The Instigator
CaleBREEEum
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
giantrobot11
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Capitalism is justified because it makes life better.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,721 times Debate No: 9303
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

CaleBREEEum

Con

Ill give my opponent the first word.
giantrobot11

Pro

CAPITALISM - 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, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Capitalism is justified because it makes life better. This is shown in practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://hdrstats.undp.org...

The Human Development index measures the standard of living for a country. If you look at the top countries on that list, they all have a capitalist economic system system.

http://www.success-and-culture.net...

Income Per Capita is measures the economic prosperity of a nation proportional to its population. The higher the income per capita, the greater wealth there is in that nation, which means its population has more income and capital.
More capital results in greater employment, more employment results in a better standard of living.

http://www.success-and-culture.net...
If we look at the top 30 countries in this ranking, ALL have capitalist economic systems.

Capitalism, with private means of production, would result in a greater supply of goods and services to meet the demands of the market. Collectively or state-owned economies would mean just one general supplier of all goods. Several suppliers competing for the demand of the consumers would create a greater supply of goods and services, and more capital. This is exemplified in the Eastern European countries preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union, where due to a centrally planned economy there were constant shortages, especially basic needs such as housing and food. Low supply and high demand resulted a decrease of capital, and a deficit of economic growth.

The prefabricated homes used to combat the shortage remain in the former Eastern Bloc today.
Only a few examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org... - Russia
http://upload.wikimedia.org... - Romania
http://image02.webshots.com... - Croatia

Another benefit of capitalism is the development it creates. In a competitive economic atmosphere, enterprises are encouraged to innovate in order to profit, and those that do not will fail. Without the motive of profit and competition, innovation stagnates.

To date, no country with a non-capitalist system has retained one without using immoral force. The obvious hardships of socialism and communism would result in an unsatisfied population, and the only way for the system to retain hold on power would be through force. The seizure of private property would be through force. An example includes Czechoslovakia, where small reforms resulted in the Soviet Union and its allies invading. Another one being forced collectivization throughout Warsaw Pact states. Every socialist state is a police state.

Capitalism is justified because it is the system with the most choice for an individual. I have choice regarding the providers of the goods and services I require. All market activity is voluntary. Power resides in the individual, rather than an oligarchic central authority that imposes its will upon all participants in the economy. Capitalism guarantees me the ownership of my own property, and to do it as I please, within the constraints of law. Capitalism offers me the right to work for my own sake. Socialism and its various forms have public authorities that demand the use of your property, and this is most commonly used by force.

Wealth is created by production. If the state has control of the means of production, essentially one authority has a monopoly on all wealth in the economy. Capitalism puts wealth in the hands of citizens.
Debate Round No. 1
CaleBREEEum

Con

First off i'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. Secondly I'd like to apologize for posting my argument so late, my inbox was jammed full of so much crap i didn't see the alert that my challenge had been accepted.

