The Instigator
Topiarey
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Pingpong
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Communism/Marxism is superior to Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 7 votes the winner is...
Topiarey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,609 times Debate No: 28074
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

Topiarey

Pro

To begin this debate, I'd like to interpret Communism as a stateless system where workers directly control the means of production. A small fragment of democratic government exists, operating upon common law enforced by the people who's purpose is the protection of citizens and worker's rights.

I'd also like to rule Bolshevik Communism (meaning everything after Lenin/Trotsky) out of this debate as they are not examples of my interpretation of Communism. This debate follows a communist world which resulted from a series of events that can be adequately explained in Leon Trotsky's theory of "Permanent Revolution".

Now, onto my points.

1. Communism eliminates Class Struggle, merging the poor and the rich while providing an Affluent Lifestyle.

None can argue that Marx's theory of class struggle is innaccurate. Throughout history class struggle has existed in every society, the oppressed vs the oppressors, rich vs poor, Proles vs Borge. Advanced Marxism is the only system humans have come up with up that can eliminate class struggle but at the same time can provide a well off state of living (Think in American terms the top 10% households in terms of wealth for everyone).

2. Communism is fair.

Capitalism imposes a system in which some people are able to rise to the top instead of others. Many cannot rise to the top, whether it be a lack of assertiveness, competitiveness, or some impairment. Other times, it is just luck that some rise to the top. The point is - wealthy work requires much less time and effort in many cases than manual labor. Communism recognizes and gives the equivalent of what a person has ACTUALLY earned by using mental or physical skills to benefit society in general.

3. A command economy is far superior to a free market system.

Capitalism is a system of bets - when those bets are off, the whole system is off. Command economies gain efficiency over time while Capitalist economies while eventually decay causing a massive class difference which leads to the implosion of Capitalism. Command economies, if they apply to Communism at all, are extremely efficient in the way that its impossible for them to collapse unless their is a lack of labor. Distribution of wealth matched by labor quotas or how efficiently people work keeps the work ethic up, so there is no reason for a Command economy in advanced Marxism to collapse, and all the reason for a Capitalist economy to collapse.

4. Communism establishes true equality and rights.

Imagine a world without racism, where genders are equal, where every human has the same rights as the next while they still have they ability to pursue their interests in helping the common welfare of the human race. This is communism. By removing Class Struggle, Communism removes also removes all issues of rights in the workplace, racism will be eliminated as all are put at the same state of living, and both sexes are equally appreciated for their contributions to humanity. This is an ideal world that can finally come to fruition under advanced Marxism.

I'd like to end my speech by thanking my opponent, whoever it is, that accepts this debate. I hope it is indeed an interesting one.
Pingpong

Con

To start, I would like to refute my opponent's framework, contentions and go on to my own contentions. Seeing that this topic is value-based, my opponent failed to provide a weighing mechanism for this debate to be weighed on. Thus, i will give the value as justice and the value criterion as net benefits. My opponent's topicality for this debate was to define communism in terms of a stateless system in which a small fragment of democratic government exists. His definition is much too restrictive and abusive. I would like to define communism as stateless system where there is no "fragment of democratic government." Also, Bolshevik Communism shouldn't be ruled out as it gives a tangible example of the effects of the aforementioned communist system.

Now, I would like to refute my opponent's contentions.

His first contention was that communism eliminates class struggles. While this may seem true on the surface, it has flaws. As my opponent stated in his first speech, a communist command economy distributes wealth based on labor quotas. Thus, the ones who don't math the quotas will be paid less than the ones who did. This would result in a class struggle. The ones who meet the quotas (the Borge) would then oppress the ones who don't match the quotas (the Proles). This would eventually result in a divided social class with the rich and the poor with no middle class in between. Capitalism offers a middle class, when communism only offers class warfare.

