The Instigator
Hanspete
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
maydaykiller
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Communism(Con) v Capitalism(Pro)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Hanspete
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,881 times Debate No: 69015
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Hanspete

Pro

So as Pro I will be arguing for Capitalism vs. Communism, First Round is Acceptance only, Second and Third Round are arguments and rebuttles, and Fourth Round is Stating why you did better than your opponent. No Racial Slurs, Swearing, the whole thing. I wish good luck to my opponent!
maydaykiller

Con

I happily accept to debate @Hanspete. Looking forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Hanspete

Pro

First off I would like to begin the debate by saying Hello! Now that that is over let me begin.


Systematic Failures of Communism
In the world we live in today there has been in recent times a growing movement to throw out systems of Monarchy, Dictatorships, and there economic systems based on socialist and communist Ideals. Through out World History Ideas proposed such as communism have seemed good at the time but like each attempt before them have crumbled and failed. [1] The most well known example of this is the Soviet Union. The Dream of Lenin when he established the Soviet Union was to bring about Marx's' Dream of the perfect Communist State, instead he created the mess we refer to today as Russia. Another major Problem facing Communism is the rampant corruption, corruption in communist states are just awful, like few other states in the world. China is a classic example of just how corrupt and broken the system of communism really is.[2] (To clarify states is referring to government of countries).

Recognition of Individualism
Under the Communist system there is no individual rights, in fact in many systems there are no rights at all. Once an individual looses his right to make as much money as he wants or rise up in life. In its simple for Communism does not work because humans tend to be greedy. [3] When the ideas and work ethics of individuals are suppressed the individual is given no reason to work, especially if he will be making no more or less. Then there is no allotment for the pursuit of an individuals dreams, what is the the point of working for him? If he can not pursue the dream that he wants to accomplish, especially with no job movement what-so-ever, where is the drive, the motivation to do anything?

Pros of Capitalism
The idea behind Capitalism is simple, you can make as much money as you want to in life and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to, and you can take as many or as bold or stupid of risks as your heart desires, because that is simply human nature! For the health and happiness of the individual Capitalism is great. It allows for the growth of freedom in the world and the expansion of the rights of an individual. No, there is no guarantee that you will immediately be successful, but this is the only system that lets you put your all into trying to make that dream a reality. In a world where you have to prove yourself in order to earn respect and are given one chance to prove to the world that you are more than just a blip on this earth, this is the only system that will let you. It does not constrain the will and want to be free of being told what do to and how to run our lives, Communism does. [4]

Why Communism will fail...
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein [5] Never once has the idea of Communism worked, trying to bring it to the U.S. (for example) would probably see one of it's biggest failures yet. Where Communism has fallen the ideals of Capitalism rise (Chile, Russia, China) and where Capitalism falls, so does the economy (Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea). For Millenium the ideas that have shaped and formed Capitalism have produced some of the greatest minds and improved the world as a whole (Rome, Byzantines, Britian, and now the U.S. and India), with out the system that shapes and defines our world, how much would we be without? How much longer would it have taken to make the scientific, medicinal, and technological advances if no one was allowed to pursue their dreams to make these things a reality? In truth there is no answer, but if given a reasonable thought, you can certainly conclude that we would be far behind, just as each of the countries under communism fell behind.

1- http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net... (I really like this sources because it chronicles the rise and falls of Monarchs and Peasant attempts at installing communism.)
2- http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net...
3- https://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com...
4- http://listverse.com...
5- http://www.brainyquote.com... (Just in case)
maydaykiller

Con


Thank you Pro.

I would like to begin with rebuttals, and finish by exposing my arguments.

