The Instigator
roycegee
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Communism is the greatest economic ideal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,548 times Debate No: 3495
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (10)

 

roycegee

Pro

This is my first debate, but here goes:

Perfection

This is what communism's economic plan, as described in the Communist Manifesto, is. Before I begin my debate, I offer the following definitions-

communism- a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

greatest- superior in quality.

economic- pertaining to the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities.

ideal- a conception of something in its perfection.

The main argument for communism is equality. You have to remember- Marxism was created because of a large class struggle throughout Europe. The market was dominated by a wealthy class, leaving the working class to suffer. The competition in this market led to low wages and unemployment for many.
- Communism is a solution

The idea of communism is the abolition of private property. It focuses on the group and not the individual. Economically, this is very ideal. This would definitely be essential for a growing economy. With a new, classless society the unemployment level would be zero.
- Poverty can not exist within a communist society. Unemployment is nonexistent.

A command economy would make a decision and goal. With capitalism, capital can be seen from your work. If you work harder, you get a raise. The raise leads to a better car or house. With communism, the capital could be seen in a different way. The harder everyone works, the more EVERYONE receives the benefits. Arguably, 5 people working together would produce more results than 5 people working alone.
- Economic growth would increase as collectivization improves overall essentials of lifestyle.

The eventual outcome would be very simple and scientific. If a community needs something (infrastructure, more commodities, rations, technology), the only thing necessary is for the community to work as a whole and put more effort. Even with slave like conditions, results would be dramatic. With communism's command economy, a government can decide what is best for a nation to improve economically. The workers can then work towards any goal. This can be seen within the Soviet Unions rule. Growth within the nation increased 20%, and an industrial, economic powerhouse was created in Stalin's regime (48-55) when factories and production drastically improved. Through willpower of the revolutionists, greater feats can be accomplished.
Economic growth and innovation exist within a communist economy.

So why does this matter? This would mean the production, distribution, and use of income is for the overall benefit of society as a whole as opposed to a one. Through heavy taxes and a common goal, everyone can have a fair share of the pie. Economy could thrive as the main use of income was for the benefit of society. Wealthiness can only exist as the standard for everyone is raised. Commodities would be public, and what one receives everyone receives.
Korezaan

Con

I negate, "Communism is the greatest economic ideal."

Note to judge: I didn't place everything as it should on a flow. I placed it in the order it made sense.

I agree with all of my opponent's definitions except
"communism" – addition: what the Communist Manifesto says. All of it.
"ideal" - This will be explained in-case
"economic ideal" – an economy we should work towards

Observation: I do not need to give an alternative to Communism. This is true because 1) the PRO did not ask me to do so, and 2) it is not my job to prove the resolution's inverse, just that this variation here is not true.

Value Criterion: When we are attempting to weigh any two ideas, mindsets, or plans against one another, we need to look at their real world implications. The topic at hand is weighing one belief against all others, and as nice as communism may seem to be, its requirements of humankind will inevitably not work on a larger scale. We can't just look at different systems of economics and what they value as highest, and then say which one is better based off of what they just believe. If two people both have good values, there's no way to weigh them: Communism wants to provide equality and basic needs for all; while another system like Capitalism says that whoever is the smartest and works with money the best should have the most capital. Both sound fine, but how we really start to weigh those two is how they fly with all the attributes and implications of the real world placed into effect. Those impacts are how the debate is going to be weighed.

With that said, his first three paragraphs can be dropped. But even if that's not true…

"Communism is a solution"
- Since the resolution does not specify an actor, i.e., specifically for whom that Communism is the greatest economic ideal, we can already go CON because 1) certain rich and powerful people aren't about to see communism as the greatest economic ideal, and 2) communism is brought about through a revolution by urban factory workers. Rich and powerful people tend to not be urban factory workers. If we are going to weigh communism we must also look at how the process is brought about: and if it is not a revolution by the urban factory workers and only by the urban factory workers, then it isn't communism.