Now to get started, I'll accept my opponents definition of Capitalism, considering this is not a real definition based debate no other words or counter definitions will be necessary.
Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that the Negative burden (mine) is not to advocate for a state controlled economy, nor to debunk the Capitalist system. I simply have to adequately refute that Capitalism is justified because it makes life better.
I'll go backwards from a normal LD style since i have no time constraints, starting with my arguments. I'll tie together my points that cross-apply to his arguments further down.
First off, I'd like to pose the question, just because the standard of living may be increasing (which its not), is that a justifiable reason for Capitalism.No. There were rising standards of living in slave societies, They were much better off in the 19th century than in the 18th century does that justify slavery? Stalinism for another example, there was very substantial economic growth in the Soviet Union until 1989, it was the second world not the third world, it's now back in the third world because it's undergoing capitalist reforms. Up until the 1960's in fact the Soviet Union was presenting itself for modernization within a single generation. Hitler, up to that point in the 1930's, being the most popular leader in German history. Carried out a social revolution in which people were living better, of course i don't mean everybody, like Jews for example. Hitler and his administrators apparently figured out that large scale state expenditures could rescue the morbid Capitalistic economy from destruction, people lived better and the economy was booming, is this sufficient reason to advocate Fascism?
There must be much more reason that is actually justifiable in order to make such a claim for Capitalism.
Starting with my opponents first link in his case, he says Capitalism because it's shown to make life better in practice. Does his link support this? The Human Development index measures life expectancy, literacy, and education, now though these "top" countries he says have Capitalist systems does that mean that if a nation makes Capitalistic reforms it's education and literacy rate will automatically sky rocket? No, we know this living in a country that's on the short end of the stick when it comes to education.
Now to his second point in which he uses the success and culture website, first of i think this is a horrible resource since it states in the first paragraph, "There is little research done on this topic beside collecting together government provided information." I may sound a little superstitious, but I don't just take the government on there word. Now on to his actual argument he says higher income=more employment=better standards of living. We've already discussed why that is a terrible argument, that simply because there's a better standard of living somethings justified, so to move on to where he says more jobs better living yay!!!! Is that so.... well last time i checked Africans didn't get paid for subsistence agriculture, so they were unemployed. Now fast forward, they're enslaved received wages for their labor, so they are employed, and would anyone consider this a justifiable reason for anything much less an economic system? To strip people from their homes and force them into employment simply because the "standard of living is higher", if we know anything as human beings it's that we all have differing points of view. It doesn't take an intellectual to know that we have dissimilar ideals about life in general, but in this case forcing an individual to except any standard that is not their own is tyrannical to say the least. "Anytime a government uses force to try and make life "better" we move closer to the nightmares of The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany."-Browne (former Libertarian candidate).
Now on to his next point, he says the constant trials of Eastern European countries to come out of the third world is due to centralized economy, since that time the have made capitalist reforms, and last time i checked they haven't improved if so it's negligible. He next brings out the problems with housing and food, now those pictures looked like they were taken in downtown Detroit. The United States currently has 35.9 million people below the poverty line, and that's just the documented ones. Local and state homeless groups have risen 61 percent since 2007, again that's only the documented groups. We see yet again that simply a standard of living is not a sufficient standard with which to justify an economic system.
Next i'll quote him, "To date, no country with a non-capitalist system has retained one without using immoral force." Has Capitalism not been guilty of the same? If anything I don't think Noam Chomsky could write enough books to describe the imperialstic indoctrination of the United States' political and economic system on not only Iraq, but many other nations worldwide. The most recent statistics show that 1,331,578 Iraqis have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq (Jeremy Scahill will concur), does that sound moral? The poster child of war profiteering is Halliburton so the argument that the U.S didn't start the war in order for government to sustain itself if is false. Both state controlled and free enterprise economic countries are guilty of this again as i stated earlier i do not have to advocate for a particular economic system that would be past the scopes of the resolution.
His last argument, Capitalism is justified because it gives an individual choice. This is a vague argument because you have a choice or make a choice is not sufficient to justify. He says Capitalism guarantees him ownership of his property, we know this to be emperically false. Though in theory it may we know that eminent domain is exercised and in fact a quote "right" of the state. Capitalism guarantees nothing except options, we'll agree on that sole point.
Lastly he states that Capitalism is not a oligarchic central, and it puts wealth in the hands of citizens. Hm, well the definition of oligarchy is a state or form of government which is controlled by a small elite segment of society, and since we know that Capitalism is all about survival of the fittest or natural selection if you will, then only the few large companies that make it attain wealth. Yes, my opponents correct except for one thing, Capitalism puts wealth in the hands of the large business owners of the companies that do survive, like an oligarchy, not into the hands of the working class citizen. I don't blame them why should they give their money away that they rightfully own, Capitalism creates class divisions among society simply put. So i stand in firm negation that Capitalism is justified because it makes life "better."
giantrobot11

Pro

"There were rising standards of living in slave societies"

Source?

