The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points


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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,200 times Debate No: 56032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




This is debate on Capitalism. Pro takes the idea that Capitalism is the "right way to go" or is the positive type of government. Con takes the idea that Capitalism is atrocious and is NOT the right way to go. First round is acceptance only, rules:

-Do not use blog posts or biased media.

-Do not use personal opinions; no first person.

-Be a mature debater, do not use swear words or immature terms.

-Do not attack the opponent's views.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


To begin, I thank you for accepting this debate. I will try my best to organise my arguments.

[1] In Capitalism, one of the biggest issues is the rich / poor spectrum. In a typical Capitalist nation, there are three financial classes: rich, poor, middle. In America, there is the lower, middle and upper. However, in the America there is also a 1% of people owning 45-60% of the wealth. A common defense is "they earned it!" It is easy, however, to argue that they didn't earn it. Pretty much all of the top 1% was fed their wealth since birth. People who work to earn money, tend to fall under the middle class category. The myth is that the 1% worked to earn their cash, and it is on the fault of the government that they are this rich. That is in no way true. Even if the government taxed the rich more and more, the rich still have an unlimited supply of wealth coming from their fellow "rich worker bees". The wealthy had parents who were wealthy, who came from wealthy parents, and so on. This is part of the economic issue in America.

[2] Healthcare has always been an issue in America. However, it's healthy to have this issue (no pun intended). If America has conflict with every healthcare policy, then America will never have proper medical treatment for its people. In most people's opinions, President Obama should be giving free, universal healthcare. The issue is that he is not. In the nation, if you don't use the "national" healthcare plan, you pay a fine. Why is this necessary? Well, it isn't. If the healthcare plan truly was universal, paying a fine would not be necessary. In fact, no money would come into the equation. Factually, everyone would get free healthcare and that would help everyone, no matter financial status. In Capitalism, there may be a homeless person dying of a fatal disease, that person would not be in that state in a non-Capitalist (Socialist) nation. They would not be homeless and would be treated free of charge.

[3] The working class is another sub-topic that comes up in most nations. If the working class has more control of its production, more hard-working citizens are making more profit from their business. If the government controls the business more than the owners, the government also controls how much the people working are making. The working class should not be working in factories, risking their lives for the economy, just to make minimal pay. Working in a coal mine or in an oil rig, is very dangerous, therefore people working in such factories should not be receiving less than someone working as a crossing guard. Everyone, if anything, should be making the same amount of money, especially when working in the same industry.

[4] Education is a political topic of sensitivity. In Socialism, education is free for everyone enrolling in school. School lunches are also free. In Socialism, scholarships are not needed. The reason being that everyone can go to college for free. College for free should sound like paradise for most people. If you can get a college education, and a doctor's, bachelor's or master's degree, with not a single penny's charge, why would you fail to seize the opportunity? The government would be funding education, so that anyone can truly live their dreams without their financial status (which would be equalised by now) getting in the way. Free education is of importance.

[5] The military is commonly a major funding area for the government. In Socialism, the military is funded partially by tax dollars without costing the people more taxes. Usually when a country is at war, or is preparing for it, taxes go up. In Socialism, it is not necessary to raise taxes because there is enough wealth to pay for the military funds at base tax level. Which enriches the people, the government and the military, all in one economic function.

[6] Equal rights / citizenship is another controversial issue. Equal rights for homosexuals, women, Hispanics, Blacks, and other persons is something the government focuses on quite a bit. In Socialism, everyone is equal in every aspect with regards to rights. However, this does not mean that the nation's leaders leave the borders wide open for illegal immigration. Immigration laws are still enforced, this is for the protection of the people. However, legal immigrants are given equal rights. This makes the nation more stable, and makes the ethnic vibrancy all the more special. In Kansas, recent anti-gay laws were passed greatly limited the rights of gay citizens. In Socialism, this issue would never come up. Hispanic / Black rights have also always been an issue. Your ethnicity, religious, political or social statuses would not matter. Nor would your sexual orientations, as in Socialism all are accepted.



[1] Wealth Disparity

I would like to start off by making it clear that examples are not going to win here. Yes, there is inequality, but we are talking about the fundamental ideology of Capitalism, not what is going on in one nation. Facts, figures and smart rhetoric can be used to argue any point. For example: Laos, a strictly-speaking Communist country[1] has a Gini coefficient of 36.7[2]. The U.S. has one of 45.0[2]. The Gini Coefficient is a measure of income disparity within a nation. In short, the lower the number, the higher the income inequality. Thus, the higher the better. Capitalism in itself clearly not just to blame. Vietnam has a GC of 37.6[2]. Cuba of 30.0[3] and North Korea of 31.0[3]. Out of the five recognised officially Communist countries, only one has a Gini Coefficient better than the U.S.[1][2].

