The Instigator
Ariesx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Capitolism is much better than Communism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 67651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Ariesx

Pro

Round 1 is Acceptance, Round 2 is Cases, Round 3 is Rebuttals, Round 4 is defense.
I will be defending capitalism, and the reason why I am doing this is I see that in the left, there are a lot of people being won over by the idea of communism. I will be trying to prove that capitalism the best we have and communism is not.
Lexus

Con

Thanks for starting this debate, I accept. With acceptance I'm going to define some terms that we need to know in order to debate the topic at hand, "capitolism [sic] is much better than communism"
  1. Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
  2. "much better" - is obviously and absolutely, truly better
  3. Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

This means that in order for you to fulfill your Burden of Proof, you must show that Capitalism is truly, obviously, and absolutely better than communism. Good luck

Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Pro

I will start off by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. I will be trusting my opponent's definitions for these two philosophies.

Argument 1: Capitalism achieves innovation- One of my main values is innovation. The ability to innovate is a very wonderful thing humanity has done and is our very nature. What was happening before humans started creating civilizations. We were innovating and creating tools which helped our brains evolve. When humans needed to kill an animal, we created weapons. When we eventually got tired of our nomadic ways, we started farming. You see it is in human nature to innovate, so they can achieve their own form of efficient pleasure. As humans started building civilizations, some civilizations chose despotism(absolute power) which were commonly used by dictators. The leaders of these civilizations stopped innovating and oppressed their people for their own selfish needs. This was more prehistoric, but humans repeated themselves in the medieval times. The church did not want science and people stopped innovating. Capitalism would seem like a gift, because it increased human nature's ability to innovate. For people to create wealth for themselves is incredible. People strived to work their way up in a capitalist society. The best forms of capitalism was in America. Where the government inspired its people to work their way up. Now, America is the 1 super-power. Our history had great capitalists. Capitalism brought computers and IPhones. Microsoft was created not only to make computers but to make money. Bill Gates is now the richest man in the world thanks to his genius and his motivation by money. Steve Jobs was very capitalist. ITunes sells music for 0.99 cents. He knew that artists would make more money because people would buy more and more music. If you are using a computer or an IPhone, you should be proud of the capitalist. If you are a true communist or socialist, you should move to China, or Russia to get a feel for what it is like. Also, you should let go of your computer and IPhone because they were created by corporations who embrace the capitalist ideology.

