The Instigator
shift4101
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Communism is better, in general, than Capitalism

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 9 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,585 times Debate No: 18521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

shift4101

Pro

I will be defending the resolution that "Communism is, in general, better than Capitalism." Both me and my opponent will have to attack and negate eachothers arguments.

Rounds:

1st round: Acceptence
2nd round: ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE.
3rd round: Rebuttal of opponents arguments and evidence.
4th round: May defend 1 attack and present resolution.

Definitions (As taken from LordKnuckles earlier debate)

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. "
-http://www.google.ca...
Capitalism:
"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
-http://www.google.ca...

I urge my opponent to procede with caution, and wish us both Happy Debating!
Lordknukle

Con

I have accepted your debate and your terms.
However, I would like to add some more:
1. As stated in the resolution, I (or my opponent) have to prove their system correct on general accounts. I would like to quote one of my opponents from a previous debate:
"My resolution was that capitalism doesn't work. I did not have to prove that there is a better system and, if for third world people and for 5% of western people capitalism does not work then therefore my opponent and I are agreed that my resolution is true. "

Refutations like this will hold no water. If you are trying to prove your system statistically (like my opponent was), 50% or over must be for your resolution.


I don't know what my opponent meant when he said 'proceed with caution' but I hope that it was not a threat.

Please provide your BOP next round.

May the best man win!
Debate Round No. 1
shift4101

Pro

I thank my opponent for this chance to debate him once again, and wish us both the best of luck.

I would like to point out, however, that my opponent said "Please provide your BOP next round." Now, this is very loosely worded, but if it insinuating that the BOP is not shared, my opponent is mistaken. Capitalism is not defined as a better, or the best, form of economics. Thus, the BOP is shared.

In the following paragraphs, I will be defending these points:

Communism is better for the people as a whole
Communism is better for maintaining health
Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world

Communism is better for the people as a whole

Communism, by definition, is a form of government that calls for a stateless and classless society, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. (1) Since communism favors the people as a whole economically, it is less likely to favor certain groups or parties, such as capitalism does in the modern democracy America. (2) Therefore, since Communism both aids economic needs and is better a better setting for democracy than Capitalism, Communism is better for the people as a whole than Capitalism.

Communism is better for maintaining health

Capitalism, since private business has no need to answer to government regulations, can practically do anything they desire in or to their businesses. (3) Since no restrictions are placed on these companies, they are free to claim to be selling whatever they desire, such as inside of a can, when an entirely different substance can be found within. (4) Therefore, since consumers cannot truly know what they are buying in a Capitalist economy, Communism is better for the product quality, and thus better for the health of the society.

Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world

Capitalism encourages private ownership and survival of the fittest economics. (3) In a united world, where all countries are collaborating as one, survival of the fittest economics would most defiantly encourage separation of the poor and the rich. (5) As the poor increase, and the rich demand more, war will eventually happen, thus uniting the world. (6) Therefore, since no such economic classes exist in a Communist economy, Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world.


So far, since my opponent has not yet been able to post his arguments, I am obviously winning.
VOTE PRO!

______________
Sources:

(1) Can be logically deduced via the definition of Communism provided in round 1.
(2) The existence of the dominance of the Republic and Democratic political parties, http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) Can be logically deduced via the definition of Capitalism provided in round 1.
(4) http://www.online-literature.com...
(5) The existence of different social classes in the United States, http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu...
(6) http://americanhistory.about.com...
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments

The five arguments that I will be presenting and defending are:
1. Capitalism is better for people as a whole (not a rebuttal)
2. Rise to the top
3. Consumer is king in a capitalist society
4. Incentive and Reward
5. Majority of the world use capitalism

Capitalism is better for people as a whole

Capitalism promotes healthy growth of society and safety from oppressions (we are not talking about racism as that happened in both societies). Lets compare some of the most "successful" communist and the most successful capitalist regimes. Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were both responsible for the communization of USSR and China under Mao Rule.(1)(2).These guys were great leaders. However, what kind of ramifications did their regime have for their own people? 101 million citizens murdered. 78 million by Mao Zedong and 23 million by Joseph Stalin. (3) Also, lets not forget that everyone except the elite was starving and barely scraping by a living. This is definitely not good for your own people.

For comparisons sake, I will take the two of the most successful current capitalist countries (4). The United States and England. The U.S. was established over 200 years ago. How many genocides and oppressions of people have occurred in the 200 years of existence? None. Does it have a functioning and stable economy and society? Yes. Has England has any massive genocides and oppressions? In modern years, no. Is it a functioning and stable economy and society? Yes. From this we can obviously see that capitalist is better for people as a whole. There are no wide scale genocides or oppressions from its leaders. Capitalism is clearly the prime choice for the welfare of its citizens.

