The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dexterbeagle
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Capitalist scum, Communist scum, no difference.

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 3 votes the winner is...
dexterbeagle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,008 times Debate No: 61018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

Scum is Scum, no matter which koolaid they drinketh.
dexterbeagle

Con


I accept. In Round 2 would you [Pro] mind to clarify the exact nature of your argument and the exact terms and propositions? The reason being, debates (and debaters often take) often do not get to the essence of the debate until the last round but given there are only three rounds I want to have a clear understanding of the main issues and terms. Good luck to Pro. Economic debates tend to be the most fun.


Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

I do not admire your ability to utilize typography to emphasize your opinion as it is no better then a troll using caps.

You wish to manipulate me into a long conundrum argument, THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. TROLL.
dexterbeagle

Con

Con would like to address the comments made in the second round by Pro, specifically this statement:

“I do not admire your ability to utilize typography to emphasize your opinion as it is no better then a troll using caps.”


To be clear the way I engage in debate on DDO follows a very standard model of argumentation practiced in academia, philosophy, and law (see: Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition [The Great Courses] by David Zarefsky, professor emeritus at Northwestern University. Moreover, on DDO I am not interesting in my opinion but rather engage in debate, substantiated always by reason and evidence. The suggestion that I am a “troll” is both untrue, unjustified, and superfluous to the debate. That said, let me begin the debate, which as you will read does not contain my opinions but relies on standard models of argumentation and nothing else.

A definition of Scum including synonyms and antonyms


So the proposition is “Capitalist scum, Communist scum, no difference.”


Given Pro did not provide a definition of scum or provide an example of capitalist or communist that could be consider scum, Con consult dictionaries and common usage these terms. The most problematic term is the word scum. However based on the context we can say based on the dictionaries definition that scum refers to “a dishonest, unkind, or unpleasant person.”[1] The synonyms and antonyms are quite interesting, they provide a basis for the counterclaim that capitalist scum and communist scum are different because one synonym for scum is proletariat (see Ann Applebaum footnote below) and an antonym is aristocracy.[2]


Definition of capitalist and communist as well as their discernable differences—usage and concrete examples:


Capitalist :

Investopedia say that capitalism and capitalists are participate in an economic system based on the notion of private ownership.[3] “The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy).”[4] The dictionary provides an example of proper usage, using the following sentence: “capitalist who lost everything in the ’29 crash.”[5] This refers to the stock market crash, which collapsed due to speculation and bad investment, not because of government directed action. It seems like many of the capitalists in the lead up to the market crash of 1929 were dishonest, therefore if they were dishonest and participated in a private economy, we can say with certainty based on definition that they were (1) scum (meaning dishonest by way of financial fraud of some kind) as well as capitalist (given that the stock market was a mechanism for private investment). And yet, this example shows that this problem was unrelated to a planned economy or communists, therefore capitalist scum and communist scum must be different kinds of scum and not the same scum.


Communist & Communism with usage and concrete examples:

According to the dictionary, a communist is one an adherent of communism. Communism is defined as “a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.”[6] Moreover, here is an example sentence from Anne Applebaum: “On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution.”[7] (See original synonyms for the word “scum”). In addition, according to communist theory, the achievement of a truly communist society entails a change from paying people according to their productivity to paying “each according to his needs,”[8] the opposite of the theory of capitalism as defined by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. What example can Con give of communist economics in practice? One example of both “scum” (meaning dishonest, unkind, unpleasant) and “communist” (meaning government control rather than private control of the economy) comes from Mao’s China. One of Mao’s major initiative during the late 1950s and early 1960s was the Great Leap Forward. The most serious failure of the Great Leap Forward was in agriculture. Misconceived irrigation projects leached nutrients from the soil, and mass mobilization for work projects exhausted and demoralized the people. Here, too, the government worked with misleading statistics (dishonest, meaning specifically “scum”). Relying on faulty expectations and inflated reports, the government took so much grain that in many areas practically nothing was left for the peasants. Massive famine resulted. “The number who died is difficult to determine, but 16 to 27 million is a conservative estimate, 30 million is plausible.”[9]


Here we find a different problem, one created and implemented by what by definition can be called communist, communist scum no less.


Conclusion for Round Two:

Using accepted definitions for the words in the proposition “capitalist scum, communist scum” as well as illustrate clear differences, Con has been able to undermine Pro’s major arguments.



[1] "Scum." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed August 30, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com....

[2] "Scum." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed August 30, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com....

[3] Capitalism Definition | Investopedia (Investopedia) http://www.investopedia.com...

[4] Capitalism Definition | Investopedia (Investopedia) http://www.investopedia.com...

[5] "Capitalist." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed August 30, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com....