Argument 2: Things that you have thanks to capitalism.
1. It is common knowledge that Windows was created by a capitalist society. Bill Gates is now the richest man thanks to Microsoft and capitalism. If you think communism is good, than throw your PC out the window because you are a follower of the communist logic.
2. It is common knowledge that Apple was created by a capitalist society. Steve Jobs is very rich to thanks to the IPhone, and Apple computers. If you are a follower of the communist logic, throw your IPhone and Apple Mac out the window.
3. Toilets that were able to flush were also created by capitalist industries. Sir John Harington designed the first flushable toilet and he installed it for his godmother Queen Elizabeth I. She refused because it made too much noise. It was not until the 19th century that America stepped in and started innovating the toilet and making it accessible to everybody. George Jennings established a business manufacturing water closets, salt-glaze drainage, sanitary pipes and sanitaryware at Parkstone Pottery in the 1840s, where he popularized the flush toilet to middle class. At The Great Exhibition at Hyde Park held from 1 May to 15 October 1851, George Jennings installed his Monkey Closets in the Retiring Rooms of The Crystal Palace. These were the first public toilets, and they caused great excitement. During the exhibition, 827,280 visitors paid one penny to use them; for the penny they got a clean seat, a towel, a comb and a shoe shine. "To spend a penny" became a euphemism (now archaic) for going to the toilet. If you are a follower of the communist logic, than stop visiting toilets. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. Renaissance and modern Europe would be responsible for your beds. In the 17th century, capitalist societies such as France and Britain started to create beds. Louis XIV had an enormous number of sumptuous beds, as many as 413 being described in the inventories of his palaces. Some of them had embroideries enriched with pearls, and figures on a silver or golden ground. The great bed at Versailles had crimson velvet curtains on which "The Triumph of Venus" was embroidered. So much gold was used that the velvet scarcely showed. If you are a follower of communist logic, stop sleeping on beds.http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. TV was not created by Russia; It was created by capitalist Americans. TV was created shortly after WWII. Businesses kept innovating it by adding color. Than in the 1990s Americans started coming up with ideas such as DVDs, Blu-ray. Popular stores such as Netflix and Blockbuster came out. Now, we use Netflix. Today, 79% of the world's households have TVs in them. If you follow the communist logic, throw your TV out the window.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument 3: Communism-I have presented great things that capitalism has to offer, but now I will present the things communism has to offer. Russia had tried to practice communism, but we can see that Lenin had to propose a state of capitalism in order to recover from the Civil War. So, when communists even get in serious money issues, they themselves return to capitalism. Lenin died and Stalin took over. Stalin had promoted communist ideals by using immoral tactics such as killing. A lot of communists would like to say that they are not with Stalin, but the reality is that this is what happened when a large country practices communism. When a communist country is hurt, they turn to capitalism. Stalin's only decent achievement was that he got 108 million people into new housing. New housing brought things that were created by capitalism. Things such as beds and lights. What sickens me and should sicken anybody with a heart is that the leaders of Russia were treated differently. They lived the luxurious capitalist lifestyle. They drove cars, had better houses, had amazing beds, and sent their kids to school. They had better live than their fellow "comrades". If you are a communist than why don't you live in Russia back in Stalin's time and see if you come back. If you are a communist and say that Stalin had his own ideology, than how come communism still let him hold up his own ideology. Did we see Barack Obama walk in the white house, and say we are going to practice fascism and I am going to kill all the Republicans that disagree with me. No, we would have kicked him out on the first day, but communism allowed him to do it. I would rather live in America than Russia.

The question is that if you are still a believer in the communist logic, than you are going to have to give up your IPhone, your computer, your bed, your toilet, and your TV. I am appalled that my opponent is ready to defend communism and attack capitalism. I would respect if all the people that have been won over by the communist ideology would give up everything that capitalism had to offer and just live their communist ways, but I know that you guys are not. It is not being intellectually honest to say that you are still with communism after the facts you just read. Do not be intellectually dishonest with your self and vote for the better reality. I leave you with your own common sense to see which is better.
Lexus