"Poverty cannot exist…"
- Just because communism aims for elimination of poverty does not mean it will achieve that goal, neither does it mean we should consider its means when finding out what's the greatest economic ideal. If a value can't do its job in real life, why would we bother idealizing it?
- How does classless society lead to zero unemployment level? We don't have any classes in our American society today; we have TONS of unemployed people.

"Economic growth…"
- Your example doesn't fly; saying "arguably" does not argue the argument for you.
- There's no proof that it improves overall quality of essentials for life
- Why does improving the overall essentials of life dictate what economy system is best?
- Communism is an insurance of ends. It ensures equality for all: and hey, when one person works harder and doesn't have any reward, what incentives do they have? Motivation-driven human nature leads such a benevolent-aimed society spiraling down exactly towards what it was attempting to eliminate: poverty. Vladmir Lenin attempted to implement this, something he called "War Communism", and this was the result:

"Between 1918 and 1920, Petrograd lost 75% of its population, whilst Moscow lost 50%. A black market emerged in Russia, despite the threat of the martial law against profiteering. The ruble collapsed and was replaced by a system of bartering and, by 1921, heavy industry had fallen to output levels of 20% of those in 1913. 90% of all wages were "paid with goods" (payment in form of goods, rather than money). 70% of locomotives were in need of repair and the food requisitioning, combined with the effects of 7 years of war and a severe drought, contributed to a famine that caused between 3 and 10 million deaths."
– Wikipedia, ‘War Communism'

- Overview 1: The problem with communism is that it only works if everyone works hard, wants to work hard, is intelligent, and is a benevolent person. Its system collapses very easily, as by ensuring that everyone get the same amount of capital, anyone can just stop working at any time and still get that pay. Given, people shouldn't be doing that no matter what system of government or economy they're under, but that's human nature: If they work twice as much as someone else, but still receive the same pay, what's the point?

(Continuation) If communism actually worked out it would be great. But the truth of the matter is, there's no way that communism will fly unless we can suppress human nature from absolutely everyone: Every time that communism has attempted to place itself into effect, there has been a leader. Human nature, according to psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, is naturally to follow. Out of Kohlberg's theory of moral development, he tells us that most of us never pass the "conventional stages", where most of us make decisions based off of what authority and what our peers say. As my own psychologist teacher says, out of 100 people there are three hell raisers, four guardian angels, and ninety three clueless ones. Those 93 are the followers, and if EVEN ONE of the evil three get into a position of power, the whole system collapse – because all the while, it will be preaching "the state serves the people", and that "we are all equal".

We can see this very clearly in the parts he does not mention about Stalin's regime.
He is a perfect example of one of the "hell raisers".

- His little part about Stalin does not link back to any of his previous impacts at all, as Stalin carried out mass killings by the state by denouncing people as "working against the people", and sending millions of people to gulags and slave labor camps in Siberia, where it was said that if you attempted to relieve yourself, it was so cold that doing so would form an icicle and you would need to have that part of your body removed.
- I am not saying innovation does not exist; that point is nonunique.
- Stalin's communism caused a lot of poverty. For example, he engineered Holodomor, which was a mass starvation of Ukranians from 1932-33. And then there was the starvation in the slave labor camps, which killed uncountable numbers of people.

If that's happening in communism and it's not happening with capitalism,
There's no way communism can be the best economic system, let alone the greatest economic ideal.

Overview 2: EVEN IF roycegee gets all the good impacts of his case, he doesn't link to the resolution at all. The resolution does not say "communism is good", but rather, "Communism is the greatest economic ideal." Grammar dictates, "greatest", as a comparison to others, and as my opponent defines it, "superior in quality." Since he did not compare, he cannot win the round.
Debate Round No. 1
roycegee

Pro

Let me first bring up a few points:

1. In my opponents definition, he states that communism should be based on the Communist Manifesto. I accept this definition. However, this is completely contradictory as his argument clearly deals with Stalin's view of communism- which is VERY different from the principles of communism as described by Marx and Engels. If you are trying to base your argument off of the Soviet Union, then ALL of our arguments have now been dropped. Thanks for that.

