport" section of the definition is attributable; the institutions based on gambling are so naturally assimilated by the economic system. Consider how, under socialism or communism, you would not likely find casinos since they aren't as compatible with the instution of gambling.

2) All games have rules, which must be created by an impartial central authority in order to make the game fair. We have rules called laws to make capitalism fair-of course it never gets there, for 1 obvious reason: the interests of the players influence the rulemakers.

3) Therefore, capitalism must be regulated by a government. Libertarianism is illogical because it removes this central authority and with it the ability to maintain rules. Rules are necessary for fairness in the system-why else would we agree on so many of them?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

1. Games are distinct from work, usually carried out for remuneration (Wikipedia: Game), otherwise, everything is a game which with Pro's syllogism means everything should be regulated--totalitarianism.

2. Many games have no centralized authority. "House rules" exist. Customs among actors exist. I need no ref for a pickup game of football. If I want one it needn't be centralized and may be contractual rather than authoritative.

3. If a game necessarily needs government regulation, then how is it that children ever play pickup football? Government bureaucrats typically are not involved and when they are the game is ruined as those are called recess monitors who forbid consensual tackling, making it less fun for those who enjoy such.

The number of rules "We" (unspecified, therefore, everyone) agree on is precisely zero. Thus Pro's argument that centralized authoritative rules are necessary for fairness is null even were it not an ad populum.
Debate Round No. 2
Lasagna

Pro

1. Under Capitalism, investors and entrepreneurs are are essentially players in a game: they compete with each other, take calculated risks for rewards of profit, and obey laws that are similar to the rules of a game moderated by the government. Under socialism and communism, these games do not exist, because people do not COMPETE capitalistically ("everything is a game" = false).

2. Con is describing games of minuscule size and negligible risk. Football with six friends may be possible with no ref, but show me a league (even at the lowest skill-level) with no refs. Imagine if the NFL used "contractual rather than authoritative" rules: would players agree to admit they bobbled a pass or hit too hard? Of course not; it would be impossible to play at all. Furthermore, any game where the size and/or risk or benefits involved becomes significant requires a central, neutral regulatory body.

3. Again, appreciable size and risk ($=not for fun) are involved in adult games.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Under socialism and communism, people compete for bureaucratic favor. Depending on the brand of socialism, they compete in a similar manner to under capitalism too, just not as thoroughly.

Under capitalism, there is no moderation by the government by definition. You're confusing it with Keynesianism.

The NFL does use contractual rather than authoratative rules. Ask any NFL player, they signed a contract. They are free to go to the CFL or the UFL or play in an unorganized manner or not play at all or attempt to make their own league. Most games are similar, unless played in the physical education program of a coercive K-12 institution, or used as training mechanisms for conscripting armies such as Israel, etc.

There is no particular reason to believe the proposition that a referee is required merely because of "all risks or benefits." It does not follow logically and no sufficient empirical reason is given for the proposition. Furthermore, the threshold is undefined and arbitrary.


Debate Round No. 3
Lasagna

Pro

Competition under socialism and communism is neither direct nor essential: it is only inherent in the sense that there is an innate competitiveness in all human endeavors - all is vanity. Capitalism, however, employs a vigorous and active set of rules to encourage competition at every level- whether it be businesses within a single industry or entire industries competing amongst one another. We clearly have game-like activity on one hand and not on the other.

"confusing...with keynesianism."- Semantic high-brow. Let's keep it a clean fight, shall we?

The distinction between authoritative and contractual is inconsistent. Our parents (and so forth) set up this government, contractually, so that we could play the game of capitalism for profit - similar to the NFL. We are living out that social contract that our parents supported and perpetuated for us.

There is EVERY reason to believe referees are required. If anyone here can foresee a ref-less football game then please vote Con.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Capitalism is defined by not having "Active" rules to encourage anything in economics. It simply forbids the initiation of force. Competition may result, but only for the same reasons you identify it as existing under socialism or communism.
If by capitalism you don't mean capitalism, then say so.

Neither our parents nor anyone else set up this government by contract-- they could not. A contract is binding only on those who sign it. A "Social contract" is defined by the characteristics that exclude it from being an actual contract.

The lack of analogy to football is well-established.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lasagna 2 years ago
Lasagna
Wallstreetatheist - since you're giving him conduct for no good reason, you might as well blow me in the process t(-_-t)
Posted by Lasagna 2 years ago
Lasagna
Just making fun of everyone who concluded that you won based on the refereee analogy, which I still maintain is both firmly in my favor and enough to prove my case against your rebuttals.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 2 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Huh?
Posted by Lasagna 2 years ago
Lasagna
Hey have you heard? The NFL is removing the referees from the game! Apparently, THEY WERE NEVER NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Who knew?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 2 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
We agreed to post it on a site where it would be subject to voting. No one prevented us from debating it at, say, Sieben's debate homestead. Contractual, not authoritative :P
Posted by Lasagna 2 years ago
Lasagna
It would be impossible to have any *meaningfully important* game of football without a ref. I've played lots of pick-up football games with my friends and one out of every 10 plays or so comes down to a call that you just can't agree on ("You stepped out of bounds! No I didn't! That hit the ground! No it didn't!"). When you're playing for fun, you just say "what-ever" and whoever is most emotional about it will get their way and you just go back to playing BECAUSE THE OUTCOME IS MEANINGLESS. But in an NFL game - or a situation where we are talking about economics implications - the stakes are far, far too high for this system to work by itself. In an NFL game, the players and coaches do everything in their power (while still within the rules) to not only play the game to win but to act like they are winning in case they can catch an ambiguous call from a ref. There is no reasonable way this could be duplicated in a ref-less environment.