Con

Hi, and thanks for replying so quickly. As the rules said, I'm only going to be giving my constructive case, no rebuttals.
-----
Communism is work-based. According to the very definition of communism, that I offered and was accepted by my opponent, people are based on their abilities and their needs. One of the most popular attacks on communism is that the people are not paid according to skills or work input, but this is not the case. One of the most common defenses of capitalism is that people get paid according to the work that they put in, and that is still the case with communism.
Communism is fair. By giving everyone the ability to money when they need it (for example, if someone has cancer yet does not have much skill, so they need money), it is a completely fair system. By having all property shared property, we are able to bridge the gap between ourselves and our neighbor, feel compassion, and in turn be more fair to one another. A common thing that people that are against communism say is that it "immorally takes money from the rich", while this isn't really the case. I think that sparing a few percentage points of your wealth in order to positively impact your community and the livelihood of the country around you outweighs the "immoral impacts" that it has. Morally, it is better to help impact the community than to hoard all of the wealth.
Communism eliminates unemployment. Let's look at Japan for a second here. When they were under communist rule, they had virtually 0% unemployment, since they gave every person that could hold one (people that were seriously disabled did not have to work, as logic would say) a job. The year after they got rid of communist rule in their country, unemployment had a sharp uptick of 5.6%. By having a sharp uptick in unemployment, more and more people do not have access to basic resource that they need in order to survive, and in turn the economy takes a nose-dive. Just look at 2008 in the world's economy. As unemployment rose, it had an inverse reaction on the economy's growth.
Communism has no central leader. According to Karl Marx, idealist communism has every single person on the same playing field, and no person that is above any other, socially or economically. Even people in politics are not above people that pick up trash, which is a very fair system, referring to my second contention. The country is not supposed to be run by a dictator or a president or anything like that, but instead it is to be run by a few people of the national communist party (that's not a party's name, just the name of the party of the country that endorses communism goes there). And even this is not a few leaders that are governing the country, just a few people that are saying how communism is supposed to work in their community and make its implementation. (Don't make me remind you that having a central leader, while technically the most efficient type of government, is very harmful and often that one leader will do things only for themselves, not to benefit the community).
Communism has high amounts of growth. A fairly common way that communist countries make serious money is by having joint-farms, as illustrated by the very definition of communism (shared land). Farming allows for a country to be independant, and because of this they are able to have high amounts of growth. During the first seven years of communist rule in Russia, Stalin implemented plans that made the economy grow over 20%, and many communist countries are similar in terms of economic growth. Because the USSR made such a huge deal about farming, they eventually exported more food than they imported, which means that the economy is able to kick into overdrive and grow at insane amounts (which is good for the people!).
No worrying about money. In a communist state, one never has to worry about money. Everyone is paid based on the amount of work they put in, as well as their needs. If the needs outweigh the work they put in, they get paid a little bit in order to have basic needs covered. If their work outweighs the needs they have, they have a little bit put into the pockets of people that really need money. If a person who is not paid very much develops a disease which has a very expensive cure, the state itself will help pay for them to be cured, which is an obviously good thing. (One may argue that this is not what happened in the USSR, but we're not debating about the USSR, we're debating about the theory (just the theory!) that was brought forth by Karl Marx). Having more access to universal health care leads to a general public that has: longer lifespans, happier lifespans, less incidence of STI's in the public, less incidence of cancer, and less crime overall.
Capitalism is the exploitation of peoples and the earth, so it must not be much better than communism. This is pretty obvious. Capitalism is a few people that are in charge of others doing nothing, while raking in the dough that they "deserve". Capitalism is a few people going down to the mines, taking out all the resources, saying "oh well", and selling them for profit. Capitalism leads to Laissez-Faire economics, which is pretty much allowing coorporations to do whatever they please (such as the Shirtwaist fire, low wages, and child labor), which is of course bad. Capitalism, in practice, is harmful to society since it allows coorporations to abuse their workers and their workplace.
-----
Thanks again for starting this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding so quick. My opponent explains Karl Marx's version of communism, and I will admit that communism seems very fair on paper. But, what my opponent doesn't realize is that the description of communism does not match the reality of communism and its effects on people and its effects on world productivity. America has survived by capitalism and has became the number 1 superpower. I will be attacking my opponent's case, and hopefully my opponent will listen, and I will do the same with her attacks.

