The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism

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...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,233 times Debate No: 19955
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

Capitalism is one hundred times better than Socialism. Rebuttal?
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate, thank you b/c I get a chance to redeem myself.
1. no classes.
2. Marx has defined socialism as a utopia and if you look back in history thats what they were refurred to. Wouldn't you rather live in a utopia.
3. Locke theories can help back it up.
4. OWS is the living proof people in the U.S. don't like Capitolism
5. Capitolism is the Stock Exchange
6. Socialism will work look at Cuba, U.S.S.R., and their former states
7. no classes, classless society
8. OWS will led to communism and Fasism
9. Radicals leed to war look at almost every war in history. Has to do with $, government, or land.
10. socialism is communism. it's just the perfected state
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

I will debate each one of your points. I don't think you will be able to redeem yourself after this debate either. And just as a friendly word of advice, make sure to do better on your spelling, especially on the word Capitalism. You will get penialized for that.

Response to Point 1: What do you mean no classes?

Response to Point 2: I know all about Marx and Communism. That is one reason I love Capitalism, because Communism is so awful. I would like to live in an utopia, but realize that utopia is unattianable. In utopia, everyone has the same amount of money, materials (products or items), and social position. Communists of all people should know that it is in human nature to be greedy. This nature prevents people from accepting an everyone is equal utopia. Communism seeks a militant or totalitarian state until the state can acheive utopia. People will always revolt against the system, making for a permenant state of totalitarianism. In other words, North Korea would be starving for eternity or until the regime falls. Capitalism produces Rich, Middle Class, and a few poor. Communism produces all poor.

Response to Point 3: Locke's theories only support Karl Marx's ideals. They give no reason why they are better than Capitalism. Marx and Locke were simply two people who believed in the same anti-Capitalist ideals. It would not make any difference to support Communsim with either Locke or Marx. But both of their reasonings are flawed.

Response to Point 4: OWS is a living proof that some people in America are stupid and gullble. Do you really think that the OWS protestors are good backers to your argument? You are saying that the people who sit on the side of the street and don't bathe for two months are good backers to a debate? Nobody respects them. Only Communists believe them. Belief and respect are two different things. OWS is still trying to figure out if they are protesting against Capitalism or if the are protesting to be allowed to camp on public property. I'm sure the Communists wish that OWS was a more organized movement.

Response to Point 5: Your point is? Of course Capitalism is the stock exchange. But it is also free enterprise, free people, free religion, free state, and a free economy. Communism is just a repressed state.

Response to Point 6: What kind of an idiot are you? You think that Cuba and the former USSR are good examples of a socialistic economies? They are the worst examples? Look at the former USSR, terribly run-down, people living off almost nothing, and a deficit and economy in disaster. Look at Cuba. An economy in disaster and a people who have no toilet paper (that's right; it was reported they have a shortage of toilet paper because the Government won't allow it to be produced). I think you just ruined your argument with that point.

Response to Point 7: No classes? Is that good? Because instead of a lower, middle, and upper class, there will be just a lower class (or Communistic class). At least in Capitalism, some people can live comfortably or even be rich, not all get only barely survive.

Response to Point 8: OWS will not lead to Communism or Fascism. The whole group is falling apart. They are losing membership and press coverage. Why do you keep sourcing OWS? They are not a viable source.

Response to Point 9: Your point? What kind of a radical? I don't believe in most wars. I don't believe in spreading power.

Response to Point 10: Socialism is the Government ownership of Business and the Economy. The ultimate goal of Communism is Socialism and where everyone has the same amount of money, social status, and materials. Remember, the ultimate goal.

I have shown the many flaws and logic failures in your argument. Your turn.
lannan13

Con

1. socialism is a classless society
2. I just restate my original arguement could you ellaborate a bit more
3. Pro agrees
4. I don't understand
5. Pro agrees
6. China is a good example too. they've been around for ages and are still here they're also rising to a superpower. that must proove something.
7. In Capitolism 1% keep getting richer and the 99% get poorer. Are you saying that if there was no rich and no poor that would be bad.
8. Pro has no evidense so if they bring it up in the last speech it is cheating. I have the burden of Presumption.
9. Pro doesn't refute
10. Pro agrees
Pro has either not been clear or agreed with most of my agruements therefore I erge a strong Con ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

As in the same fashion as earlier, I will respond to each of your 10 points. I will point out more fundumential flaws in your argument.

Response to Point 1: Socialism may be a classless society, but everybody will feel poor, which makes the poor's situation no better than before than instatement of Socialism. It is also important to remember that it affect greatly the Middle and Upper classes. So instead of the miniscule 15% who are poor (in socialistic terms) in a Capitalistic society, you have a percentage of 95% (where the only people who do not fit the category are top party leaders, which is quite an irony). And no, "Pro Agrees" statement. I am agreeing with you on the facts, not the opinion or logic (which does not foretale that I agree with you).

Response to Point 2: What is their to elaborate on? Can you not understand a higher-order debate? I laid out my argument fair and simple. But I will reproduce a condensed version here. Yes, Marx did refer to a utopia (no "Pro Agrees". I will keep saying this at places where you will say that I agree with you. Remember, if I agree with you on anything, it is the cold hard facts, not the straightforward opinion or logic which matters in this debate). And yes, utopia would be nice. But it is unattainable. Or, a Communist state will never reach utopia. Why? Because one, people will never agree to give away their money, and two, utopia is not "utopia" as we know it. It is basically just a state where everybody is poor. The fact that people will never agree to the re-distrubution of their income permits the Totalitarian State to say in place permenantly. Or, the state will me militant until is failure as a state. Look at the former USSR. No utopia after 75 years. North Korea, no utopia after 60 years. Cuba, no utopia after 50 years. There has never been a Communistic state that has ever reached utopia. That is why states like North Korea or Cuba will always remain impoverished. Is this clear enough?