My opponent states through his second claim that everybody has a chance to rise to the top. He also goes on to state that in capitalism, one can't due to "lack of assertiveness." Ones who have a lack of assertiveness shouldn't be automatically moved to the top. He states that communism recognizes physical skills. Lack of assertiveness or competitiveness is NOT a noteworthy skill that should be encouraged. Thus, the lazy people, according to my opponent, would move up the social ladder even though he stated that only people who benefit the society do. Thus, my opponent is illogically stating that a person with a lack of work ethic should be rewarded for his contributions to our society.

My opponent's third contention weighed the benefits vs. harms between a command economy and free market system. He stated that a free market will decay and "implode" due to its inefficiencies. However, he never stated any evidence to support this ludicrous statement. Also, he goes on about class differences being solved by distribution of wealth based on a labor quota system. Again, this quota system leads to a class difference between the ones who "lack assertiveness" and the ones who actually do work. Also, these two types of people would be paid differently, creating "class difference." Also, with no incentives to work hard, the command economy would collapse due to lack of labor.

Finally, my opponent stated through his fourth contention that racism and gender inequality would be eradicated due to the absence of class struggle. However, there is no direct correlation between class struggle and racism or sexism. Those ideas amount from other variable other than class struggle. Also, as I stated oh so many times, class struggle wouldn't be eradicated because people would still made different amounts of money (just like capitalism) and that leads to class struggle, as my opponent stated.

Lastly, I would like to go over some voting issues. My opponent supplied abusive framework without even supplying a weighing mechanism. Thus, the opposition took on the burden of doing that. Also, all of my opponent's contention have been refuted, leaving him with no case. Also, I would like to stress the fact that the opposition will be trying to disprove the affirmation rather than explain why capitalism is superior to communism.
Debate Round No. 1
Topiarey

Pro

To begin with, my framework is perfectly valid. I will now quote wikipedia. "Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order" A CLASSLESS AND STATELESS social order.

To define communism as a stateless system where there is no fragment of democratic government is ridiculous, because it goes against the actual purposes of Marxism, which is the idea that the people should control the means of protection either through anarchism or a democratic government, or as in Bolshevism, which we are ignoring because it is not directly related to Advanced Marxism therefore is not communist.

Are you calling my definition abusive? Your definition makes it impossible to debate the moral side of communism by defining it as to begin with, oppressive, which it is not.

Bolshevik Communism should be ruled out, because as I've stated, it is not an example of Communism because it is a scenario in which the Proletariat did not run a revolution themselves and take their own power from the Borge, and in fact the Bolsheviks skipped an entire step in reaching Communism- the industrio capitalist phase which is critical. As you can see, Russian Communism is not orthodox Marxism.

Now onto my rebuttals.

1. Communism eliminates Class Struggle within its own society. Obviously, those who do not contribute to the society in anyway, are not a part of it and therefore are not affected by the single class system.

Your point on assertiveness is completely irrelevant. I was simply stating that some people are more naturally productive in a capitalist society and that gives them the cutting edge, forcing everyone else beneath him. To summarize, individual's characteristics they didn't have to work for, an example of which is someone being natural smart, should not immediately make them rich and make every other hard worker extremely poor. And, as I've already stated, Laziness is not a factor in advanced marxist societies because of the work ethic that comes with getting everything back you put into society, and to meet work quotas that count as contributions.

2. You're misinterpreting my point. I never said that people "without a lack of assertiveness" should be moved to the top. I'm saying that if people are born unable to adapt to a competitive market, but are still good at work, it is unfair for them to live an impoverished lifestyle in comparison with those who were lucky. And, as I guess I have to point out again, Laziness does not exist in advanced Marxism. There is a work ethic.

The work ethic rebutts 1 and 2.

3. First of all, my statement is anything but ludicrous. Look around you, my friend. Wall Street is one big casino in which the 1% bet the savings of the rest of the country in efforts to profit. When their bets are off, and they don't win the jackpot, they falter and the system implodes.

Examples of this are, to be honest, almost every economic collapse in history in a capitalist society, but I'll simply list the 2009 recession as one.