The countries with the best GC, we see the likes of South Africa, Hong Kong, Brazil and many African countries, probably because in countries like Lesotho, there is not a lot of money in the first place to be hoarded, as the others there are Haiti, Sierra Leone, etc[2]. Linking back the actual BOP you created for yourself in the definition, saying that because there is income inequality thus it is not the way to go is now nulled, because I have proven that capitalism can be successful and that it dominates the top tier of Gini Coefficient countries, and Communist countries do not do better on the whole. The point here, is that it varies from country to country and Capitalism in itself does not have a strong enough correlation with income inequality for drastic action such as yours.

[2] Healthcare

Once again you fall into the issue of being America-centric. In all honestly, this argument is defeated by a matter of words. Canada. U.K. Norway. Sweden. Finland. You take America as an example of why Capitalism fails with regard to healthcare, and I take the aforementioned countries as proof as a successful mix of Capitalism with socialist endeavours. Capitalism, as an ideology is almost entirely economic. It's focus is satisfying the basic economic problem with letting supply and demand control the market. At an extremely rudimentary level, that is what it is. The upside with Capitalism is that as an almost entirely economic ideology, it leaves government interference blank ready for other views to take its place. This is why Capitalism does not come with Libertarianism or Authoritarianism, or Keynesianism or Monetarism. This vacancy allows Government interference with healthcare, so from then on, it is an issue with the healthcare system rather than Capitalism.

For example, the World Health Organisation has France, Italy and Spain in its list of best healthcare systems[4], and no communist/socialist countries. All the above countries, no matter how left they may be, are capitalist. America is not Capitalism, please keep that in mind for next round. The facts and figures make this claim void.

[3] The Working Class

In short, the government should be controlling wages or there will be wage inequality. Firstly government control of wages offset a perfect competition and is really not financially feasible. Let me make this succinct. Wages are set by competition, supply and demand. Jobs in law require many skills, are challenging, hard but the demand is extremely high. With high demand for them, and low supply due to the amount of work needed, wages will be very high due to competition in order to attract people to fulfill the need. With mining, although dangerous, it isn't very skill based but the danger means there is low supply and there is also a high need, frankly, miners are paid quite a lot; in the U.K they earn £40,000 per year and up to $200,000 in Australia[5][6], so it makes sense. So your argument is at this stage, void, but let me continue.

If for example, I decrease the wages that lawyers earn, then there will not be enough lawyers and prices will have to be raised again. If you increase the wages of a dustbin man, demand for that job will be high due to the fact that there is not that much skill needed, and you are paid a lot, then more people will want that job. Prices will rise anyway, but if not, there will be vacancies in other jobs. Interferences in the market are not good anyway. Wages are set by the market, and in the end are for the best, and for long term economic prosperity. When there is the right amount of demand for any job, the price is as high as possible with regards to the demand and skill needed, so both the labourer and the supplier of labour are happy.

[4] Education

This, without offending, is utter nonsense. Firstly, it is simply economically not feasible. If the cost of a year of study is £10,133[7], this times a possible 60 million people is 607,980,000,000. 607 billion. For a year. That much money so that everyone in a country can have 1 year of education, let alone three. Not to mention if everyone has a degree, degrees are useless. There is so much wrong with this I don't want to delve into it to too much, but in short, not everybody can have a great education. It may seem unfair, but what it does is create competition that means we have universities full of people that try or put enough money into a firm, which economically is always a plus. We simply do not have unlimited money, unlimited spaces and unlimited jobs, so there will be competition. Competition means that we get lawyers who are good and not just get a job place. It means we get doctors who put hours into it. Your dreamland will never happen, and with what we have, Capitalism benefits the most.

[5] The Military

No? I mean, with Socialism, the military is funded not partially from tax, wholly from tax. That is how governments work, so people do pay more. When a country is at war then, taxes go up so more people cannot pay them! Yes there is more wealth in the government, because the people pay for them! People pay more to taxes with Socialism because they have to, so that the government has more responsibilities! It is basic macroeconomics!

[6] Equal Rights

What? I do really question your political knowledge now. In no way or form does Capitalism affect equal rights! Capitalism is a fundamentally economic endeavour! Rights and morality is not a Capitalist/Socialist issue! This is just abhorrent! Texas has laws such as that because they are super conservative! Capitalism can be both conservative and progressive!