Response to Point 3: Again, I agree with you on the un-refutable facts. But Locke's theories do not back up the Marxist theory. They simply restate it. There is no proof that Communism will ever reach utopia. Hence all of the failed Communist countries.

Response to Point 4: It's simple. As with Locke's theories, OWS has not and will not confirm the Marxist doctorine. They will simply make Communistic agendy worse. What I meant by they are not a viable back-up source is, would you trust a bunch of dirty, stupid, young people who do not even know what they are protesting (Yes. In several cities, it has been confirmed that hundreds of OWS protestors are not looking to end Capitalism, but just to find a place to camp on public ground). Do they sound reliable to you?

Response to Point 5: Again, I only agree with you on the facts. You posted a fact, not a debateable opinion. Yes, Capitalism implies a stock market. So? Is that bad? You have not said stocks markets are bad. You have just said that Capitalistic countries have them. Not debateable.

Response to Point 6: China is a great example of a Capitalistic Economy. Yes, they do have a Communistic Government, but they do have a free market where businesses run themselves, and the economy functions smoothly without the interference of the Government. They may have been around for ages, but they have only been Communist since the 1950s. They were a monarchy until then.

Response to Point 7: In Capitalism, the top 85% get richer, and the bottom 15% may get poorer. In socialism, the top 5% get a lot richer, and the bottom 95% get a lot poorer. Kind of lopsided statistics, don't you think? Let me try to make this clear. In Capitalism, there are rich, normal (middle class), and poor. In Socialism, there is a very small percentage of rich and the rest are poor.

Response to Point 8: I have no idea what you are trying to say. I am saying that OWS can not lead to Communism or Fascism. It wants the ideals in place (no "pro agrees"), but it can not enforce them. They are a small group of dirty people who know little about the complex world of politics. I hope the voters realize this. I hope the voters realize that OWS is not a viable source.

Response to Point 9: I couldn't refute. Again, another fact. Your original comment is useless. It has nothing to do with Capitalism. This is cheating. You are getting off subject.

Response to Point 10: Again, more facts. Un-refutable. Yes, Communism is Socialism's perfected state. I didn't say I agree with either of them.

So here, I have either exposed your flaws or agreed with you on the cold hard facts. I hope the voters realize that I am clear, and that is you who can not understand an intelligent debate. I hope the voters realize that I d not agree with him as long as they are not facts. If I refuted them, well that would be the end of my debate. It is a trick. He is trying to get me to refute them. I will not fall for it. I also hope that voters penialize you heavily for your grammar and spelling. I urge a strong Pro ballot.
lannan13

Con

sub 1. The Pro has done nothing to state the good side of Capitolism and the only thing said about capitolism was that it caused the Great Depression. Since that wasn't refuted we can assume that Capitolism is bad and severly damaged the American society.
1. How does a classless society make everyone poor. In socialism no one is poor everyone is the Middle class
2. He never refuted the communist China arguement that I made therefore this point goes to me.
3. Locke's theories back Marxist. Look at Locke we based the Constitution from his beleifs and your saying this isn't crediable.
4. Pro has no evidense to back this up
5. Pro agreed
6. Pro agrees China is a communist country
7. Pro have you not been watching the news as of late it's 1%rich 99% poorer.
8. Pro has no evidense
9.Pro agrees
10. Pro agrees
Pro has either no evidense or agrees with all but one point. Not only that but he has never said anything good about Capitolism. I on the other hand said it was bad. (sub point 1.) So therefore you can easily assume that Socialism is beter than Capitolism. I erdge a strong Con balot.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
RFD-----Con lost because 1) Bad arguments, and poor refutations 2) S&G
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For lannan13: I will post Round 3 of my debate tomorrow morning. Make sure to have your final statement by tomorrow night so voting can start. See you then.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For lannan13: Maybe you should listen to oberherr's last comment and my last comment to oberherr. It will explain China. Again, China has a Capitalistic Economy (even more Capitalistic the America's economy), and a Communistic Government. Remember, Socialism is an economic policy, not a social policy. Communism is Socialism with Totalitarian and eventually (in theory) utopian social policy. I think you just blasted your whole argument.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For oberherr: Another good point. Also remember too the China is considered to have a semi-Capitalistic economy. They only have a Communistic hold on the Government.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Once again, China is another bad example. In China people "disappear" when they search for websites that don't portray the Chinese government well. Bad example once again.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For lannan13: I will post the pro side of this debate in 2-3 hours. I have to go now. Be prepared for a major rebuttal to your argument full of incorrect logic and facts. See you then.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For OberHerr: Thank you for lettiing me have supporters. It is much appreciated.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
OWS is a VERY small percentage of the US....and the USSR and Cuba are proof it doesn't work...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure that this should require an RFD, but Con didn't really try to counter any of pro's arguments and just kept rattling off his own. That constitutes argument flooding which is argument abuse.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro by a longshot, if you want more info on my RFD message me
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 4 years ago
Crayzman2297
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: NO sources used. Lannan's spelling and grammar were terrible. This debate could have been done with much more class.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 4 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with everything Pro said but Con barely put forth an effort.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were poor, but that was mostly because Lannan was so bad, it's bad form to argue over his head...poor example of a debate, but Paul did win.