The Instigator
craft105
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Godsconvervativegirl
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Capitalism is bad

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  
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: 9/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,332 times Debate No: 18495
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (7)

 

craft105

Pro

Uhhh this is my first debate ever :D so i guess u can get the ball rollin ;P
Godsconvervativegirl

Con

Okay, I accept the debate and I think that capitalism is good because it has helped America, and it has helped people to make their own businesses, stores and stuff like without the government being in the way. First of all, what is capitalism? capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. * Second of all, how does it help America? It helps America because it's not only good for the economy, but it helps in everyday life. You can Serve God if you want to, you can really do anything you want without the government being in the way and stopping what you want to do in your life. I look forward for your reply :)

*Dictionary.com
Debate Round No. 1
craft105

Pro

Capitalism is Bad

First the Offense.

Capitalism is the root cause of war- war is a specific, powerful method of destruction of excess capital in its commodity form, of value that cannot be realized in times of peace. Their main contribution to an upturn is not through employment and the extra production of surplus value (which are modest because of their high value composition) but through the destruction of surplus capital: the more commodity capital is destroyed (both as weapons and as the other commodities that are destroyed by those weapons), the more commodity capital can be subsequently created. At the same time, this expanded reproduction is spurred by the higher rates of exploitation, and thus of profit, induced by wars. Wars make possible the cancellation of the debt contracted with Labor (e.g., inflation destroys the value of money and thus of state bonds) and the extraction of extra surplus value (the laborers, either forced or instigated by patriotism, accept lower wages, higher intensity of labor, longer working days, etc.). Wars thus create the conditions for an economic upturn. Capitalism needs weapons and thus wars. If capitalism needs wars, wars need enemies. The imperialist nations display great ingenuity in finding, or creating, new enemies. Before the fall of the USSR, the pretext for the arms industry was International Communism. After the Fall, International Communism has been replaced by Arab Fundamentalism and International Terrorism. As the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq show, the substitution is now complete. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were a golden opportunity for the arms industry and U.S. imperialism. This shows that political and ideological factors are of paramount importance for the modes and timing of the conflagration, but they themselves are determined by economic factors. The notion that wars are caused by extraeconomic factors is simply wrong.

Capitalism is the root cause of environmental degradation- The central problem, it is becoming increasingly clear, is a mode of production whose main dynamic is the transformation of living nature into dead commodities, creating tremendous waste in the process. The driver of this process is consumption--or more appropriately overconsumption--and the motivation is profit or capital accumulation: capitalism, in short. It has been the generalization of this mode of production in the North and its spread from the North to the South over the last 300 years that has caused the accelerated burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil and rapid deforestation, two of the key man-made processes behind global warming. The South's Dilemma: One way of viewing global warning is to see it as a key manifestation of the latest stage of a wrenching historical process: the privatisation of the global commons by capital. The climate crisis must thus be seen as the expropriation by the advanced capitalist societies of the ecological space of less developed or marginalized societies. This leads us to the dilemma of the South: before the full extent of the ecological destabilization brought about by capitalism, it was expected that the South would simply follow the 'stages of growth' of the North. Now it is impossible to do so without bringing about ecological Armageddon. Already, China is on track to overtake the US as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and yet the elite of China as well as those of India and other rapidly developing countries are intent on reproducing the American-type overconsumption-driven capitalism. Thus, for the South, the implications of an effective global response to global warming include not just the inclusion of some countries in a regime of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, although this is critical: in the current round of climate negotiations, for instance, China, can no longer opt out of a mandatory regime on the grounds that it is a developing country.

Non-capitalist economies are more productive and create more wealth than capitalism- capitalist countries are not distinguished by high levels of wealth. The somewhat more socialist economies and more corporatist economies of Western Europe reach wealth levels exceeding the levels in the capitalist economies. The reasons are familiar. One of the major drivers of wealth, the propensity to save, is higher in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, France and Germany than in the U.S., the U.K. and Canada – despite the high security offered by the continental welfare system. The other driver of private wealth, namely, the level of productivity, is also equal if not greater in the former group of countries than in the latter group. A proposed explanation is that while the capitalist exemplars may be at or close to the "technical frontier," thanks to their "lead" in cutting-edge innovation, they "waste" much of their output potential in false steps, in the costly processes of marketing, and in over-investment caused by the winner-take-all competition of costly R&D projects.7 Furthermore, the top-down techno-nationalist projects that some relatively corporatist nations have substituted for discoveries bubbling up naturally from the business sector may do well on that score thanks to the resources saved by avoiding "wasteful competition" for new products involving parallel development work and marketing efforts. One has to conclude that "generation of wealth" is not special to capitalism. Corporatist economies are quite good at that.