"Stalinism for another example, there was very substantial economic growth in the Soviet Union until 1989, it was the second world not the third world, it's now back in the third world because it's undergoing capitalist reforms"

Source?

"We've already discussed why that is a terrible argument, that simply because there's a better standard of living somethings justified, so to move on to where he says more jobs better living yay!!!!"

So I guess an unemployed life is better than an employed one.

"since that time the have made capitalist reforms, and last time i checked they haven't improved if so it's negligible"

Absolutely wrong. Improvement has been remarkable. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Compare the West to the East. While the West maintained a capitalist system throughout the 20th century, the east did not.

"Next i'll quote him, "To date, no country with a non-capitalist system has retained one without using immoral force." Has Capitalism not been guilty of the same? If anything I don't think Noam Chomsky could write enough books to describe the imperialstic indoctrination of the United States' political and economic system on not only Iraq, but many other nations worldwide. The most recent statistics show that 1,331,578 Iraqis have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq (Jeremy Scahill will concur), does that sound moral? The poster child of war profiteering is Halliburton so the argument that the U.S didn't start the war in order for government to sustain itself if is false. Both state controlled and free enterprise economic countries are guilty of this again as i stated earlier i do not have to advocate for a particular economic system that would be past the scopes of the resolution."

The Iraq War is irrelevant to the subject of this debate.

"not into the hands of the working class citizen"

Find me a system that does this.
Debate Round No. 2
CaleBREEEum

Con

Since there were no real arguments or rebuttals made i'll keep this brief.
Your 5th grade history book will tell you that in slavery people were treated better as time progressed this is empirically proven because we know Thomas Jefferson had slaves and let them live in his home where as 100 years earlier they were lucky to sleep on dirt.

As to the Stalin quote again, i'm sorry that your knowledge of history and economics is so limited that you have to use Wikipedia as your illegitimate "source".

Um the next quote was taken out of context i'm not going to waste my time addressing something that wasn't even addressed by my opponent those judging can read it easily.

"Improvement has been remarkable", again using Wikipedia but even then, the improvement is marginal at best they're still in the upper middle, barely at that.

Again my opponents ignores the context of my argument, The Iraq War is a perfectly good empirical example that supports my argument.

Lastly, he says find me a system that does this. Of course, The United States, anyone who thinks this country is a free market economy does not economics. How many bailouts were given in the past two years? Ok and did the citizens or the State decide to bail out those certain companies, again the State.

So to sum things up for the judges i'll go over all my points he dropped did not refute and completely ignored and lastly show how he failed to pose any real arguments to mine other than claiming that history and facts are not sources.

First, He has failed again to reiterate his argument of why this is to be justified. So even if you don't like all the arguments I've posed you have to Negate because the Affirmative has not met their burden.
He completely ignored my arguments on why an economic system just making life "better" is not a justifiable reason to implement it, he simply tries to argue that the treatment of slaves did not progress for the better even though it eventually led to their release, but again he doesn't like history as a source.
He completely ignored my argument of how Capitalist systems have used immoral force as well as any other system and simply called my empirical example not relevant.
He did not refute my Browne card in which I showed how forcing an individual to accept a standard of living that is not their own and simply assuming that it's better for them is unjust and that when the government uses this force it leads us towards Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, again unrefuted.
So for the preceding reasons and if you go back to the top and read argument by arguments you see how many were ignored and dropped by my opponent. The Affirmative has failed to meet the burden of proof which is again to prove that a capitalist system is justified for making life better.
Since I stated that this would be an LD style round I'd ask that my opponent respect the rules of such and not to bring up any new arguments seeing as how i'll not be able to refute them.
Thank you Debate.org Vote Neg ;)
giantrobot11

Pro

""Improvement has been remarkable", again using Wikipedia but even then, the improvement is marginal at best they're still in the upper middle, barely at that."

Do you honestly expect countries to 50 years of communist idiocies like forced collectivization, tyrannical security apparatuses, and isolationism outside the Warsaw Pact to reach the level of western states in less than 20?