Communism is work-based- I would agree that everybody in a communist society needs to work to their own abilities, but in a capitalist society, if you work hard you can get more. The world's richest man lives in America, I haven't seen any rich person be generated out of a communist country. Also, I will say that communism looks good on paper. I really thought that the first time I read Karl Marx's Das Capital. But, in reality communism cannot do what they are saying here. Look at the examples of the countries that practiced communism.
65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Ethiopia
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America mainly Cuba
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]
Russia, Cuba, China, and Japan all had terrible genocide. I won't blame the genocide on communism, but it still happens in communist countries. The idea that the leader is allowed to commit genocides and be able to get away with it is a horrifying idea. Whoever still sides with communism should be ashamed of themselves because it is a disgrace to your brothers and sisters that still live in these countries.
Communism is fair-If you want to play the idealistic game, fine communism and socialism would have been the top ideologies. But, if you step into reality, this is never really practiced. In Russia, communism was supposed to be the fair share. Well guess what happened. The people that were in charge of the country got to have special privileges. They drove cars. They sent their children to special schools. Their children than also became in charge. And, if my opponent's model is realistic, than how come Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kosygin, Chi Minh got all the luxuries that they needed. Stalin ordered the deaths of 20 million people. Mao ordered the deaths of 65 million people. Kim Il-sung of North Korea ordered the deaths of 2 million people. Castro ordered the deaths 150,000 people. If communism is fair and people who make a positive impact on the community get wealthy, than how come these leaders are living in big houses and get anything that they want if they are so immoral? America never committed genocide like this.
Communism eliminates unemployment- The fact is that communism did eliminate unemployment. But, the argument is irrelevant, because what does Japan have now thanks to capitalism. They have industries such as Sony, Nintendo, Toshiba, Capcom, and Sega. The total profits that all of these companies have made is 101 billion dollars.
Communism has no central leader-My opponent admits this is idealistic communism, because it is absurd to put this model in the real world. I think that this is the heart of the problems of communism. It is extremely idealistic. You can't put this model in a realistic world. People are not going to accept this. Stalin ran his country like a dictatorship, North Korea is run like a dictatorship, Afghanistan was run like a dictatorship, and China was run like a dictatorship. My opponent's ideas are way to idealistic and cannot be accepted in the real world unlike capitalism which proved to produce 101 billion dollars with just 5 companies.
Communism has high amounts of growth-Russia is an example, but it proves nothing and is irrelevant because of the amount of genocide and amount of hypocrisy that happened in Russia. If you follow my opponent's logic with communism, than that must mean that you would like to get your way by killing 20 million people, using forms of propaganda, and whenever someone revolts, they die. The harms outweigh the benefits. If you liked communist Russia so much, than why can't you just live their for a day. In America, people are free to hold communist ideals, but you can't every put communism in America because the idea is insane.
No worrying about money-This is also another problem with communism. No one worries. This is an idealist dream that nobody can ever achieve. We should put my opponent's theories into reality. Did it prove results? No, it just proves that leaders can get away with shooting 65 million people. It is a disgrace to your brothers and sisters that live in those countries and whoever still supports the theory of communism should go and live in one of these countries.
Capitalism is the exploitation of people- My opponent claims that capitalism is a few people that are in charge of others doing nothing. Than my opponent never got the idea of why America was built. America was built for the people that wanted to work hard for their wealth. They created the American Dream just so people could get to that dream. The founding fathers probably created one of the best versions of capitalism and still to this day you will see all of the other capitalist countries following American ideals. I mentioned self-made people such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They were both once poor, but they believed in the American Dream, and now look what they built. My opponent uses the internet, but communism never could get close to building the internet. China and North Korea censor the Internet. Capitalism is why we have such a great world. Every theory has its benefits, but arguably capitalism's benefits are far too great for the harms. Look at the movies you watch, the phone you have, the clothes you have, the house you live in, the bed you sleep in. These were all created by corporations. Vote for a better reality. Vote for capitalism. If you agree with communism, than you are either not being intellectually honest or are too blind.
Lexus