Rebuttals :

"The systematic failures of Communism"


Pro states in his argument that Lenin is personally responsible for "the mess we refer today as Russia", this is wrong. In contrast, one could argue that the application of Capitalism in Russia worsened the conditions for its citizens; the Russian economy sank, and shockingly enough, according to Russian government officials, the switch to Capitalism dragged the country into a deep depression, far greater than the American depression during the 1930's [1]. Secondly, Pro argues that a major issue with communism is its corruption, I would like to say in response that, according to a study by Transparency International, 14 out of the 15 most corrupted nations in the world are capitalist [2], that is, following Pro's own logic, a classic example of the rampant corruption of the Capitalism system.

"Recognition of Individualism"

Pro argues that Communism does not work because 'people tend to be greedy', again that is not true. The Soviet Union, for instance, could be considered a success : over a lifespan of almost 70 years,it quickly developed from an agricultural nation to a major superpower.

"Why communism will fail"

Again, Pro argues that Communism has never worked, but his claim is unsubstantiated : Economically speaking, The Soviet Union never once stumbled into recession [3] and even grew at a faster rate the United States [4]. Pro also says that if the entirety of the world was communist, we would be far behind. That is extremely wrong, the USSR was leading the Space Race for years and were far ahead of any capitalist nation. Militarily speaking the USSR also had outstanding planes, tanks, and armored vehicles. But this was due to the military-industrial complex promince when it came to picking engineers, had the Soviet Union never been involved in the Cold War, technology in the Soviet Union would've been more civilian-oriented.


Debate Round No. 2
Hanspete

Pro

So since Con failed to make and actually arguments I will just respond to his rebuttles, in advance if the type is small I apologize my computer is not cooperating well this week.

Rebuttles to the Rebuttles
(Like seriously one of my favorite things to say in a sentence)

Communism Fails, straight up fails. Never in the world has it ever succeded. I didn't quite drill that point in the last round, so I will do it now. Communism is one of the worst systems if government on earth, having been responsible for the deaths of almost 100 million people. In four short words "Communism is a Killer" [1] Now I am aware that wasn't a rebuttle, but I needed to make my point. In my arguments that Lenin is directly responsible for the mess that is now Russia. It however can also be traced back to the backwardness of the czars I will grant, but Lenin did it no favors, trying to revolutionize an entire backwards country is very difficult, it took almost till Stalin's death for the country to catch up to the world. Countries that threw off communism sooner or who never accepted the communists through the 1900's were growing far far far faster than those who were under the yoke of communism for longer. Countries such as China who have thrown off the economic side of Communism have seen growth that is seemingly unmatched in the world, however because China has no business capital safety net it could collapse. [2]

Recognition of the Individual
Communism will not work because people are greedy, this is a proven fact. Many wars throughout the entirity of history were fought over trade or money. The Trojan War (not Homer's) was fought over trade, the Egyptian wars with the Kush, fought over gold and other precious gems. Many wars of the Ancient Romans were fought to secure more territory and more wealth, same with the Byzantines. The British fought with the French for control of resource rich Canada. Napleon fought for more territory and wealth throughout Europe, so I think it is safe to say the humans are very greedy.

Why Communism will fail
Communism has never, will never, and can't ever succeed. No communist state has ever out lasted a capitalist state, nor will it ever will. Almost every state that was once Communist is now Capitalist to some degree or another, Loas, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Gerogia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, Kazahkastan, Grenada, and Turkmenistan. There are only two true Communist states left in this world, both of them are broken, poor, and utterly pathetic. North Korea and Cuba are completely economically destoryed countries, who will remian that way unless they see a Capitalist Economy implanted and a Democratic system of voting. For a while the USSR was leading the Space Race, but when it came down to doing crucial things, such as putting a man on the moon, the Soviets were nowhere to be seen. Saying that if it weren't for the Cold War the Soviets would be more civilian oriented, is probably true, but the Russians, didn't make that happen, because they were stuck with a lagging government run economy. The U.S. had no problems making that happen, because they had a dynamic and individual based economy. Finally unless there is certafiable proof that the economy never went into a recession, I would be glad to look at it, the source you provided I have never heard of. It is next to impossible for an economy to never go into a recession once in 70 years, during that time, the entire world went through three major ones, it is doubtful that the Soviets never went through one as well.