Rise to the top

I am not compelled to write this argument against so I will copy it from a previous debate (5):

The most obvious beneficial impact of capitalism is that everybody gets equal opportunities. Everybody, starts out in one spot and whoever is the smartest and most cunning rises to the top. Capitalism rewards the smart. The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system. Capitalism allows for loans, one of the most important principles of rising to the top. How would you get past Harvard with no money? You take out a loan.Other systems don't allow for loans, so you can't rise up. Once you rise to the top, you obviously have more opportunities. But the important thing is that everybody gets a chance to rise to the top.

Lets compare this to a communist society. Nobody has equal opportunities. This is because there are no opportunities. Regardless of if you are smart or dumb, you will still be farming the field for the rest of your life. Communism is a class-less society. Classes help the economy. The rich serve as an incentive for the poor to become rich. Loans do not exist. If a person is born poor, they will stay poor. There is virtually no moving up classes. Nobody opens their own business. Everybody goes to the same university. People have no choices in life. Their life is chosen before they are born.

Consumer is king in a capitalist society

Again, I am copying from one of my previous debates (5):

One of the most important arguments about capitalism versus communism is that in a capitalist society, the consumer is king. The consumer has all the power. The consumer regulates supply, demand, and price. For example, lets say that many consumers want to eat at a random fast food restaurant. As a result, the demand for the restaurant has increased, the supply has increased, and the price has increased. This is what I mean when I say that the consumer controls the whole business world. By buying this product and not that product, the consumer regulates which products are to stay and which have to go. Since there are many different types of consumer, there are many different brands and stores.

Let's compare this to a communist society. Everybody is equal. Nobody has more than the other person. The government has to measure and record how much each person has so they don't get too much. In this society, the consumer is not king. He doesn't get to decide whether he wants an Armani or Tommy Hilfiger jacket. The government does that for him. Nearly all of the clothes that a people wear will be the same. Same brand, same color, same everything.

How does this help a society? Greatly. These kinds of choices promote individualism, freedom, and choice. All of these things are key in keeping a healthy society. If people at least believe that they have a choice, then they will be happy. Oppression from communist rule will not promote these aspects. As a result, the people will be displeased. Also, these choices allow the consumer to regulate bad businesses. Nobody wants a bad company selling them bad products. In a capitalist society, they can control it by shutting it down (not buying the products). It a communist society, if the company is owned by the government, the people have no choice of whether to buy from it or not.

Incentive

Finally, a argument that I am not copying from a previous debate.
Incentives are key in a society. Incentives are what keep people motivated and willing to work. In a capitalist society, there is always an incentive. The harder you work and the more you try, the more money/power/love/any object of desire will come to you. The rich serve as an incentive for the poor. The poor know that they have a chance that they will eventually be the rich people. This motivates society. Without this motivation, people will be lazy and non productive. Laziness=Non-productiveness=Society Fails.
This is exactly what a communist system promotes. They have no incentive. You will not move up the classes. You will not earn more money than your neighbor. After all of this, what is the point of trying? If you can make 20 toys or 2 toys, what is the point of making the 20 toys if you can make 2 for x/10 the time for the same pay. Communism lacks an incentive which generates and powers society.

Majority of the world use capitalism

Lets compare how much of the world uses capitalism and how much uses communism. Every single country uses capitalism except North Korea (yes, China uses capitalism)(6). The world population right now is 6.7 billion (7) North Korea's population is about 24 million. (8) 6.7 billion-24 million= 6.676 billion. 6.676/6.7=99.6 99.6% of the world uses capitalism. On the other hand, 0% of the world uses communism. If the whole world uses capitalism and nobody uses communism, then capitalism is obviously supreme.

Conclusion
Capitalism is more beneficial for the society. It gives equal chance for everybody to rise to the top. It promotes choice, freedom, and individuality. In a capitalist society, the consumer is king. Capitalism provides an incentive for people to work. Also, 99.6% of the world uses capitalism.





(1)http://en.wikipedia.org......
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org......
(3)http://www.scaruffi.com......
(4)http://en.wikipedia.org......
(5)http://www.debate.org......
(6)http://www.time.com...
(7)http://goo.gl...
(8)http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 2
shift4101

Pro

In the last debate I had with LordKunckle, his sources always seemed to be a problem. I invite the voters to actually look at his sources, and see that all of them (with the exception of 7 & 8) are just general links to pages that may or may not refer to his arguments.