[6] "Communism." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed August 30, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com....

[7] Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007

[8] Conrad Schirokuer & Donald Clark, Modern East Asia: A Brief History (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company 2008), 364.

[9] Conrad Schirokuer & Donald Clark, Modern East Asia: A Brief History (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company 2008), 364.

Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

In their respective countries, communists or capitalists control and own everything, that is the point. I do not need to write a book to explain this, it is indisputable. Not that you will be dissuaded from typing away.
dexterbeagle

Con

I will keep this brief since BOP is fully Pro’s.

Con’s earlier post provided standard definitions, usage, and concrete examples that illustrate that Capitalist scum, Communist scum, ARE different.


Even though Con is not obliged to address superfluous arguments including the argument put forward in Round 3:


“In their respective countries, communists or capitalists control and own everything, that is the point. I do not need to write a book to explain this, it is indisputable.”


On first impression, one is likely to agree, “Communists or capitalists control and own everything… [making] it [an] indisputable [fact].”


However, even here, there are significant differences. For instance, capitalists do not own national parks like Yellow Stone; they do not own the Grand Canyon; they do not own the military; they do not own roads; they do not own Hoover Dam; they do not own Social Security; they do not own public schools; they do not own police departments. The reason is that capitalists and capitalism are economic institutions privately owned, and their ownership is significant but it does not extend to public goods since they public and by definition not private or privatized. Even people associated with capitalism or considered capitalists do not own things derivatives since derivatives are protection against events that do not control and often assets they do not own. Insurance is a product that is based on uncontrolled events. In addition, take for instance the BP Oil spill. The oil that leaked and dispersed into the ocean isn’t own or can be said to be controlled by anyone. Also take the example of someone who owns a single share in McDonalds in their 401k. The single share they own does not mean they are entitled to use of say the grill or entitled to free fries or even a cardboard cutout of Ronald McDonald.



The same is not true of North Korea, where the state claims ownership, control, and sovereignty over both the political and economic sphere. In reality, North Korea does not have the power to control and own everything. As important as the limits mentioned in the last sentence, is the fact that China’s economic and political power in the region places constraints on what North Korea (specifically the regime) can and cannot do. This means the North Korean regime does not control everything even within their own boarders. Moreover, it is factually not the case that the leadership “owns everything.” Evidence for this claim is the black-market documented in recent years by the few journalists who have traveled there and the few dissents that have managed to escape to neighboring countries.[1]


Finally, let us take the example of air pollution produced in a capitalist country (say the United States), that enters a communist country (say China) or vice versa. No one, not the capitalists or the communists, own that pollution any discernable sense. They also do not control it.

Finally let me conclude. First I would like to thank Pro for the debate.

Here are the reasons I believe Con should receive your voter:

Con provided definitions, sources, and evidence footnoted throughout. Con not only countered very point raised by Pro but also countered ancillary points not directly related to the proposition. Given full BOP is Pro’s alone, please Vote CON!



[1] PEARSON, JAMES. "Black Market Gets Some Respect in North Korea." New York Times, November 4, 2013. Accessed August 31, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com....

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Please explain your comment .I ,for one, am not in debt and never will be. Even the bible teaches us not to owe any man but love him.Because the borrower becomes the slave of the lender.If I have an unction to give something, I do not have to go to the bank and ask them if they would mind, because they always do.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I like that, a debt to your fellow man is a cancellation of your say, perfect idea.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
They are like night and day. Capitalism, the one who earns the money ,decides where it is spent.That is true freedom. Comminism decides by government force where the money is spent. And they ALWAYS have a political intent behind their decisions. Where the money will go to keep them in power and get the votes.My opinion is that ANYONE receiving a freebie from government should lose their right to vote.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Actually I am.
Posted by dexterbeagle 2 years ago
dexterbeagle
On my profile page NiamC1 had a brief conversation about Slavoj Zizek. A quick google or YouTube search will verify that I am not Slavoj Zizek. I assume you are also not a conscience finger fixed in space behind a white, square-shaped background.
Posted by dexterbeagle 2 years ago
dexterbeagle
My profile picture is of a philosopher named Slavoj Zizek, so no that is not a picture of me.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I will bring you your biscuit tomorrow dog.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
You are 20 years old? Who is the pic of you actually? Your idol?
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
you are not 20 years old grey beard deceiver. that is the truth right, or just the pic is a lie?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
Max.WallacedexterbeagleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: per usual Max doesn't debate he just makes a statement and repeats. Whats the point of having a debate if you're just going to call the other side a troll for arguing against you?
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Max.WallacedexterbeagleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO did nothing.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
Max.WallacedexterbeagleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Bop is all pro's. Unfufilled