This debate is actually the perfect example. I say I won. Ragnar and the voters (effectually the referees) say he won. Now if it was just up to me and Ragnar to decide who won, we would have a problem, wouldn't we. In effect, by you all voting and participating in this debate, you have demonstrated the necessity for a "referee" to decide this debate (which is basically a game with rules).
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
**Con's** final rebuttal standing unrefuted. - Fixed.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro, you should have instigated a longer debate. You had great arguments and a unique perspective and I don't feel that a 1000 character debate did it justice. It was a back and forth all the way and Pro's final rebuttal standing unrefuted. A longer argument would have benfited both sides and allowed them to elaborate on their arguments.
Posted by Lasagna 3 years ago
Lasagna
Oh shut up Headphone you gave Ragnar points for conduct, grammar, and sources for absolutely no reason. If you can't even successfully fill out a voting form I don't know what you're doing on a website like this.
Posted by Friedman 3 years ago
Friedman
Interesting issue. I am excited that we are talking about this.
The problem as I see it comes from the idea of a central authority. In a game of football the referee is not the central authority the rules of the game are. He merely enforces them he does not create them. In this sense every system needs rules. The questions to ask are how many rules governing how many circumstances and how are they derived (to name a few). The rules of almost all games are extremely rigid and specific. For capitalism this does not work, because unlike a game (or most games if you prefer) there is no specific goal or end result you have to reach. Not only is there no real endpoint at which we can judge the results (take Walt Disney when he was bankrupt), but the results are semi-ambiguous. The goal is to find happiness. What happiness is (physically what is required for it) varies so greatly as to be almost indeterminable and how happy a person is cannot be judged like a game. I scored seventeen happy points and you only had sixteen. I win! No one can take that attitude towards anything like happiness and keep my credence.
Making laws about this is very hard. We would like to maximize the amount of happiness people have, but how do we do that? Many things cause contrary effects. Getting drunk (or so I have heard, I don't really know) causes happiness, but come the hangover and all the happiness has fled. Do we propose Prohibition because of this or do we let people choose which part of the experience outweighs the other?
I feel that almost no one person or group has the wisdom to make these decisions about even the things we know the consequences of, let alone the unknown things, for any one other than him(her)self. The reason we make our own choices is because we live with our own choices, others may bear some of the effect, but they choose how they bear that as well.
Thanks for reading my comment I hope that it provoked some thought. Thank you.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won for an array of reasons, but most importantly he held that contractual rules govern capitalism, not authoritarian rule which actually harms. Pro had trouble keeping up with the evidence, depth, and laconicity of Con, with good reason, his arguments were cogent. Pro tried to pull a sympathy card on Con's representation of Pro's misunderstanding of capitalism; however, pro seemed more insulting. Character count should have been higher (2-4k at least)
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
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: Pro was at a heavy disadvantage in a 1000 character debate with Con having the last word because it really was round 4 that clinched it. 1) Con shows that the essence of capitalism is the absence of active regulation while tacitly admitting that it was a game. 2) Con wins by showing that many games have contractual rules which are only binding on those who sign them as opposed to authoritative ones. 3) "If anyone here can foresee a ref-less football game then please vote Con." Okay, I voted Con.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
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: I do have to admit that Pro's arguments were, on a whole, based on the concept of rules that make it analogous to a game (as claimed by the resolution). An interesting concept, but heavily refuted by Ragnar_Rahl: the failure of Pro to at least keep up with the football analogy or competition to rules and "authority".
Vote Placed by headphonegut 3 years ago
headphonegut
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: all 7 points to con ballot in comment section
Vote Placed by mongeese 3 years ago
mongeese
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is an obvious win for Con by definition; the analogy to pick-up football without a central authority was also appropriate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
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: Pro's main point was that rules cannot be created contractually but must come about by force. When con showed that rules in large profitable organizations such as the NFL are contractual, it completely threw off Pro's case. Also, lol I just realized Lasagna was Pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tacitly assumes it is a zero-sum game and his errors flow from that. the thousand character limit didn't work well in terms of gettt the issues.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
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: Con showed that a single authorative body is not a requirement for capitalism, by seperating out authorative and contractual. Since this is a global economy, that would imply that a global govenment is required. Rather, we have national governments, and like an NFL player can leave to the CFL or Arena football, companies can leave a particular nation and go to another that has more favorable rules. Pro might have done better arguing "should" rather than "must."
Vote Placed by kkjnay 3 years ago
kkjnay
LasagnaRagnar_RahlTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering vote bomb.