Capitalism is better for people as a whole

"Capitalism promotes healthy growth of society and safety from oppressions"

Actually, Capitalism in its least socialist form is the breeding grounds of corruption. (1) It is also a great way to exploit the poor, via Tenant farming (2) and Discrimination. (3)

"Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were both responsible for the communization of USSR and China under Mao Rule."

First off, China hasn't ever really been a Communist country to the extent we are talking about, but rather just a society based on totalitarian rule. (4) But I will gladly defend the Soviet Union.

"23 million [murdered] by Joseph Stalin. Also, lets not forget that everyone except the elite was starving and barely scraping by a living."

Joseph Stalin murdered people of opposing political parties. The United States caused widespread fear when Communism was at its height, and left people then and for centuries to come afraid to experiment the idea of Communism. (5) Now, it is another debate altogether to say which one was most damaging to mankind as a whole. If you would like to debate it after this one, feel free to challenge!
You have to keep in mind, that Joseph Stalin came into power of a dying and weak country. (6) While the Five Year Plan was rather ineffective, it did eventually industrialize Russia, and made it the second largest world power for half a century. Later oppression came because people rebelled. That doesn't have anything to do with Communism, but rather the totalitarian rulers that came with it. (6)

"I will take the two of the most successful current capitalist countries. The United States and England."

Nor the United States nor England are purely capitalist. They both have ties to different forms of government (i.e. socialism) embedded in their laws. (7) We are not debating the success of countries who experiment with capitalism.

"How many genocides and oppressions of people have occurred in the 200 years of existence? None"

No oppressions, huh? Slavery? (8) Immigration Discrimination? (3) Private loans and credit cards designed to keep people in debt? (9) While these are not directly harming to citizens, they prevent equality and make people sign their lives away on paper.

"From this we can obviously see that capitalist is better for people as a whole. There are no wide scale genocides or oppressions from its leaders. Capitalism is clearly the prime choice for the welfare of its citizens."

Here's a tip for writing essays: Never use the word obviously. Its like calling your reader an idiot.

Since I debunked most of your on the surface claims, I don't see how this resolution "obviously" holds together.

Rise to the top

"The most obvious beneficial impact of capitalism is that everybody gets equal opportunities."

Actually, this sentence would fit better together if you had placed "Communism" in the place of "Capitalism". People don't get equal chances in Capitalism. They get equality from democracy. Communism, since everyone is equally important, get equal chances. In Capitalism, the person with the most capital gets to decide who does what.

"Lets compare this to a communist society. Nobody has equal opportunities. This is because there are no opportunities."

This is just wrong. If you have a knack for science in a communist society, you need to get somewhere where the government can recognize your ability. If everybody was destined to work on a farm like you said, there would be no scientists, and if this was the case how did the soviet union develop ABM's? (10)

Consumer is king in a capitalist society

I don't feel the need to debunk this. It is the central idea Capitalism is based around; to say this doesn't work would be like saying Capitalism in itself doesn't work (for a finite period of time), which is obviously not the case.

Incentive

The incentive you're talking about is based upon fear, desire, envy, and greed. While this does get the job done of sustaining (for a finite amount of time) a Capitalist society, it is definitely not a better system than Communism, which lets people live without fear, no ability to quench their desires, nothing to envy, and nothing to hold onto with a greedy heart. Any of these that appear on Communist states come from the governments that surround the economic system, not the system itself. Reading future history, motivation powered by desire will "obviously" seem worse than motivation powered by progress. I do not connect how lack of financial motivation leads to laziness. Please expand.

Majority of the world use capitalism

There are a lot of reasons why something could be the way it is. Rushing to the conclusion "because its better" is definitely a mistake. For instance, Communism has only been around a short period of time in comparison to Capitalism. Communism has been the subject of efforts by the United States to spread fear. Communism has never been seen in a successful view, since it hasn't been pared with any other form of government but a Totalitarian State. Nevertheless, we cannot simply settle that what is here now is better forever. The world changes everyday, to limit the change from economics is bad practice.

CONCLUSION

I have weakened the foundation of all of my opponents arguments. (with the exception of the paragraph where CON defined what Capitalism was) My claims so far have not been debunked or attacked (as stated in the rules :3), so I must urge a vote to PRO at this point in the debate.

________________

(1) http://dailyreckoning.com...

(2) http://digital.library.okstate.edu...

(3) http://www.bolshevik.org...