"Your ethnicity, religious, political or social statuses would not matter. Nor would your sexual orientations, as in Socialism all are accepted"

Mao Zedong? Stalin? CCP? USSR? North Vietnam? North Korea? Cuba? Former Cambodia? Do these countries scream "tolerance" to you? Communism is an ideology that focuses on the economy but slightly more to do with interference and fiscal policy. Morality has nothing to do with it. Many capitalist countries are accepting, and have nicer immigration policies. I really cannot believe this point was made.

That has been a fairly hefty rebuttal, and as not the holder of the BOP, I urge readers to realise that I have the upper hand as of now, and will now proceed to argue why Capitalism is the way forward, fundamentally.

I. The Improvement of Life

The transition to Capitalism is hard to find information for, but my favourite example which is archetypal in how a transition from socialism to capitalism fares for the country will have to be the U.K. in the 80s, with Margaret Thatcher turning Britain from a Socialist dump, to a Capitalist success. You can challenge this next round, but was a fact was that this happened.

United Kingdom GDP Growth Rate
Thatcher growth
Thatcher inflation

And there is a syllogistic explanation for all of them. Let us do this bottom up. Firstly we are living longer. Capitalism creates competition, the key term here. Competition means that people, in order to get as much money on profits, will cause people to create better stuff. Better capital for production, and better medicine, clothes, cleaner places and people in the end will try to be better. This means that areas of health, such as medicine and cleanliness will improve as people want themselves to be more popular.

The cost of living goes down. Cost of living is generally the correlation between price of things and your income. This also links to the inflation graph above. The price of things which are bought will decline depending on demand, according to economics. With a capitalist country, when there is competition, prices will lower so that companies make more profit. In a socialist country, there is no need for prices to drop, so cost of living is higher.

GDP and growth is obvious. More markets, lower prices, less government interference = a higher GDP, and GDP has a variety of positive correlations.

Capitalism increases GDP, GDP increases this. All of these only help to increase the standards of living and money and in turn, this happens.

Of course, a lot happens when you factor in greed, but Capitalism has seen this happen. There will be economic deleveraging, recessions and down, but in the long run, it is for the better.

II. Summary

To summarize, Capitalism has easy long term benefits. It increases standards of living and overall is for the better. As I do not hold the BOP, I simply just have to negate the opposition's contentions, which I have done successfully. There seems to be a confusion about Capitalism and America, and Capitalism and Conservatism, and I urge Con to think whether his next contentions are against the fundamental idea of giving people the market.


Debate Round No. 2


[1] GDP: The whole GDP situation is easily refutable. The GDP is not an affect of anything. That's just every economists living legend in this world. Take a look at this article:

[2] Economic Gaps: As the gaps in different Capitalist nations between the wealthy and the poor widen, bigger economic problems occur. It is argued that America is not a Capitalist nation. America is Capitalist, yet some Socialist traits linger in the midst of greedy, money-pinched "Vulture Capitalism" (instead of Venture). And in fact, America's economy is straining, and its Capitalism is going to falter along with the nation itself, below is an article explaining why:

On top off that, the differences between Capitalism and SOCIALISM (not Communism) are based on ideological gratitude and the idea that everyone should be equalised, and not patronised or kept poor if they already are, below is a link to a chart differentiating Capitalism versus Socialism:

In America, the rich are also getting more income than the poor, and it will continue to remain this way:

The list goes on as to how Socialism is better than Capitalism, but this article really nails it:

[3] Education / Industry: Thanks to the Socialist ways, some countries (like America), have free public education. Some also have services where the poor can benefit more from the government by being given checks. No nation has truly been Socialist, but there have been tons of Communist nations in the world. And from the view of anyone paying close attention, Socialist systems have pulled America out of economic recession.

The last economic crisis in the USA was in 2008, the year Obama was elected. When Obama was elected, many Socialist ideals were put in place. Welfare, Social Security, etc. Not all of the systems worked, but after the congress, the president and the state-level government officials pushed the systems to succeed, the economy soon blossomed back into the positives. And the economy was well after that.

Not only this, but the economy getting better helped to expand America's education system. Socialist ideas were put in place, where students could enroll in free public schools to receive the appropriate education of the state. Since then, America's education rate immensely improved.

Not only did this happen, but unemployment also went up, and industry expanded.