Con

Thanks for a quick response, I appreciate it. By rebuttals I mean that you want us only to look at the other person's constructive case and refute that, not their rebuttals, so that's what I am going to do.
-----
"Capitalism would seem like a gift, because it increased human nature's ability to innovate. For people to create wealth for themselves is incredible. People strived to work their way up in a capitalist society"
As I pointed out in my case, in a communist society people also work for what they earn, so this is irrelevant, as it can be achieved by a communist society, as well.
"The best forms of capitalism was in America."
Let me tell you, Laissez-Faire economics in the late 1800's and early 1900's was not the best form of capitalism. It was utterly abusive and led to the progressive era, which made the United States a bit more socialistic than capitalistic. Also, the USA is a balance of socialism and capitalism, so this argument isn't even sound in true logic.
"Capitalism brought computers and IPhones. Microsoft was created not only to make computers but to make money."
Communism can also bring these things. People can work for what they earn, and thus this argument is irrelevant because it can happen in a communist society as well. (In fact, the government will be the ones that are manufacturing these things, so even the creators can hold a seat in government, and the prices can go down due to less of a middle-man negotiator).
"Steve Jobs was very capitalist."
Einstein was socialist. Hellen Keller was socialist. George Orwell was socialist. The only thing that is different from communism and socialism, is that socialism is usually the intermediate of a country from switching from capitalism to communism. Thus, this is not a good argument.
"If you are a true communist or socialist, you should move to China, or Russia to get a feel for what it is like."
Actually, if you are a true socialist, move to places like; Denmark, Finland, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and Belgium. Just to name a few.
"Also, you should let go of your computer and IPhone because they were created by corporations who embrace the capitalist ideology."
Then, let us get rid of films, for Socialist and Nazi Germany had made many innovations in them. This argument makes no sense in the real, practical world.
"It is common knowledge that Windows was created by a capitalist society."
Well, then common knowledge is wrong, because the USA is a blend of capitalist and socialist.
" It is common knowledge that Apple was created by a capitalist society"
Refer to above response.
"If you think communism is good, than throw your PC out the window because you are a follower of the communist logic."
If you think that capitalism is good, then you should refuse to seek medical treatment in hospitals, because Socialist Nazi Germany made many medical advances. This statement makes absolutely no sense and my opponent has very flawed logic.
"If you follow the communist logic, throw your TV out the window."
Read basically all of my arguments against this logic, since it makes literally zero sense. If you follow capitalist logic, then don't eat food, since a lot of communist nations brought innovations to farming technology. Seriously, stop using this argument against communism, it's not valid.
"Argument 3 [basically all of the argument, since it's just a history run-down of one particular instance]"
In the 1900's, the people of the United States tried to overthrow the government because the USA endorsed Laissez-Faire economics, which was very abusive to the people. That doesn't mean that every single instance of capitalism must follow this logic, so you cannot say the same about communism. Also, we're just debating my definition of communism, not what common definitions are, which means we are just debating the idealist and theorized version of it.
"I am appalled that my opponent is ready to defend communism and attack capitalism"
I'm appalled that my opponent is ready to defend capitalism, which oftentimes leads to the abuses of peoples and the earth, that they are ready to defend laissez-faire economics, and attack the theory of communism, which allows for a more equal society, a society with no unemployment, and a society that leads to better livelihoods.
" Do not be intellectually dishonest with your self and vote for the better reality. I leave you with your own common sense to see which is better."
I agree. Vote communism.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Pro

