The Instigator
PatulousDescry
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magikarpediem
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Communism Will Never Work

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Magikarpediem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 67895
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

PatulousDescry

Pro

Hi Pokemon Dude,
I made this debate short and sweet because we don't need to get caught up caught up in details of the grand scheme. Every plan you can provide for a communist society requires full cooperation. We are human full cooperation will NEVER happen. Your plan will also require a large government with a great deal of power. Such a government will always be infiltrated by the criminal element. The more power in the hands of Government the power is more power in the hands of criminals.
Magikarpediem

Con

Nationalizing certain aspects of society would not be hard as, for example, in England it would only be a process of re nationalizing systems like energy companies and train systems; which unsurprisingly are the companies which are currently causing us the most grief. If the general public were shown this, I don't think it would be hard for them to support it. The Green party are an example of this. They call for the nationalization of the railway.
Corruption is rid with democratic communism.
Debate Round No. 1
PatulousDescry

Pro

History has proven that government will never be rid of corruption.
Magikarpediem

Con

By your logic then no government has ever worked. Democracy isn't a broken system it merely needs improvement, politicians just need to be made accountable for their actions and stop being self serving and instead serve the public interest. Communism would go a long way to achieving this as, for example, politicians could not be influenced by big business and banks to support and vote for causes which only serve the rich (like for example George Osborne supporting bankers bonuses*)
*in comments
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by nevedarkwolf 2 years ago
nevedarkwolf
PatulousDescryMagikarpediemTied
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: Con uses a strong amount of arguments which he backs up with specific evidence, pro lacks this. For proving his side, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
PatulousDescryMagikarpediemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro built a case against communism using a cooperation argument. Stating that communism requires full cooperation and that such things will never happen. He also claims criminal elements will always infiltrate such a government. Con argued that nationalization would work, and showed a case of such. Con also claimed that democratic communism rids the criminal element. So far, both sides have made unsubstantiated claims with little, to no, supporting evidence. Pro drops the nationalization argument and simply gives a 1-line response claiming that governments will never be rid of corruption based on history. Con counters by showing the wide implications of such a claim and how it is fallacious. I'm awarding Con arguments due to Pro dropping some of Cons, whereas Con rebutted each point raised by Pro. Sources - Tie. Sources need to go in the debate rounds.