As to the Stalin quote again, i'm sorry that your knowledge of history and economics is so limited that you have to use Wikipedia as your illegitimate "source".

If there was such great economic growth and prosperity, why did the USSR suffer economic collapse?
At least I actually provide a source, one with its own legitimate sources.

"Again my opponents ignores the context of my argument, The Iraq War is a perfectly good empirical example that supports my argument."

You point out no correlation between the Iraq War and private ownership of the means of production.

"Lastly, he says find me a system that does this. Of course, The United States, anyone who thinks this country is a free market economy does not economics. How many bailouts were given in the past two years? Ok and did the citizens or the State decide to bail out those certain companies, again the State."

State control =/= control by citizens. Bailouts tie companies to the state, not citizens. The only citizen involvement is the use of their money, taken by force.

"He completely ignored my argument of how Capitalist systems have used immoral force as well as any other system and simply called my empirical example not relevant."

Capitalism offers the most freedom and power to the individual, as I have previously stated. Freedom and power are beneficial, and morally desirable, and this justifies capitalism.

Again, you point out no correlation between the Iraq War and private ownership of the means of production.

"Since I stated that this would be an LD style round I'd ask that my opponent respect the rules of such and not to bring up any new arguments seeing as how i'll not be able to refute them."

I did not accept this debate on this condition. You cannot change the rules of a debate once it is already underway.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AdamDeben 5 years ago
AdamDeben
There's no benefit from capitalism that can't be replicated with a resource-based economy. I don't advocate Communism either, because there's still a monetary barrier involved, which lies on the government. There are also more benefits from a resource based economy, because the true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The system today demands the opposite. Learn more about how the Resource system would work, before you form/spread any opinion on it.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
C: tied.
SP/G: Pro. Relatively hard to understand Con because of his syntax, grammar, and random punctuation.
CA: Pro. Had clearer arguments, and backed them up with sources. Also stayed on topic; Con used irrelevant arguments.
S: Pro. Used sources. Con did not.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Considering I'm heavily Anti-Capitalist and see it as a greedy system it's only natural that I would support the instigator in this one. ^^
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
The simple RFD would be the Aff fails to meet the burden except in a incredibly late and very poorly warranted argument at the bottom of his last speech which again lol i can't respond to.
"Capitalism offers the most freedom and power to the individual, as I have previously stated. Freedom and power are beneficial, and morally desirable, and this justifies capitalism." Sure that might, but that's not what the resolution says...and that point was never brought out in previous rounds, so I never had a chance for refutation.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
I like how he had to bring up new arguments to gain ANY offensive ground, whatever anyone who knows debate knows you broke the rules, if it were a real round you COULD be disqualified, but the judge would probably just look at this as desperate, as do I. Oh well, if i lose because of arguments i can't respond to so be it.
Posted by giantrobot11 7 years ago
giantrobot11
I hope you realize points are given for spelling/grammar.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
actually I find that writing as opposed to speaking allows me to be much more precise because I have so much more time to be thoughtful and pick just the right way to communicate an idea
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
just kidding i understand what you mean but no offense this is just an internet debate and if i was speaking obviously i'd be more eloquent and watch what i said but i do appreciate the critique.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
again if you have nothing better to do than nit pick at my words on a website im very sorry
Posted by jurist24 7 years ago
jurist24
CaleBREEEum: Words carry meaning, and sometimes the meaning makes the difference between right and wrong. Use words appropriately when you're trying to make a point, don't just scattershot your language onto the page.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
CaleBREEEumgiantrobot11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jurist24 7 years ago
jurist24
CaleBREEEumgiantrobot11Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
CaleBREEEumgiantrobot11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
CaleBREEEumgiantrobot11Tied
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:06 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
CaleBREEEumgiantrobot11Tied
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:43 
Vote Placed by AtheniusPrime 7 years ago
AtheniusPrime
CaleBREEEumgiantrobot11Tied
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:52