I will be defending some of the critiques my opponent has made.
My opponent points out that "in a communist society people also work for what they warn, so this is irrelevant, at it can be achieved by a communist society, as well." My opponent does not put any examples of people that have innovated in a communist society, therefore my opponent's argument is irrelevant and vague. I have pointed out in my case that capitalism brought IPhones, Computers, Beds, Toilets, and TV. I have evidence of the innovations, while my opponent only points to idealistic scenarios that if practiced would look at serious harms.
My opponent argues that Laissez-Faire economics was not the best form of capitalism. "It was utterly abusive and led to the progressive era, which made United States a bit more socialistic than capitalistic.". Well, than I would argue that the benefits outweigh the harms, because it brought IPhones, Computers, Toilets, Beds, and TVs.
Also, my opponent argues that capitalism exploits people, but than look at how communism exploits people.
65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Ethiopia
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America mainly Cuba
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]
My opponent argues that "Einstein was a socialist, Hellen Keller was a socialist, and George Orwell was a socialist. The only thing that is different from communism and socialism is usually the intermediate of a country from switching from capitalism to communism." My opponent's argument is invalid, because we are arguing communism, and not socialism. My point in Steve Jobs being a capitalist was that he actually did something. He actually started a company and innovated products. He was inspired by the American Dream. Arguing that a scientist was a socialist doesn't do anything. Einstein was a scientist, not a political scientist. Hellen Keller was a political activist, but did she contribute anything to society. All she did was try and convince people to become socialist, and write books. It is funny how you mention George Orwell, because he also agreed that communism could not work in a society. You can read his book Animal Farm. He tried to make a microcosm on what was happening to Russian people. He tried to show how fair share worked and nobody could work their way up in a society.
My opponent argues socialism again, but that is entirely irrelevant to communism.
My opponent argues that my logic is wrong because it was Nazi Germany that made innovations on films. " By the end of the 1880s, the introduction of lengths of celluloid photographic film and the invention of motion picture cameras, which could photograph an indefinitely long rapid sequence of images using only one lens, allowed several minutes of action to be captured and stored on a single compact reel of film. Some early films were made to be viewed by one person at a time through a "peep show" device such as the Kinetoscope. Others were intended for a projector, mechanically similar to the camera and sometimes actually the same machine, which was used to shine an intense light through the processed and printed film and into a projection lens so that these "moving pictures" could be shown tremendously enlarged on a screen for viewing by an entire audience. The first public exhibition of projected motion pictures in America was at Koster and Bial's Music Hall in New York City on the 23rd of April 1896." http://en.wikipedia.org...
My opponent seems to have thrown analytics which not only are untrue, but feel like a lie. My opponent says that my argument makes no sense, when she even has her facts wrong. My opponent should not be trusted with the way she makes her analytics, because she even seems na"ve on her own subjects.
My opponent argues that USA is now a blend of capitalism and socialism. Well, my opponent does not list any sources therefore her argument is invalid. And, even if it is true than
1. American Capitalism allowed this to happen
2. In communist regimes, the leaders begged for capitalism because they needed money.
3. Communist regimes killed a total of 10,000 people that tried to embrace another side which did not happen is American capitalism.
My opponent also tries to argue "If you think that capitalism is good, then you should refuse to seek medical treatment in hospitals, because Socialist Nazi Germany made many medical advances." My opponent also admitted that socialism practices capitalism, therefore it is invalid.
My opponent's arguments are invalid, because she lists no sources. My opponent argues socialism and her logic is flawed because she has to defend communism. Socialism does practice capitalism, so her attacks are irrelevant. I was listing what it would be like to live in a communist society.

My opponent also tries to mention how people tried to overthrow the government because it endorsed Laissez-Faire economics, which was very abusive to people. Well, have you forgotten the millions of people that have died in communist regimes, and the millions of people that have suffered. There were people trying to overthrow the government. If you overthrow a communist regime, they will have you killed. Just look at North Korea today. My opponent also tries to escape realism by changing the rules this debate and saying we are debating the idealistic versions of communism. That goes against her own logic, because she just mentioned Laissez-Faire economics. You cannot just debate the theory in the books. If it has been practiced, than look at the results. Look at how many people have died in communist regimes.
65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Ethiopia
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America mainly Cuba
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."[4]
I would be appalled if you are trying to escape this reality and base it off of pure idealism. It goes against your attacks, therefore your whole argument is invalid.
Vote Pro, because Pro does not make up analytics, and Pro sources its information. Vote for the things that we need. Vote for the countless innovations that we still have.
Lexus