Now the Defense.

First off you make this big argument saying " It helps America because it's not only good for the economy, but it helps in everyday life. You can Serve God if you want to, you can really do anything you want without the government being in the way and stopping what you want to do in your life." THIS IS ENTIRELY NOT TRUE! There is no such thing as the Capitalism you define all the government does is regulate and intervene with peoples personal lives?! HA you also say you can serve god if you want to but i think "capitalist" america has killed about 100,000 thousand god serving Afghan citizens so i think you lose the "capitalism let's you serve god debate" AND CAPITALISM IS TERRIBLE FOR THE ECONEMY!

Because Capitalism structurally guarantees repeated economic crises- What we have to understand is that the real substance of it in a capitalist system is the accumulation of capital. That's why economic growth is necessary; it has nothing to do with wealth of nations per se or the promotion of human welfare. It has to do with the expansion of capital, the accumulation of capital in ever larger amounts, and the growth of profit. In order to have profits, you really have to "expand the pie" of the economy. If you don't expand the pie you can't get profits. The only way you can get profits in a pie that's not growing is to change the share, which has been done in recent years. But, basically, profit comes from growth. Anytime the economy doesn't grow, you have a crisis under capitalism because the accumulation of capital, profits, aren't being generated. When the world economy doesn't grow by at least 2.5%, they call that a world recession. It's considered to be a world crisis of capitalism, and this is built into the system.

So seeing that you have no offense left in this debate round i err the voters to vote aff on presumption and the fact that she provided no evidence CHECK MY SITES THERE FANTASTIC!

http://www.greenleft.org.au...
http://www.robnewman.com...
Rethinking Marxism, Volume 18, Number 1, January, "The Fallacies of Keynesian Policies," p. 77-78
Godsconvervativegirl

Con

1. Capitalism is the root cause of war.

Your assumption here is absolutely wrong. War is not caused by capitalism. Mankind engaged in war long before Capitalism ever was a concept.

2. Respect.

Since this is your first debate ever on this debate site, you need to know the rules and use respect when using your argument. Your are not suppose to yell at your opponent. You are to use restraint and manners.

3. Moving forward.

Capitalism does not create war purely by itself and capitalism doesn't need wars to sustain ownership and wealth.War is not in the definition of capitalism. America is built upon free enterprise. Which means if you have the talent, gift and creative ability to get wealth, more power to you. What type of capitalism are you expressing here? When America cut its ties from the socialist king that ruled England, America vowed by its first president George Washington not to intervene into any of Europe's wars and not start any world wars. For the first one hundred years America did not fight in any of Europe's wars yet America became the envy of the world, because it prospered by serving God (Yahweh), country and capitalism. Capitalism is also the social system based on the principle of individual rights. Who would not want that? the founding fathers were getting away from socialism by using any ideals that promoted freedom. Thank God for this capitalist nation! So it wasn't war that made America great and the role model for the world to follow, it was its ideals and capitalism was one of those founding ideals. Japan use to be a communist country but they turned to capitalism and now they are a first world country just like America. Why would a country turn from communism? Because there is a better way to live and get wealth for your country, and that way was Capitalism.

4. Capitalism pure and simple.
There is no reason to demonize making money. Capitalism is just a way of making money and creating wealth without somebody else telling you what you should do. It's your money, spend it like you want. You can share it or you can keep it. The capitalist way is a form of pure freedom; to be the best that you can be. Money makes money and the Bible says " Money answers all". It's the love of money that corrupts. In other words greed. A person, company, country or nation can be republic, a democracy, socialist,communist, fascist,or any combination there of. If any are greedy and do corrupt, evil and unjust things with its wealth; that doesn't mean the money that is made is evil, it means the people are.

Capitalism is not synonymous with a Democratic Republic. China is a communist country that acts capitalistic. I'm not shocked to know about countries that are socialist and communist that use capitalism and are succeeding. Because capitalism is a form and way of getting wealth its not a government.

