The Instigator
Sphynx111222
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
benko12345678
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Capitalism works

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
benko12345678
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,214 times Debate No: 65673
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (6)

 

Sphynx111222

Pro

ok, Im gonna challenge that commie t*rd to a rematch. This time im gonna do what he did.

1.Capitalism works because anyone can become rich
2.It helps small businesses
3.Everyone can do anything
4.It gives you food!!!! YOU WOULD BE STARVING IF YOU DIDNT HAVE CAPITALISM!!!

Hope to see you beat that commie. And don't even bring up your fancy sh*t. I want simple stuff.
benko12345678

Con

I would like to thank pro for providing a re-match. I would be honoured to contend with him once again.
Let us start with your first contention: 'Anyone can become rich'

1. This is literally the antithesis of capitalism. We can bring up a case of saturation. If everyone was rich, no one would be rich. That's the issue. The fact remains that not everyone has equal opportunity. Think of the third world or even people who are broke in the first world. Everything is run by gian corporate monopolies. If the means of production are owned by an individual, there can be no contender. The law of value explains the occurence in which the proletariat must seek shelter with the bourgeois.[1]
Let us take into consideration how the capitalist system works. It is based on the accumulation of capital and competition. Let us think of a small business owner who wants to start a small shop in the same town in which a giant corporate monopoly is present. This creates competition within the local market and is a threat to the aforementioned monopoly. As exchange value of the produced commodities rises, the small shop-keeper is driven out of business and his shop subsidized by the corporate monopoly. Where will he seek profit? Through labour. Labour has no value on its own[1], instead its produced commodities do. Exploitation arises when the value of commodities and labour increases.

2. Already addressed in the first argument with the example of the small shopkeeper.

3. This argument makes no sense. What do you mean 'anyone can do anything'? That literally means nothing. If you're referring to the fact that anyone can create a business and become rich; that has already been refuted...

4. It does not provide food, in fact, it removes food. With the rising market prices how can anyone hope to afford the extremely expensive loaf of bread? Again, think of the third world. Starvation has been present althroughout capitalism, as has unemployment (which usually also leads to starvation).

Your arguments are fallacious and repetative. Please take this debate seriously.

Sources:
[1]http://www.marxists.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Sphynx111222

Pro

Oh yeah? Then how did the big shop get there in the first place!?!?!? it's owner clearly had the opportunity to make it and succed! THose hobos on the road just need to WORK A LITTLE!!!!
benko12345678

Con

Irrelevant if some are given the opportunity...All humans should have the equality of outcome.
My arguments are still not refuted...sorry
Debate Round No. 2
Sphynx111222

Pro

you're a f*cking no good commie...
benko12345678

Con

Pro has resorted to forfeit this round and committed an ad hominem attack.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
No no. You're fine.

I was referring to the kid in the debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Libertatian....... Am I the " kid" you are refering to?I don't know what that laize-faire thing is, all I know is right and wrong. It is right for a person to build wealth By having an idea that serves others and working with passion to build that into a business. I know it is wrong to have government step in and say " you didn't build that" and take over 50% of it and give it to people who want to sleep till 11:00 and get up to play video games munching on their stash of twinkies.Then educating their kids on the way to scam the " system". Then come Christmas and crying for the media how they do not have Christmas presents for their kids.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
"Socialism is not necessarily inferior in practice because it's never been fully implemented."
- debate_power

How do you say this? Socialism has been put into practice many times.
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
I have sincere doubts about this kid actually being a libertarian. I might need to pick up some slack.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Indeed
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Socialism is not necessarily inferior in practice because it's never been fully implemented.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I see we have another laissez-faire libertarian over here...go, run back to Ayn Rand.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Those billions in poverty are because they do not live in freedom from government intrusion. Poverty is driven by socialism, communism, fascism, tyrannical governments and war.And individual lifestyles.Drunkeness, gluttony, laziness, and sin , which brings on the curses that are in this world. Freedom is the only solution to poverty. Not all the forces of government control.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
@DudeHouse
Tell that capitalism is good to the billions of people in poverty.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
There is equal opportunity when government stays out of it.Too many factors to guarantee equal outcome. A better idea. A better work ethic. With what measure you put in is the measure you get from any enterprise. Unless of course government is involved/ Then you better be on the political side in power.

I started a business with a $25.00 investment. Within a year and a half I was doing $120,000.00 a year in sales.I did most of the work and I got most of the money. That is how it works in the real world.I did hire people to take over what could not handle.I paid them prevailing wages for the skills it took to do the job. They agreed and I kept my end up as long as they kept their word. Like I said, that is how it works in the real world. Not in some commie classroom.

That is where these people can figure out how to get government involved so they do not have to go through the hard work phase of business. Just sit back on their laurels and have government force others to give them a share they do not deserve.That is socialisn-communism in cold hard facts.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro committed an ad hominem, essentially forfeited a round, and also failed to prove evidence for capitalism "working".
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Well. . . .Its when of those things that go best without a RFD to avoid wastage of time
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
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: Shame that I even have to give an RFD. Spelling goes to Con, as well as Sources for obvious reasons. Conduct to Con because of said ad hominem attacks. Arguments are also very strong on Con's side, and basically non-existent on Pro's side.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was terrible just like last time. Several Ad Hominems (OK he censored the slurs) and Pro had no response to Con's refutations, con even used sources (biased as they might be) Therefore the resolution is negated and the conduct/argument/source vote goes to Con.
Vote Placed by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It's not hard to tell who won this debate. Pro failed to refute Con's argument's and resorted to the use of insults.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Sphynx111222benko12345678Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro engaged in ad hominem attacks, so conduct to Con. Pro's s and g was atrocious, so s and g to Con. Only Con had sources, so Con wins.