Concluding Statements:
Communism is plain and simply a failure. No System like Capitalism has ever been put forth and worked as well, pulled as many people out of poverty, or improved the world in such a fashion. [3] Truly there is no system quite as great or as powerful or effective as the mighty system of the modern market place.


1- http://reason.com...
2- http://www.wwnorton.com...
3- http://www.aei.org...;
maydaykiller

Con


-- I would like to remind both Pro and the voters that, as I stated in the Comments Section, I could not post the remaining of my arguments in time and so I shall do so now. I ask the voters to omit this small unforeseen setback. --


Pros of Communism

Communism is the belief in equality in the world. It's the belief that the state and their elected officials, who represent the people, must provide to its citizens all the basic needs in life. People aren't categorized by their wealth and thus separated and labeled as lower class citizens. It's the fond belief that, everyone, is entitled to work and make a living. Pro claims that Capitalism serves human nature by allowing to take 'bold and stupid measures', Frankly, this is no priority for the average middle-class citizen who wants to keep up with the ever-rising cost of life. And Communism allows just that. The state, once famously refered as the "Evil Empire" in a grotesque attempt to dehumanize the Soviet Union, provided full employment, guaranteed pensions, paid maternity leave, limits on working hours, free healthcare and education (including higher education), subsidized vacations, inexpensive housing, low-cost childcare, subsidized public transportation. [1] Communism is putting in place the mesures that prevent ordinary people from going bankrupt because of, illness, for example. Pro claims that Communism constrain the will and tells you how to run your life. Unless he can clearly elucidate this claim I refuse to address it.


Rebuttals of Pro's Rebuttals to my Rebuttals,
(Yes, it's getting complicated)


Pro states that "Communism fails, straight up fails. Never in the world has it ever succeded" Again Pro fails to provide a clear source to explain why he believes such unfounded forthright statement, which is one of the main necessities in debating. Also, Pro claims that communism killed 'almost 100 million people' this is easily arguable. Some leaders have indeed comitted atrocious crimes but that cannot be labeled as communism's fault. For instance, Joseph Stalin is rumoured to be an atheist, he did kill millions. So following Pro's logic, Atheism is responsible for their deaths and thus atheism is a 'killer'. Sure, brutal dictators have harbored Communism while commiting despicable crimes, but the exact same applies to capitalism. Furthermore, Pro argues that dropping the economic aspect of communism in China has been beneficial, I would argue the exact opposite. Today, in a capitalist China, an astonishing 67.8% (902 million people) of the population lives with less than 5 dollars a day, moreover, 157 million people live under the poverty line of 1.25$ per day. [2] Adopting capitalism has created terrible conditions for millions of chinese citizens.


Recognition of the Individual
Humans can become very greedy, indeed. But not to the extent in which we're currently living, surprisingly, an experiment has demonstrated that subjects were ready to offer sums of money to avoid seeing complete strangers receiving electrical shocks. It is the system, not the individual, that is greedy. The current capitalist system forces individuals to focus primarly, and uniquely, on themselves [3]. The 67 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the world's poorest 3.5 billion people. A small group of individuals should never be as rich as billions. Contrary to popular belief, communism does reward harder working individuals, but not to the extent of depriving billions of the necessities of life.