5. Points that you've said

you said " Non-capitalist economies are more productive and create more wealth than capitalism- capitalist countries are not distinguished by high levels of wealth. The somewhat more socialist economies and more corporatist economies of Western Europe reach wealth levels exceeding the levels in the capitalist economies. The reasons are familiar. One of the major drivers of wealth, the propensity to save, is higher in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, France and Germany than in the U.S., the U.K. and Canada despite the high security offered by the continental welfare system. "

but,

Back in 2004, a pair of Swedish economists, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, did a study called "The EU vs. USA", for the Swedish think tank Timbro. You may recall that Sweden is one of those European socialist countries that is used as a model of success, a country we should pattern ourselves after.*

Here are the results:

The study found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average.*

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.*

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.*

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.*

The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden "the very model of a modern welfare state were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.*

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.*

"The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.*

You also say " Already, China is on track to overtake the US as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and yet the elite of China as well as those of India and other rapidly developing countries are intent on reproducing the American-type overconsumption-driven capitalism" this sentence is against your view. You showed that capitalism works in even a communist country like china. also you say " in the current round of climate negotiations, for instance, China, can no longer opt out of a mandatory regime on the grounds that it is a developing country." this means that china can not deny the fact that it used capitalism.

You also claim that I "define all the government does is regulate and intervene with peoples personal lives" this might sound crazy to you, but lets see what different types of government their are:
Socialism: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state,a society or group living in which there is no private property, any of various economic and political theories having collective or governmental ownership and unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done .**
Communism: totalitarian system of government when a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production**
Facism: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control**
as I said, unlike other systems, Capitalism is a system where You can do what You want to do in Your life, not the govenment telling you what to and what to buy. it's what You want to do.
**www.merriam-webster.com
Debate Round No. 2
craft105

Pro

For a Brief Road map i will be going down the flow-

First off- My opponent totally ceded the fact that capitalism is the root cause of war, actually all she said was "well.... your wrong... and war has been around since capitalism... next off" THAT'S IT! THAT'S ALL SHE SAID! SHE MASSIVELY UNDER COVERED THIS CONTENTION. You vote pro alone on the fact that she assumed my WARRENTS were assumptions when they were not at all assumptions the Person who said this was a man named John Bellamy Foster an editor of the prestigious US-based socialist journal Monthly Review prefer my evidence over her analytics.

And even if you don't buy that she also says that war has been here longer than capitalism so capitalism couldn't have started war right? WRONG Ok im calling my opponent out on this i want her to name a time in mans history where we havent had a free exchange of wealth in our society because that's essentialy what capitalism is. oh wait SHE CAN'T WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE FREE FLOW OF IDEAS AND THE FREE FLOW OF MONEY AND THE FREE FLOW OF "CAPITAL" IN OUR SOCIETY THUS PROVING THAT CAPITALISM WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE WAR EITHER WAY YOU TOTALLY DROPPED THE FACT THAT WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER GREED AND CAPITALISM IS ALSO THE ROOT CAUSE GREED. So soley on this fact alone you vote pro because she functionally dropped my first contention.

and onto Respect: THAT ANALYTIC WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF MY TIME I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR RESPECT I CARE ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENTS.

And next onto more war crap- Your right capitalism does not cause war by itself but the people that produce the capital do again extend the phenomenal piece of Foster evidence that says we are meirley producers of capital and that capitalism by it's very logic is a global expansive system and that capitalism will no matter what fight just to get a buck also just use your basic logic capitalist countries will also do whatever it takes to win a war hiroshima and nagasaki imperialisticly prove that the capitalist u.s. was going to do what ever it needed to do to win a war even if it required harming generation upon generation of japanese CIVILIAN?! and that's another thing i can't hardly think of another country that all they do is set up puppet governments just to make a buck "GET OIL"
And onto the god card you tried to pull that's like obama pulling the race card saying vote for me im black your essentially saying vote con because were christian.
ACTUALLY YOU SHOULD VOTE PRO JUST FOR HER DOING THAT!

And onto your next point - First off yes there is a reason to demonize making money but uhmm yes there is a reason to demonize making money under your framework of what "PURE" Using that logic i could go sell some four year old kid some cocaine.. because ya know im just wanting to make some money without government interference HAHA NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS NECESARY TO "KEEP THE PEACE" Because capitalism without some socialism mixed in would be a bit melting pot of sweat shops drug dealers and a bunch of people working for pennys an hour all for the purpose of just making a buck.

And onto your last attack on my points - you attacked the fact that Non- Capitalist econemies are more productive and create more wealth than capitalism

Your only attack on this was some article from 2004 saying that well Europe doesn't make more money than capitalist united states and this is a key factor in why your losing the round.

Fine i'll concede that in 2004 Europe was poor'er than the U.S.
HA BUT MY EVIDENCE IS FROM 2008 YOU TOTALLY CONCEDED THE FACT THAT BETWEEN 2004 AND 2008 THE EURO BECAME STRONGER THAN THE U.S. DOLLAR SO IN ESSENCE YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY OUTDATED MAKING IT NON UNIQUE TO THIS ROUND MEANING THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT FLOWS PRO.