As I'm going to have to point out for I think the fourth time, laziness is not a factor in an advanced marxist society, therefore you can't refute any points using the laziness disad. As I've already stated, and which you openly ignored, there is no shortage of labor.

4. Erm. Yes, there is. Most racist and gender stereotypes result from economic inequality. Why do you think that stereotypes exist today such as Latin Americans coming over the borders to steal jobs, Women don't belong in the workplace, the Jews are greedy (perhaps the worst of them all).
Also, why the hell are you suggesting that people make different amounts of money. As I've already stated, my form of advanced Marxism is not anarchist, therefore there is no privitisation and people all make the same, therefore there is no class struggle for those adding to the welfare of the system as a whole.

LASTLY: I did not supply an abusive framework, I provided a near wikipedia definition of advanced Marxism. You in fact, as I've stated earlier, provided a near impossible to debate definition. I still have yet to see how your weighing mechanism actually effects this debate. None of my contentions have been refuted, for a variety of reasons, but most of all because Laziness does not exist in Advanced Marxism/Communism.

To clear up the "assertiveness argument"- I was simply stating that communism appreciates the hard workers who would be disadvantaged in a free market system, and treats them equal with the intellectuals that make money for absolutely no reason.

To finalize this round, I'd like to point out that my opponent must describe why CAPITALISM is better than Communism, seeing as that is the goal of the opposition and simply pointing out the flaws in communism is no reason to vote for opp on the topic as it is not the goal of the opp.
Pingpong

Con

First, I will refute my opponent's framework, again, refute his contentions, and talk about voting issues and how the opposition has clearly won this debate.

My opponent's repeatedly states that Bolshevik Communism should be ruled out. However, we should use this as a prime example of the detriments of communism. It is extremely abusive to limit communism to "Advanced Marxism." We should be able to also point to past examples of how a communist system is flawed.

Now I will go over my refutations:

1. You stated that communism eliminates class struggle because the ones who don't meet the quotas "are not part of it." This is some extremely flawed logic. Just because they don't meet the quotas doesn't mean at all that they aren't part of society. Using your logic, I could say that everybody making under $250,000 annually isn't contributing to society and thus aren't part of it. Therefore, in capitalism, there is no class struggle because everybody is rich and everybody that isn't simple doesn't count. Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever. However, this is exactly what you suggest: The ones who meet quotas are counted and all the people who don't simply don't count. So, I would like go make a quota of $250,000 of annual income as a way to operationalize "contribution." Everybody else doesn't count. Therefore capitalism has an equal class system. Obviously, you are forgetting all the people who DON'T make the quota and thus aren't paid the same. A communist society would include those who make the quotas the ones who don't. This simply is a class struggle.

2. You stated that those who aren't adapt to a competitive market should be paid higher. This is simply wrong. Why should someone be paid is they aren't apt to do their job. Also, there is NO way communism can simply get rid of ALL laziness. Laziness would still exist in a communist society.

3. How does Wall Street have anything to do with inefficiencies? How does a recession correlate to inefficiencies? The recession was simply a trend to our economy. All economies go through a time of prosper and a time of saving. It is a natural cycle of economies and even when it did go into the Great Depression, it didn't "implode."

4. Racism and stereotypes aren't a result from economic inequality. There are MANY counter examples of people who don't follow the stereotype. There are plenty of rich Latin Americans, strong, independent women, and giving Jews. Yet our society still fosters this discrimination. This is due to a cognitive bias within human nature; certainly not economic inequality.

Lastly, it is stupid to say that laziness doesn't exist I communism. Laziness will always exist under any type of government.

The opposition job is to explain how communism/Marxism is NOT superior to capitalism. The opposition can to this by saying that they are equally good form of governments. It is not the opposition's burden to prove that capitalism is superior than communism. Thus, the opposition will take on the side of both forms of government are equal. It is the affirmation's burden to prove why communism to superior to capitalism.
Debate Round No. 2
Topiarey

Pro

Now, onto the rebuttals.