(4) http://www.slate.com...

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(7) http://answers.yahoo.com... (second answer)

(8) http://www.slaveryinamerica.org...

(9) http://jamesshore.com...

(10) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Sources

I would like to point out that my opponent is using biased and unreliable sources. Yahoo Answers can be invalid and Bolsheviks.org is an extremely biased website.

For some reason my sources are not linking to the actual wiki page. My three wiki sources are about Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and world economy. Here they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
If they do not work when I post them then my DDO is glitching and should result in ramifications in this debate.

Capitalism is better for people as a whole

"Actually, Capitalism in its least socialist form is the breeding grounds of corruption. (1) It is also a great way to exploit the poor, via Tenant farming (2) and Discrimination. (3)"

First, I have to point out that we are talking for the majority of the people.During the late 18th century, there were only 650 000 slaves while the population was 4 million (1). Therefore, it was still better for the majority at that time.

Capitalism promotes free choice. As a result, tenant farming and poor exploitation is all a choice; which the poor people choose for themselves. The poor person does not have to abide by those exploitations.

Communism on the other hand does not promote free choice. Everybody's lives are chosen before they are born. There is no moving up classes or being "promoted" in society.

"No oppressions, huh? Slavery? (8) Immigration Discrimination? (3) Private loans and credit cards designed to keep people in debt? (9) While these are not directly harming to citizens, they prevent equality and make people sign their lives away on paper."

1. Slavery was not an oppression of the country's own people. The slaves were imported from other countries. Slaves actually helped the people of America by building, working, etc....
2. What immigration discrimination? My family personally immigrated from another country to North American with absolutely no oppression.
3. If a person chooses to be in debt, that is their own choice and problem. It is not an oppression by the country. People can successfully live without debt.


"Here's a tip for writing essays: Never use the word obviously. Its like calling your reader an idiot."

1. This is not an essay, just a combination of different arguments.
2. Do not try to teach my how to write.
3. Sometimes, it is fine to use "obviously" when you claim in undoubtedly right.

"Joseph Stalin murdered people of opposing political parties. The United States caused widespread fear when Communism was at its height, and left people then and for centuries to come afraid to experiment the idea of Communism. (5) Now, it is another debate altogether to say which one was most damaging to mankind as a whole. If you would like to debate it after this one, feel free to challenge"

My opponent is implying that "people of opposing political parties" are not human and do not deserve to live. The U.S. rightfully made people afraid of communism. It is an awful theory that takes away from the hard-working and labouring and gives to the dumb and poor. It is obvious that 20 million people murdered are worse than rightful claims against a political system. Shoot me a debate after this one about that topic.


Rise to the top

" People don't get equal chances in Capitalism. They get equality from democracy."

Yes, however in modern times, capitalism is almost synonymous with democracy. Every capitalist country today uses democracy. The most famous communist countries such as Soviet Russia and China under Mao Rule did not employ democracy. In fact, they employed totalitarianism. Therefore, we can safely assume that capitalism and democracy go together in today's world. While communism goes together with totalitarianism

The reason why I said that there are no chances in a communist country is because nobody can move up classes. In a capitalist society, the poor can become the rich and vice versa. There is much more social flexibility. When people know that they have a chance to become wealthy by working hard, they will embrace it. This incentive gives them a reason to try.... leading me to my next rebuttal.

Incentive

Quoting from a previous debate (2):
According to James Houran, President of 20 20 Skills Employee Assessment, "monetary incentives improved task performance by 23%, social recognition improved task performance by 17% and feedback elicited a 10% improvement. Simultaneously combining all three types of reinforcements improved performance by 45%."(3)

Money motivation is what makes Capitalism the most successful economic system in the history of the world.It gives people an incentive to try harder because of their greed. As a result of this greed, performance is increased by a whopping 45%.

People are naturally greedy. They want to be better than their neighbor. According to this article (4): "humans naturally compete for status.". That is where communism ultimately fails. Without envy and greed, people stop being motivated. My opponent asked me to further on this point so I will:
Financial motivation leads to laziness because of one major reason. Humans naturally don't want to do more work than necessary. In a capitalist system, there is no "necessary" amount because the more items you produce, the more money you get. In a communist society, what is the point for a toy maker making 20 toys when he can make 1 for the same pay and 20 times less the time? This lack of financial motivation leads to people not doing as much work. Therefore, laziness occurs.

Majority of the world uses capitalism

In this paragraph, my opponent has wrote my argument for me. Communism will never return because of the fear spread by western nations of the ideology. Therefore the world will be using capitalism for the nearest foreseeable future.