Then You kind of beat around the bush on my contention that says capitalism is the root cause of environmental degragation but you cede the fact that china and india are a big contributor to global climate change. But you make a critical error by stating that they are becoming more capitalist. So in essence you concede that china and india haven't been big polluters in the past but until recently they became more capitalist they became bigger and bigger contributors you cede the link that capitalism is a big cause of environmental degregation and that environmental degregation leads to environmental collapse which leads to extinction turning your entire con case either way you didn't even provide an impact in the round so eveybody must default pro because i provide the impact of extinction of man if you don't vote pro.

Then you just kind of for no apparent reason name off some different types of governments for no apparent reasons i guess so you can just look smart.

So seeing that all you did was attack my arguments and never actually extended upon your own arguments i see no other option then to default pro in this round.
Godsconvervativegirl

Con

You are one rude dude! Why? Because you are full of vitriol, ruddiness and you don't care about respect. What you are doing is disrespecting to me and everyone that is following this debate. There is just no need to yell. Unless that is the only way you can get your point across and if that is the case, you are a pitiful debater. If your account gets closed for not following the rules , you've been warned.

I am smart to point out that government does intervene in your life unless the system is capitalism is there. I'm smart enough to follow the rules and respect my audience and even an opponent like you. I'm writing about the benefits of living in a capitalism society vs people who don't have the liberty of a free government where capitalism is practiced. If you are a christian that lives in Texas and can say whatever you want to say, no matter how rude and arrogant you are; can go where you want, buy whatever you want, eat whatever you want. Work when ever you want, own your own computer. You yourself are a benefactor of capitalism. You 're biting the hands that feed you. And a hypocrite I will add. If you don't like capitalism and the people who enjoy it, then go somewhere else.

Why don't you just let the voters decide and stop telling everyone you won. Let me correct you. I do not concede. I'm not finished yet. Is that clear enough for you?

You said " And even if you don't buy that she also says that war has been here longer than capitalism so capitalism couldn't have started war right? WRONG Ok im calling my opponent out on this i want her to name a time in mans history where we havent had a free exchange of wealth in our society because that's essentialy what capitalism is. oh wait SHE CAN'T WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE FREE FLOW OF IDEAS AND THE FREE FLOW OF MONEY AND THE FREE FLOW OF "CAPITAL" IN OUR SOCIETY THUS PROVING THAT CAPITALISM WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE WAR EITHER WAY YOU TOTALLY DROPPED THE FACT THAT WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER GREED AND CAPITALISM IS ALSO THE ROOT CAUSE GREED"

Let me break that down for you:
Man started out about 6000 years ago. The Jewish calendar says this is the year of 5772. It is the longest written history of man. As you know the human family is the bedrock of societies, nations, then countries the first organized nations of the world were families first and then kingdoms. Kingdoms are not a democracy and didn't practice capitalism. In a kingdom, the king owns everything;The armies, the land, the buildings the gold and silver, the houses and even the people. That is not capitalism. Some of the kings were worshiped and called gods.Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, the Hittite nations the Germanic peoples, China, African nations, Aztec nations all people of the beginning times where kingdoms. With power to rule, make every law and command war. The subjects had to obey, no choice. They did not have the free flow of ideals and the free flow of money and the free flow of capital. shoot, people didn't even have the freedom over their own lives. Example, serfdom, slavery and arranged marriages. these are facts and the thought of capitalism didn't exist. Men thought Kings were kings by divine right.The thought of capitalism was not yet accepted by the 1700s. This is why I can plainly say and prove war came before capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is not the root of war or greed. Greed is not a government but a human condition. To suggest that, that's ridiculous

There has always been greedy men that didn't practice capitalism that started war, like Genghis khan, Alexander the Great, Neapolitan, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao tsae tung, Mohammad and countless others down through history before the emergence of capitalism. Capitalism is not the root cause of war or greed.

You also claim that " And onto the god card you tried to pull that's like obama pulling the race card saying vote for me im black your essentially saying vote con because were christian.
ACTUALLY YOU SHOULD VOTE PRO JUST FOR HER DOING THAT!"