FRAMEWORK:

You didn't really attack my framework much after my rebutt of your original critique but no matter. All I have to do is explain why Bolshevik/Soviet Communism is not an example of Communism. To be honest, by the near universal definition of Communism, as I brought up before, the system the USSR used is not Communism. Yes, it is socialism, due to the command economy, but the whole point of Marxism is the elimination of Class Struggle, and the placing of the means of production in the hands of the workers. The Soviets did the opposite of this. They created a new Borge party within the upper class of the Kremlin, where the powerful party leaders and politburo got all the wealth while the workers were left to starve.

It is NOT abusive to limit communism to "Advanced Marxism" because as I've stated, this debate is not over the means of reaching the final stage of Marxism, which is a socialist utopia, but is a debate over the pros and cons of the UTOPIA ITSELF.

This is not an examination of what leads to a utopia and where it can go wrong, but of the benefits of the utopia itself.

Now, onto defending my points.

1. Lets use logic for a moment. Consider a socioeconomic system. The system generally has three classes, the lower, middle, and upper class. However, if you're not A PART of the socioeconomic system at all (meaning you don't work, contribute, build anything, buy anything, etc.) its IMPOSSIBLE to belong to a class in that system. Therefore, the economic system of Communism eliminates Class Warfare for everyone that ACTUALLY takes part in society. There is no RICH or poor, there is only a healthy affluent life style lived by EVERYONE that is contributing to the economic system of Marxism (which is regulated through work quotas by employers). People won't make $250,000 (although their living style will represent that type of income) while others will make $30,000. Everyone that contributes to this communal society make the same. Its almost like an apple farm. Imagine a group of hard workers, collecting all the apples from trees. Then, imagine a squatter, who sits around and wants to take all the apples from the workers. Should he be considered one of the HARD workers, who deserves an apple? Should he be considered an unfortunate worker who is not being treated fairly? NO. He is not a worker at all, therefore isn't a part of society.

If you don't make the quotas, you're not in the society because you're not working AT ALL, therefore its unfair and abusive to label someone as belonging to a class.

2. You're confusing the lack of inherent skills in individuals with "laziness". You ignored my point about morality and how those who were born with natural talent/born with better skills than others shouldn't be paid more. Simply because they didn't have to work to get those skills, they were just born superior. It isn't fair they should get free reign and oppress the rest of society. If anything, they should be helping those less fortunate than them (COUGH COUGH TAX THE RICH).

Basically: People who are born smart or are naturally competitive shouldn't be allowed to control society like a puppet and exploit those who were not as fortunate in terms of natural gifts.

You literally just "refuted" my point by repeating yourself. You didn't present any logic as to why Laziness would still exist in a communist society, so I will again point out that the strive to achieve a higher state of living in an ideal marxist society tied in with work quotas eradicates laziness and creates a perfect worker.

3. Wall Street: the biggest casino in the world. I've already stated that unholy acts are committed there. If you know anything about stocks, derivatives, ANYTHING, you'll know its one big betting game. BY COMMON LOGIC, IF YOUR BETS ARE WRONG, then you lose! The implosion of Capitalism: a point where the conditions for the poor become so terrible because with Wall Street being considered, the bets are off, that they eventually have a revolution to free themselves from the oppressors. Capitalism creates its own errors while it is "prospering". It is a system based off of contradictions A recession like the one we experience in 2009 was caused by bad bets on wall street. The markets tanked, and the LEFT had to go in and bail everyone out.

Also, Capitalism didn't fall in the Great Depression, simply because of the acts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to use transportation infrastructure to save the economy and employ the people. May I mention, that after this, people in America up until the 50's had crazy Communist Sympathies, and while we may never know what would've happened they may as well could've had a revolution.

I will now list several examples where Capitalism IMPLODED and was replaced with a system of socialism (However, none of them are examples of advanced marxism that has drawn out because none of them followed the guidelines referring to the transitional government therefore they all failed to achieve the socialist dream)

1. The October Revolution in Russia 1917
2. Mao's Great Revolution in China
3. The Civil War between North Korea
4. The Vietnam Civil War
5. The Cuban Revolution
6. Several revolutions throughout Latin America

AND there are many others who simply did not transition into a form of socialism.