Conclusion

I believe that I have weaken all of my opponents arguments. Nearly all (if not all) of his claims has been debunked. I urge you to for the benefit of mankind and CON.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://www.debate.org...
(3)http://www.2020skills.com...
(4)http://www.theatlantic.com...


Debate Round No. 3
shift4101

Pro

As stated in the rules, I may only attack one of my opponents rebuttals. But I do urge voters to count how many times my opponent has rushed to conclusions and misread the conclusions I made throughout the debate. For the attacks I do not directly address, please make sure the logic he uses is rationally satisfying before voting.

Also, he did not follow the rules, as he attacked my rebuttals in round 3, which I was incapable of doing. (It's also incredibly ironic, because this was the factor that made me tie with him in our previous debate).

""Actually, Capitalism in its least socialist form is the breeding grounds of corruption. (1) It is also a great way to exploit the poor, via Tenant farming (2) and Discrimination. (3)"

First, I have to point out that we are talking for the majority of the people. During the late 18th century, there were only 650 000 slaves while the population was 4 million (1). Therefore, it was still better for the majority at that time.

Capitalism promotes free choice. As a result, tenant farming and poor exploitation is all a choice; which the poor people choose for themselves. The poor person does not have to abide by those exploitations.

Communism on the other hand does not promote free choice. Everybody's lives are chosen before they are born. There is no moving up classes or being "promoted" in society."

I hope nobody who reads this interprets as me insulting my opponent, but with what he has said he has shown a profound ignorance of what tenant farming is and why people subjected themselves to it. For example, after the 13th Amendment, slaves were free and needed to get a job so they could start earning money and supporting themselves. But these slaves still were in the south. Most people still hated them, and didn't want to give them jobs. So some clever land owners realized they (the former slaves) were starving to death, so they rented land to them so they could produce crops and sell them. Two problems emerged: The rent was higher than a successful harvest, and nobody wanted to buy their crops. Thus, since the slaves were in financial debt, they had to stay to pay their debts, but they couldn't generate enough money to pay for the rent due that month anyways, and ended up in a viscous cycle that they could not escape without (socialist) intervention.

My opponent doesn't attack the first part of my statement, so I have to assume he is agreeing with me.
He also rambles Communism and free choice, which doesn't really have anything to do with corruption or exploitation of the poor. I addressed this issue in a different part of my rebuttals.

Final Conclusion

My opponent has repeated the same arguments my history teachers have told me since I was in the 6th grade. I have provided adequate answers to these arguments, and he simply repeated them back to me in his third round. He also broke the rules regarding the contents of round 3. I do not expect my voters to agree with me on this debate; I'm not sure if I even agree with me, but you (the voters) need to at least accept that my arguments, conduct, sources, and (in my opinion) spelling and grammar were superior to my opponents. I thank you all for reading, and urge you once more,

VOTE PRO!
Lordknukle

Con

I am seriously getting tired of these personal attacks by PRO. Focus on the facts, not the person presenting them

"he did not follow the rules, as he attacked my rebuttals in round 3"

I believe that my opponent naively misinterpreted the rules. The rules stated:
2nd round: ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE.
3rd round: Rebuttal of opponents arguments and evidence.

My opponent did not specify which arguments and evidence to counteract in Round 3. Not in one place does it say that I have to counteract the arguments from Round 2. After all, my opponent has introduced new arguments in Round 3 (useless ramblings about tenant farming). I urge the readers to see that the rules are open up to interpretation from different people. I hope that my opponent will recognize his mistake and not do it in future debates.

Communism is better for the people as a whole

What I find amusing is the category that my opponent chose to attack. The categories of "incentive" (where I provided scientific evidence of money being an incentive), "majority of the world uses capitalism" (which is a nearly irrefutable argument), and "rise to the top" (where I showed that capitalism allows everybody to succeed) were by far my strongest. I don't care what my opponent decided to attack, but I think that readers should take this into consideration.

Since I believe that "Communism is better for the people as a whole" is the only argument that I have to actually defend, I will therefore negate my opponent's arguments.

I will not be directly attacking his "tenant farming" argument since that has nothing to do with our topics and is simply useless rambling. I will be talking why capitalism is better for people as whole in contemporary times.

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010"(1)

As stated in the first round, you must show that capitalism is better for more than 50% of the people. We can safely assume that the 15% living at or below the poverty line are victims of capitalism. However for the majority (85%) of the people, capitalism works. They are not in poverty. Therefore since the majority of citizens have a roof over their head, food in their house, and can support their children, capitalism works.