Con

Thanks for a quick response, loving this debate so far. I'm going to be defending my case from some critiques that my opponent made, but not their own defenses, since that wouldn't be fair.
-----
"I haven't seen any rich person be generated out of a communist country."
That's because their extra wealth is taken and given to those that need it most. You work for what you get; if you need food, and you work for it, you get it. Just because you don't get to keep $500 billion that was made by exploiting the earth and its people doesn't mean that communism isn't a good theory.
"Also, I will say that communism looks good on paper."
Thanks for conceding, because that's what we are debating. Look at the definitions I gave, and it specifically says the theory of communism.
"[list of countries that practiced communism and some random statistics]"
Two things: you didn't specify what that "65 million in the People's Rebuplic in China" means, and if we infer that you mean death tolls, then that is irrelevant, since we are not debating on the implementation of communism, we are debating on whether it is a good theory or not.
"I won't blame the genocide on communism, but it still happens in communist countries. "
Then don't say that there was genocide... there was genocide in the USA during the 1900's towards the Japanese immigrants that came to this country, so we must say that this argument is invalid.
"If you want to play the idealistic game, fine communism and socialism would have been the top ideologies."
Thanks for conceding, that's exactly what we're debating.
"And, if my opponent's model is realistic, than how come Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kosygin, Chi Minh got all the luxuries that they needed"
That's implementation flaws, not ideological. They got them since they abused the system, and any system can be abused, but in capitalism it is so much easier to do so than communism.
"America never committed genocide like this."
Study Japanese Internment before WWI, and you can see that this "fact" that you stated is completely wrong.
"They have industries such as Sony, Nintendo, Toshiba, Capcom, and Sega. The total profits that all of these companies have made is 101 billion dollars."
How is this relevant...
"My opponent admits this is idealistic communism, because it is absurd to put this model in the real world."
I admitted that it is idealistic, because we are debating idealistic, not implemented communism.
"irrelevant because of the amount of genocide and amount of hypocrisy that happened in Russia"
Okay, back up. I'm not saying that I condone what Russia did at this time, or do I condone what the US did during Japanese Internment, but this argument is invalid. A country can have a bad social standing (in this example, murdering citizens), but it can have a positive economic one. Saying that the two are related is like saying that "because the USA has capitalism, then the people must be happy and there must be no bad social standings!". Yeah, you can't say that without being looked at weird.
" those who support the theory of communism should go and live in one of these countries."
:o Well, if you support the theory of capitalism, then you should go and live in the USA during 1899. Good luck finding a job that doesn't have the risk of snapping off your arms in a rotor-saw.
"My opponent claims that capitalism is a few people that are in charge of others doing nothing."
Look at the Koch brothers, then get back to me with this argument.
"My opponent uses the internet, but communism never could get close to building the internet"
My opponent probably used free or reduced lunch while in school, but capitalism would never have people that could get a discount off of lunch! Irrelevant.
"China and North Korea censor the Internet."
The USA tried to as well, just look at SOPA.
"If you agree with communism, than you are either not being intellectually honest or are too blind."
:o not nice </3

Vote pro and vote against the abuses of people and the earth, vote for a just society, with a just economic system, an economic system that allows for those that are underpriveledged or diseased to recieve treatment, and a system that believes in the good of the people.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
@BurningPlanet Idealist communism has no leader
Posted by BurningPlanet 2 years ago
BurningPlanet
I personally like the ideas of the socialist and communist parties my only problem with the communist party is that I feel leaders of nations who are communist can abuse their power and become a dictator since all of the industry and economy are all ready in control of the state.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I'm not saying that I condone what the USSR did on a social level, but on an economic level it was gr88.
Posted by sidewinder 2 years ago
sidewinder
Are you really using stalks collectivised farming techniques to support comunisim first of all communisim has never been implemented properly and secondly the farmfarmunder Stalin led the USSR which had been a massive exporter of grain to instead cause millions of their own people to starve to death.
Posted by Letsheryourresponse 2 years ago
Letsheryourresponse
Communism doesn't work, it doesn't work because philosophy states that people are never content. People will always want more than what they have. This allows communism to fall and capitalism to rise.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Fair enough. Truth be told, I personally am terrible at spelling.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Oh dont be pedantic Kasmic
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
What is "capitolism?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.