You couldn't be more wrong. Just let you know I am nothing like Obama. I was simply expressing the benefits of capitalism, because others can't worship the Lord free like we can in other countries. Take what is happening right now in Iran, where a pastor is facing possible execution because he will not denounce Jesus and doesn't want his son to be taught about Islam. Hey, Iran and North Korea are countries you can go to, they hate capitalists too. Oh, but maybe you don't want to go there because those countries are constantly ready for war, while their people starve. Our founders understood John Locke That people received dignity and individual rights from God. To serve God freely and that we should own our own land, persuade happiness and have liberties to make as much money in a lawful way as possible. Now if you don't want capital, you don't have to, its a free country, you can be poor if you want to.

You also claim, "HA BUT MY EVIDENCE IS FROM 2008 YOU TOTALLY CONCEDED THE FACT THAT BETWEEN 2004 AND 2008 THE EURO BECAME STRONGER THAN THE U.S. DOLLAR SO IN ESSENCE YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY OUTDATED MAKING IT NON UNIQUE TO THIS ROUND MEANING THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT FLOWS PRO."

You make no points here, because the Euro just became stronger in 2009. Even if America is doing its worst, its standard of living is still better. Your information about the Euro being more valuable than the dollar doesn't dominate my facts just because my facts are older. Europe is still somewhere trying to catch up with America. The value of the standard of life is more important than the value of currency. And capitalist countries by far have higher standards of living.

last and least, You Also claim," capitalism is the root cause of environmental degragation but you cede the fact that china and india are a big contributor to global climate change. But you make a critical error by stating that they are becoming more capitalist. So in essence you concede that china and india haven't been big polluters in the past but until recently they became more capitalist they became bigger and bigger contributors you cede the link that capitalism is a big cause of environmental degregation and that environmental degregation leads to environmental collapse which leads to extinction turning your entire con case either way you didn't even provide an impact in the round so eveybody must default pro because i provide the impact of extinction of man if you don't vote pro."

I'm not debating about Global Warming( although I think that Global warming is a big hoax) or the environment, I am debating about capitalism and pointing out that if capitalism is so bad, why would other large countries use this system. I never conceded or suggested that these countries are now becoming bigger contributors to the hoax of environmental degradation. You put that in your post not me. I just pointed out that communist and socialist use capitalism too. To let you know its not just Americans who are capitalist or engage in war, but Capitalism is an equal opportunity employer and War is too.

the definition of capitalism is not war, global warming, or being environmental, its 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"**
**http://www.merriam-webster.com.....

As one writer put it: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).***
I couldn't put one of my sources down because I ran out of room
*/www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/
***/www.debate.org/debates/Capitalism-doesnt-work./
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Godsconservativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconservativegirl
I got my name spelled the correct way now. :)
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
lol, okay I forgive you. :)
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105
Im sowwwie >.< that's just how i debate im a bit of a jackass while in the round but then im the nicest guy ever after. :p
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
it should be Chivalry. :)
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
I wanted to mention that I meant scheenname, not user! but craft105, you have to admit you were pretty rude there in the debate. Rudeness by any other name is still rudeness. Where's the shivery?
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
Yeah pretty good video Craft105 for showing rudeness,
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
Yes, And the reason why it is annoying to you guys is because I accidently spelled it wrong. it should be Godsconservativegirl. But if you still think it's annoying, the user 000like is pretty annoying it's self.
Posted by iPwnuNOW 5 years ago
iPwnuNOW
I think the pro gave a good argument even tho i would argue the con
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105
i agree ;D
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Con's very screenname is annoying.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
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: Pretty straight-forward who won. Just looking at Pro's arguments he's already lost. Sorry, but outrageous links (like capitalism causing all war) are really fun, but only work if the link actually exists. Con refutes all that pro says quickly and effectively.
Vote Placed by dcarvajal1990 5 years ago
dcarvajal1990
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Although I am inclined to agree laissez faire capitalism is bad pro did a horrible job at making a case.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro confuses capitalism with colonialism, doesn't show how it is responsible for environmental degradation, while Con shows that the US economy is much larger on average than those of European states. SG for yelling and too many capital letters. Conduct for yelling, being rude, and posting his own websites in the debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Short refutations are sometimes all it takes. Not only has war gone on for longer than modern economics (as Con pointed out), humans are not the only animal that engages in war.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Since neither side decided to source their claims appropriately, sources are tied. It's silly for craft to demand a cite for war existing before modern economic systems is needed. War has extended into pre-history and is common knowledge. And con, you should really leave religion out of non-religious debates. Con's opinions are more convincing but next time folks source your arguments so they are not JUST opinions.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were pretty even. SG and conduct to Con for Pros over usage of caps.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
craft105GodsconvervativegirlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Whilst I ultimately personally agree with Pro, yelling in caps at your opponent is bad, bad form.