And as seen before, inflation and unemployment rates were awful:



The fact is, you defined the debate about Capitalism in general, not America. Your motion was "Capitalism" and that you were against it, and you said in your opening round, you were arguing that Capitalism is not the way forward, yet you seem to be stuck in a bubble that America is failing, therefore Capitalism is bad. Your BOP was to prove that Capitalism is not the way forward, and to say, "because it is failing in America" is a fallacy. I could just as well pick country like Japan and instantly counter your argument. You have not debated a single fundamental point about Capitalism, but rather America. I urge you to be more international thinking because this has failed you.

Firstly, you made an interesting case about GDP. By not actually making a case and posting a link. I read the article. I'm not ignorant of economics, this article is just very Keynesian in its economics. I'm fine with that. I mean, you did simply skirted over the myriad graphs I have about the correlation in general all over the world between GDP and a plethora of other things, instead sending me to an article about how Americans are annoyed. GDP, on the large scale, is a good measurement. It is, in a rudimentary form, the sum of what is produced without including capital. If more is produced, one can infer not only that the country has more goods and services produced therefore mre money to do so, and more people in jobs to produce those as well as more people buying so that there is the demand for those to produce them. It is simple logic, which you have dismissed so to rather post a link on an article you saw. I had graphs above for all the evidence one needs for how GDP is not useless.

I concede that America has a straining economy on a short term basis. But as I said before, firstly, America =/= the world. You are failing your BOP with only one example. America's case is quite special. The 2008 recession did not happen because of Capitalism. It happened because of the housing bubble burst, which is one feature out of a plethora that makes Capitalism. Secondly, other countries are doing better. We cannot pick examples that shallow. What you are saying, syllogistically is:

P1: America is failing.
P2: America is capitalist.
C1: Therefore capitalism failing.

This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. It is incorrect and you have failed to make an actual fundamental case about why Capitalism is failing and needs to changed, instead just pointed to articles about America. I;m not going to read any more of your articles, because you have not argued anything, which is what is judged. Economic gaps and inequality is due to greed, which is a part of human nature to want more. As I have shown, Socalist countries seem to suffer from more inequality, as I have shown, and you have just glanced over it! Inequality happens everwhere, so making this claim is once again using the fallacy of the undistributed middle term!

In America, the rich are better off than the poor! Yes! Fine! But America is not Capitalism for goodness sake! You could find tons of examples, and I don't mind examples. But exampes in a debate are to show examples of a claim you make! You aren't arguing anything! Just using examples and u.expecting them to extrinisically show how Capitalism fails! In Norway, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Qatar, Liechenstein, Japan, we see a success in capitalist endeavours, but you have glanced over this point!

You argument about how having education is syllogistically this:

P1: Education is good.
P2: Education is part of Socialism
C1: Therefore Socialism is good.

Fallacy of the composition, this claim is void. True for some of the parts does not mean true for all.

In the end, I urge the floor to see that even as the holder of the BOP, I have negated every point and still have a plethora standing. I urge voters to vote for me. There is not much more one can say.


As before
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Marixst-Anarchist 2 years ago
I actually am impressed by how much I learned in this debate. I compliment my opponent and actually applaud him. You sir, are a good man. I would like to thank you for this opportunity. Though I still don't agree with Capitalism, I definitely feel he should win the debate.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
Well, this was a very interesting debate to read indeed. Before, I didn't agree with capitalism as much, but I feel that this has educated me a little about this matter. Let's get on with my RFD.
I will start with the less matters:
CONDUCT) Both sides stayed civilized towards each other i.e. there were no personal attacks or rudeness. There were also no forfeits from either side. This is why I am not awarding conduct points to either side.
S&G) I am not awarding points for this because both sides did not make any major grammatical or spelling syntax errors.
SOURCES) I am awarding points to Pro, because I believe that his sources were more viable and appropriate to this debate, given that the title of this debate had applied to not just America but many other countries. I went though all of the sources shown, and I believe that despite the fact that both sides had somewhat good sources, pro had utilized these better.
ARGUMENTS) Both sided had immensely interesting and good arguments, but I am awarding argument points to pro because he was able to negate his opponent's points and use rebuttals against them- thus voiding cons fulfillment of his BOP. Con missed the chance of being able to refute and rebut pro's arguments and therefore continued to extend his previous arguments, which would be rebutted again by pro. To conclude, Pro had fulfilled his share of the BOP, whereas con had not.

This was a good debate and I enjoyed reading it. Good show!
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Every form of media is biased in one way or another, so the only way to argue in this debate is by posting abstract facts and attempting to draw conclusions from separate information, which amounts to formulating an opinion, but you don't want opinions in the arguments. I'm confused, but look forward to this debate nonetheless.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ksang 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Much more in depth, convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.