Why communism will fail

So, Pro asserts that communism 'has never and will never succeed', first of all saying that communism has never succeeded is subjective. Just ask the former citizens of the Soviet Union, who experienced both capitalism and communism, and majoritely stated that life was better in the Soviet Union...[4] Secondly saying it will never succeed is mere speculation. Furthermore, Pro argues that to democracy is the savior of broken ex-communist countries. Again that is not true, only 35% of Ukranians, for instance, approve the switch to democracy. I will now adress Pro's argument regarding the two, remaining communist countries. Cuba is currently the victim of an embargo so strict that the vast majority of the nations in the world asked to be lifted. This is a solid proof of the United States, isolating, and attempting to destroy every nation that opt towards communism. As to North Korea, harsch sanctions are imposed on the country which prohibits its national developement. Moreover Pro strangely claims that The USSR did not engage in any 'crucial things' during the Space Race. That statement is extremely erroneous, the most significant breakthroughs in mankind's space exploration history came from the Soviets. In addition, I would like to remind Pro that the United States voluntarly dragged a destructed post-WWII nation to a costly, ressource-consuming arms race. Had the U.S and the Soviet Union never confronted, communism would be one of the world's key socio-economic system. Lastly, Pro refuses to accept my source merely because he does not recognize it. I oppose this concept 'I've never seen this, thus I will not accept its validity'. The concept of not being at the whim of the economy and the Stock Markets is unfamiliar to westerners, but it's possible. The state can offer stability as to not regularly fall into recession, or depression, which is what occured in The Soviet Union.





My Concluding Statements:

Communism is a system that favors the working class. It's a system that values individuals higher than property or wealth. It's a system that does not value individuals by their impact on the economy. Pro refers Communism as a failure, yet under communism, the soviets received full employement and plethora of other benefits that are denied to citizens in corporations-controlled democracies. Capitalism is millions of Americans working long, extensive hours at only 7.25$ (minimum wage that multinationals could easily afford to raise, but, again, money is the priority), or the astonishing 46 million americans who live in poverty. In the richest country on the planet. How can this system be considered more of a success than communism?




My sources for this argument were :



[1] http://www.rand.org...
[2] http://databank.worldbank.org... from the World Bank
[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
[4] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Hanspete

Pro

Three hours left, Good lord help me.

Rebuttal's to the Rebuttal's of my rebuttal's (Keeping it going):
Te outright failure of the Communist States in the world needs not be sources, it simply is a fact, only two communist states in the world stand left. I can see where you are headed on the Joseph Stalin claim about his atheism being a motivating factor in the killings, the only problem is that he is not the only communist leader to have slaughtered people, so that would make that claim untenable in that respect. The effects of Capitalism in China are beneficial, you are viewing the $5 dollar a day part from the perspective of a Western Person, to us $5 a day is nothing, to them it is so so much more. In 1989 when China began the switch to a Capitalist Economy, the average income per year was just barely over $300 dollars a year. [1] Since the switch to Capitalism the average income has blossomed to almost $7000 dollars a year. [2] This is a tremendous rise in income from the utterly pitiful amount of the $300 of the "equal income" of the broken and corrupt Communist state. The fact that so many people living below the poverty line can be attributed to the fact that even now almost 50% of the Chinese population lives in small underdeveloped villages. [3] It can not be blamed solely on the slow effects of Capitalism in such a massive country.

Recognition of the Individual:
Okay now that we have settled the argument of greed, we move to societal focus. (Am I interpreting that correctly?) Capitalist societies yes have there corrupt people, in every society no matter what type we try there will be corruption, it is an inevitable fact, so what if the top 67 billionaires own as much money as 3.5 billion, they worked for that money, it (I will admit for the most part) is earned and not inherited. There is little proof that this is draining essentials from individuals, and who says that they are not philanthropic as well?