One more point: communism failed. Soviet Russia, China, and the few other communist states have either failed or are under extreme tension. North Korea for example can't feed its own people. I urge my readers to visit this website (2):
http://www.amnesty.org...
It shows the exact horrors of what a communist regime does to its own citizens.

Conclusion

Communism doesn't work. There is a reason that 99.6% of the world uses capitalism: it works. Communism has been both tried and failed. It is a horror that starves and doesn't give equal chances to its own people. There is absolutely no incentive for a communist worker to try to work hard, as demonstrated in my previous round. My opponent has not demonstrated why communism is better for the majority of the people; while I have. Capitalism is a proven theory that works while communism fails.

I urge the readers to vote for CON.



(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://www.amnesty.org...

Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
It takes a mature person to say that.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
I accept defeat. GG.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
@F-16:

The problem with the current debate system is that is very hard for the second person who posts on round 3 not to counter the opponent's counters. I've noticed that on many debates, the person counters the other's most recent argument (including this one). I don't know if this has to do with psychology or something else.. but it needs to get fixed.

Perhaps a system where the other person's arguments pop up after you write yours.

I'm not saying that I made a mistake, because the rules are still open for interpretation. But this is just something I picked up while reading a lot of debates.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Kohai, what exactly are you doing? I don't understand either your RFD or how you intended to counter Calvin. Calvin gave Con 4 points and you gave Pro five. Would you mind explaining what happened in detail?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD (cont): Furthermore, Con did not address Pro's initial arguments at all. It is fairly clear that a rebuttal means attacking your opponent's opening arguments. For this reason, everything that Pro mentioned in his opening in round 2 is assumed to be true. However, even considering that, on balance Con had the stronger arguments.

I am also surprised at the hostility between the two debaters. I wonder if they had previous disagreements on other debates?
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Sorry I updated to counter Calvin. Calvin is incoherent and vote bomber.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
BTW: this is relating to the topic.

Lets say that right now, communism gets implemented in the U.S. Everybody is therefore reduced to near poverty status. Is it fair for those who worked all of their lives for their possessions to have it taken way and given to those who don't work? Income redistribution is stupid. The rich deserve to stay where they are and the poor deserve to stay where they are.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
@kohai:
I don't think Stalin was fascist.
1. He opposed fascism and Hitler later in the war
2. Fascism is far-right, communism is far-left. Kinda hard to be fascist while pretending that you are communist
3. In all his speeches, he pointed out how communism will eventually take over Europe.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
I didn't say he was an ingnorant person. I said he had ignorance regarding what we were talking about. Its only perceived as an insult if you want it to, and I made it clear I never intended it as an insult. I just didn't want the "His argument is invalid" as said by CON to stick with the voters.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Ah thank you for pointing that out. I would have pointed out that Stalin is fascist, not communist.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
shift4101LordknukleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting. I always try to look at these things from an unbiased view, so the fact that I'm Capitalist shouldn't have gotten in the way, but I found Con's arguments more convincing, though Pro did have a few good points here and there.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
shift4101LordknukleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more opinions on historical events. Con also ignored many arguments made my Pro. Both could have done better in my opinion but a good debate al in all.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
shift4101LordknukleTied
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: I think con did better.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
shift4101LordknukleTied
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 had many ad homs. Con had more substantial arguments.
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
shift4101LordknukleTied
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: Pro was full of personal attacks, and little facts. Con was the only one who had an argument that actually was backed with anything. That was the incentive argument. I found Pro's debating style distasteful and full of useless ad hominem, while straying from the resolution into tirades that neither Con nor the reader's needed to read. Both of you missed something I find empirical in this debate; greed. You talked about it, but it's greed that causes communism to fall. 4:1 CON
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
shift4101LordknukleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con that his central arguments were in fact incentive, and that capitalism worked in many countries while communism failed. For the 2nd argument, rather than point it out as an appeal to authority, Pro actually engaged that argument and failed to refute it. I already figured incentive was the strongest argument for capitalism even before Con said so, and Pro never refutes the fact the people in capitalist societies are motivated by advancement. Both sides were extremely hostile.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
shift4101LordknukleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were sound, but a little provocative of Con. I don't know where Con got the '15 of people in poverty' idea. It's 80 of humanity that lives on less than a $1 a day. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
shift4101LordknukleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Coments Countering calvin
Vote Placed by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
shift4101LordknukleTied
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 kept insulting con