4. Pfft. Idealism. You didn't prove any of my examples as not true, as they are probably the most prominent examples of discrimination and racism in a capitalist country, but you simply said "PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THESE STEREOTYPES". Sure, they don't follow them, but that doesn't mean these stereotypes don't arise from a world where minorities are blamed unjustly for the failings of the free market!

If people notice a problem in their society, in their ECONOMIC society, they blame a minority scapegoat for it. Examples: The ones I've listed before. Notice how they're all related to work or economics.

AGAIN. You say laziness exists under communism with no reasoning to contradict my logic I posted in my earlier speech. Quotas and the need for a higher state of living are what pushes the boundaries of the human condition and will eventually eliminate greed and laziness. These things are a biproduct of private enterprise.

Finally, no. You have to explain WHY Capitalism is as good as Marxism, or why it is superior. You can't just point out the flaws in it. It would appear that your opportunity for this has expired, because its unfair to bring up new points into the last speech impossible to refute.

If you can't prove that Communism is worse than Capitalism, which is impossible to do in the last speech because it is unfair debating, then in every scenario I win the debate. I have defeated my opponent on all flows, the framework, and he has ignored the TOPIC of the debate.

Thank you PingPong(Jared) for an exciting debate, which we've had time and time again through many car drives, at others homes, etc. I'm expecting the votes to come in soon.
Pingpong

Con

Before I begin, I would like to thank my opponent for this educational and thought-provoking debate round. I extend my appreciation toward my opponent for taking time out of his busy life to talk about a very prevalent issue. I will refute my opponent's point and then talk about the voting issues and wrap up this debate.

1. I understand your point, but you don't seem to realize that there is a whole set of people who don't fit in your healthy affluent society. These people ARE working but for some reason (possibly health/mental) they couldn't meet the labor quota. What happens to these people? Do they simply not count? A society encompasses everybody and doesn't disregard any class. Thus, there would be two classes.

2. I absolutely agree that if you are born with natural talent, you should be rewarded. And, capitalism gives you those rewards. You are suggesting a communist society where talented people are not let to reach their true potential. Also, capitalism doesn't automatically give talented people rewards, they have to work for them. The aff agrees that money shouldn't just be given to anybody, but people with innate talents should be able to use this to their advantage. But still, as we see today, the average working person can still be successful, but only through hard work.

3. Sure, One can lose money in Wall Street. But losing money in Wall Street doesn't mean that conditions for the poor become so terrible that they need a revolution to free themselves. People lose money in the stock market everyday. Do you see a revolution starting???

4. To clear up this misconception, racism roots out of our own insecurities about ourselves. We try to categorize each other to give the illusion that we are better. This has nothing to do with economic status. In fact, leading social psychologists now believe that prejudices were used by our ancestors to categorize a friend or a foe. Thus, this "racism" you speak of was created before a government was even created.

Now, on to voting issues:
1. I have proven that communism has a class struggle between the ones who match the quota and the ones who still working hard but can't.

2. I have proven that people with talent SHOULD use this to their advantage when searching for jobs or in the work force.

3. I have proven that an imploding Wall Street has never made conditions for the poor worst and there is no "revolution" trying to free themselves from their oppressors.

4. I have proven that prejudices are innate and part of our instinct to know if somebody is a friend or foe when no language existed. It was used as a safety measure long before economic status and the idea of capitalism.