Why Communism will fail:
There is little that is actually subjective about the statement that communism hasn't succeeded, it's a fact, lest you can name one country that is better off because of Communism, under these states, millions died, economies collapsed, and once superpowers such as Russia, are reduced to limping stagnate economies. I don't believe that a poll taken in the current dictatorial stances of Russia, especially with the way that Putin has been behaving and the influence he has had in the last 20 years, is trustworthy, period. The idea that Communism never succeeding is not really speculation, it is fact, again, unless you can provide me with unbiased numbers that show that any Communist country has succeeded for a very long time, I will not seek to budge on the point. For your Ukrainian poll thing, unless any hard data is provided that point will go on as considered invalid. Now for North Korea, sure sanctions have hurt, but if North Korea's little boy was actually interested in improving the economy and not expanding his wealth, North Korea might actually have some cash on hand, same with Cuba. Both could trade with Venezuela, China, Ecuador, and each other and do fine. Now my claim was not quite that severe, but looking back on the Space race thing, I poorly explained it. After the Soviet Unions initial launch of a living being in space and then a man, they mad several failed attempts at putting a man on the moon, and so they really didn't do anything crucial after that. [4] To date only 12 people have landed on the moon, all Americans [5] truly attesting to American Superiority over the Soviet Union, now back to Economics. Finally It is not economically possible for a country to avoid recession, it just can't happen, and to further state that the Soviet Union never had a recession is a bald-faced lie which you have convinced yourself to be true. That statement was only retracted somewhat, but the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union, was because of Economic Collapse and Recession!!! [6] So the argument that there was never a recession in the Soviet Union goes, out the window.

Concluding Statements:
First off I would like to thank my opponent for a interesting debate, secondly keep the rebuttle thing going would yah? The idea of Communism on Paper is as you described, but in action, the idea that communism values individuals is a false statement. The reason America Remains in a Ressecion is on account of the fact that we have a President who can't do anything correct if his life depended on it, causing growing inequality, skyrocketing college, and only part time jobs. You know the "unemployment rate" is only at 5ish percent, wrong the man we call out President (well I do I think you're Canadian?) has been fudging number and trying to provide this free Health Care and Free College [7]. Truth is, it ain't working and even me, behind a computer :D, can feel it, I still cant get a job because that man is such a disaster. That is why the U.S. is still in a recession. So anyway, please challange me in a debate again, this was very interesting, hope to hear from you soon!

1- http://data.worldbank.org...
2- http://data.worldbank.org...
3- http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
4- http://www.history.com...
5- http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu...
6- http://www.sjsu.edu...
7- http://www.alternet.org...
maydaykiller

Con



Rebuttals to Pro's rebuttals to my Rebuttals to his rebuttals (Carrying on the habit)

Communism itself needs no slaughtering and genocide. Simply because some tyrants decides to commit mass murder, Communism cannot be held accountable to that. Applying Pro's logic, Francois & Jean-Claude Duvalier (I had a plethora of other choices for capitalist dictators, for the record), Haitian dictators who had pro-capitalist views, and support from The United States, murdered millions of their own citizens. Thus, capitalism is an evil system that leads to cruelty. In addition to his rebuttal, Pro argues that 5$ to Chinese citizens is an acceptable sum. But that is not true; the most basic foods cost more than they make for a day. For instance, buying Bananas in Hangzhou would cost you $4.99. This is the daily life of the 902 million Chinese, that supposedly enjoyed the switch to Capitalism.[1]

Recognition of Individuals

Pro claims that the bottom 3.5 billion aren't lacking essentials. That's mistaken. We all know the most desperate regions in the world right now are suffering from all sorts of problems. Those problems could easily be solved, it is estimated that 30 billion would be needed to work towards ending world poverty. Our society will allow Billionaires to stack up meaningless billions one upon another, and let 850 million people starve [2]. Sure they have worked for it, and, congratulations for it, but what about the hundreds of millions of men, women and children who weren't born in the Western World or any developed nation for that matter, and are thus excluded from any opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty? Isn't it our duty to lift them out of poverty?

Why Communism will fail:

Again, I can, and have, named a country that was better under Communism. Pro deliberately ignores that. The Soviet Union was undoubtedly better under Communism. And again, the switch to capitalism in Russia, is what drove a major superpower to a 'limping stagnate economy'. Secondly, Pro refutes a poll that I provided, because he believes Putin might of had an influence on the answers provided, this is a crystal clear example of Pro's regular refusals to address legitimate sources, and I believe that the voters should take that into consideration when voting. Moreover, I do agree with Pro that the North Korean Government's foreign policy is meager, but my point was that the Sanctions have harmed the growth of the country, and I think we can both agree on that point. Furthermore, I believe that the Soviet Union would've been able to put a man to the moon, but simply, the Space Race had a enormous cost, and unlike the United States, the USSR saw no interest in perpetuating a costly and useless race. There was no American superiority over the Soviet Union, the more pretentious country won the Space Race, that is it. The Soviet Union did not necessarily collapse because of economic collapse. The USSR's growth was indeed slowing, added the fact that the Soviet Union had to assure survival for all its allies while increasing its defence budget as the United States were increasing theirs, (Ronald Reagan's administration had abandoned the détente, and were in favour of a renewed arms race).