Now, all of your contentions are refuted. The opposition has the burden of proving why communism isn't superior to capitalism. The opposition did this by disproving the affirmation's case. Again, I would like to thank you personally for making this debate so engaging. And with that, the opposition has clearly won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BastiatForever 4 years ago
BastiatForever
Hmmm... Marx's class struggle theory has always confused me. The interests of the rich/poor are in harmony. Capitalism offers a system of free and voluntary exchange. No violence allowed, period. We can see through demonstrated preference (see Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State) that the individuals in question (the proletariat, in this case) prefer their arrangements with the other individuals (the bourgeois) to any other that they knew of. In addition, Communist societies are always unworkable because there is no economic calculation. If there is communism, then there is no need for money, given that there's no market to use it on (excluding black markets). With no money, you can't make comparisons like this: a steel track will cost 3 Million and a Titanium track will cost 4 million (for purposes of simplicity, assume both are equally suited). It will simply be - I can use steel or titanium. With this in mind, how will the planner determine which will be most efficient/utility maximizing to use? The millions of decisions like this in the production stage will always cause economic failure.

By the way, Topiarey, nice job. You should come over to our side. ;)
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
while communism is, in a theoretical form, very good, it falls to pieces when put to use practically, simply because it relies on complete lack of corruption from everyone.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
I saw a previous voter say you cruse, so I assumed you did. You would have to ask the first voter. Then again, you won anyway.
Posted by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
Out of curiosity, where did I curse?
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Pro has to overcome the impossibility of communism. Pure communism has never sustainable existed and there is no foreseeable way to establish it. Con has the argument that capitalism is the only one that exists.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Thanks. If you want to continue the discussion, I'm always open to it, just PM me. Cheers and good luck with the rest of your debates.
Posted by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
Okay.

While I understand why you voted for Con, with all due respect I have to still disagree with it, but I respect why you thought he won and your decision.

:D
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"Then, it just becomes a question as to whether or not capitalism is superior to something that does not exist"

Change to:

"Then, it just becomes a question as to whether or not capitalism is superior to something that CANNOT exist"
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
PRO:
"It is NOT abusive to limit communism to "Advanced Marxism" because as I've stated, this debate is not over the means of reaching the final stage of Marxism, which is a socialist utopia, but is a debate over the pros and cons of the UTOPIA ITSELF."

"This is not an examination of what leads to a utopia and where it can go wrong, but of the benefits of the utopia itself."

If you are making the case that an utopia is going to be better than any reality conceived, sure, you'll win that debate - it's impossible to lose such a debate. However, the question is, is Marx's version of utopia even valid to begin with? It has to be perfect, and it wasn't, at least not the way you argued it.

As far as I'm concerned, if it is not an utopia, it is invalid as a model. Then, it just becomes a question as to whether or not capitalism is superior to something that does not exist. Of course it is.
Posted by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
Ruling utopia out of this, he still wasn't able to prove that a capitalist society is superior to a marxist society. Orthodox marxism has its flaws, which is why people have revised it for better and worse, but simply giving Con the win for proving its not a total utopia is ignoring the point of the debate.

The point of the debate for con is proving that Capitalism is superior to Marxism, which he didn't. He just pointed out one flaw in orthodox marxism.

You can't just give the entire debate to con because he literally refuted one of my advantages while I have several others.

The Topic Isn't: Communism Marxist society is a utopian society.
The topic is: Communism/Marxism is superior to Capitalism.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
TopiareyPingpongTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This really was a very exciting debate, but when it all winds down to the discussion of a utopia, Con was able to defeat that theory with numerous flaws in the communist system. Pro cursed, so there goes conduct. I did not see any weird things in grammar and sources so there is no need to vote there.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
TopiareyPingpongTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Jordeef's votebomb
Vote Placed by Arch 4 years ago
Arch
TopiareyPingpongTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: See Bodhivaka's ballot. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as the Con did not exactly sway me with his arguments. In addition, Pro used specific examples when proving his argument whilst Con used absolutely none, and there were many misspellings in Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
TopiareyPingpongTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment. +4 to CON (argument, S&G). Also, +3 to CON to counter ark428 votebomb.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
TopiareyPingpongTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Simply put, I believe pro ultimately presented a stronger case for Communism's superiority (in both principle and theory) over Capitalism.
Vote Placed by ark428 4 years ago
ark428
TopiareyPingpongTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Aff wins on all flows.
Vote Placed by Jordeef 4 years ago
Jordeef
TopiareyPingpongTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cursed