-- Final concluding statements:


I am grateful towards Pro for offering this debate, it was a passionate one. One last rebuttal, Pro argues that Communism doesn't value individuals, that is not true. Communism undoubtedly cares more about individuals than Capitalism. Wage slavery does not exist in Communism, and the state supplies everyone, regard less of race, wealth or background, equal opportunities. And although I disagree with Pro blaming his unemployment on Barack Obama, that claim is just irrelevant in this debate. Communism provided for all people, that concept is unfamiliar to us Westerners, for us, those who do not affect the economy will not and do not deserve to live decent lives. We are completely okay with having gigantic mufti-corporations who refuse to pay their workers a decent, living wage, have a massive impact on politics through Lobbying. For example, the Koch Brothers will spend nearly $1 BILLION [3]in the 2016 U.S Presidential elections. This is a clear example of bribery of American politicians. How do people expect their elected officials to pass regulations that improves the lives of the middle-class Americans? In a capitalist world, those who's role aren't significant in the economy, will starve. They will never have the same opportunities as those who exploit workers. Capitalism resumes itself as million of lives idled with unemployment and homelessness, both of which are inexistant in Communism.

Finally, I believe you should vote Con because Pro has failed to explain how Capitalism is better than Communism and why we should vote for him. He regularly refused to adress sources that were legitimate for a wide range of irrelevant reasons.

I would like to thank Pro, and the voters for participating in this debate. I truly hope the voters have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. And to Pro I say that I am most definately looking forward to another debate!


-- Sources :

[1] http://static4.businessinsider.com... (Chart from Business Insider)
[2] http://borgenproject.org...
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com... (CBS News)
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MattStPaul// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 point to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Maybe I am just a misguided individual, but I am afraid that communism does not have appropriate safeguards (checks and balances, etc.) to protect the people. Also, the people should not be coddled by the state but the state should be driven by the people. Communism does not seem to allow the people to drive the state; it seems the inverse. Simplistic, sure. But that's why Pro (and Capitalism) gets my vote every time. -MSP

[*Reason for non-removal*] This vote is well past the 3 month statute of limitations on vote removals.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
If my Argument did not post I am incredible sorry, I have been having so many problems with my computer, which is why it took so long to do!
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
maydaykiller
I'm incredibly sorry, I was running out of time, I will post my arguments in favor of Communism in the next round.
Here are my sources :

[1] http://lcweb2.loc.gov...(DOCID+ru0119)
[2] http://www.transparency.org...
[3] & [4] https://gowans.wordpress.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MattStPaul 2 years ago
MattStPaul
HanspetemaydaykillerTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Maybe I am just a misguided individual, but I am afraid that communism does not have appropriate safeguards (checks and balances, etc.) to protect the people. Also, the people should not be coddled by the state but the state should be driven by the people. Communism does not seem to allow the people to drive the state; it seems the inverse. Simplistic, sure. But that's why Pro (and Capitalism) gets my vote every time. -MSP
Vote Placed by Texas14 2 years ago
Texas14
HanspetemaydaykillerTied
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: Really good debate. Pro clearly showed the flaws of communism. Con had pretty good points too, but pro did a better job refuting them.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
HanspetemaydaykillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro argued his points more clearly, and making good rebuttles against con. Also in the second round con didn't really argue. He stated his rebuttles in the 2nd round instead of the last. Pro made more convincing arguments.