2. "Observation: I do not need to give an alternative to Communism. This is true because 1) the PRO did not ask me to do so, and 2) it is not my job to prove the resolution's inverse, just that this variation here is not true."

I hinted out laissez faire, I should have been more clear. I apologize.

That said, it is STILL imperative that my opponent compares it to an alternative, as the resolution clearly suggests. To put it plain and simple- the resolution's evaluative term is greatest, which is comparative. Considering you are con, your job is to prove that Communism is NOT the greatest. Adding one word doesn't change the fact that comparing is necessary for any argument considering the evaluative term. I had already hinted out that the reason Communism existed is because of the faults created by a Laissez-faire market. If my opponent has no clue to an alternative, perhaps you should use that as the alternative.

3. My opponents value criterion is also contradictory in comparison to the resolution. You believe that weighing the ideas by opinion is not sufficient in proving Pro or Con. However, how else can you prove "greatest" other than opinion.

To put it in an example:
I said Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player in history. Opinion, just as:
Communism is the greatest economic ideal. Opinion.

Michael Jordan was not the greatest basketball in history. Opinion, just as:
Communism is not the greatest economic ideal. Still opinion.

However much evidence (in both cases) provided by boxscores, death tolls, or points per season, the evaluative term still deals with... what? Opinion.

4. My opponent states I don't state Stalin's regime. In reality, the industrial and economic growth was the capstone of Stalin's regime.

Now, on to rebuttals:
- "Communism is a solution" rebut.-
My opponent is trying to pick apart my words and twist it around. This conclusion was in the context of one, defined paragraph. If you read it thoroughly, it specifically states "the working class".

- "Poverty cannot exist…" rebut.-
Every idea has its flaws. In comparison, a Laissez-fair market aims to provide an equal oppurtunity to have healthy competition. The result? Unemployment, monopolies, and a detrimental effect on the United States GDP have been the result of capitalism. Was this the intention of Adam Smith? Clearly not. - CIA World Fact Book

- How does classless society lead to zero unemployment level? We don't have any classes in our American society today; we have TONS of unemployed people.
The classless society brings upon collectivization, or grouped up farms consisting of the ENTIRE population.
Classes do exist in American society (I'm assuming United States?)

- "Economic growth…" rebut.
There's no proof that it improves overall quality of essentials for life.
Bringing that up is irrelevant to the topic of economic growth. It was a filler. However, I proved that Russia grew in industry, which is relevant.

- Communism is an insurance of ends. It ensures equality for all: and hey, when one person works harder and doesn't have any reward, what incentives do they have? Motivation-driven human nature leads such a benevolent-aimed society spiraling down exactly towards what it was attempting to eliminate: poverty.
Your definition of an economic ideal is an economy we should work towards.
This debate is not arguing about the possibility of a communist society's ability to function, as human nature opposes that. It's too much work. However, we can STILL work towards communism, the IDEAL society.

- As for the wikipedia comment rebut.
My opponent is completely oblivious to the fact that Russia had just left World War 1 because it was in the midst of a revolution. The civil unrest and poverty was caused by the reigning royalty: the Czar. Lenin did his best to clean up the mess the Czars had created.

AFTER Lenin took power, his new economic policies have drastically improved lifestyle. In fact:
Agricultural production increased greatly. Instead of the government taking all agricultural surpluses with no compensation, the farmers now had the option to sell their surplus yields, and therefore had an incentive to produce more grain. This incentive coupled with the break up of the quasi-feudal landed estates not only brought agricultural production to pre-Revolution levels, but further improved them. While the agricultural sector became increasingly reliant on small family farms, the heavy industries, banks and financial institutions remained owned and run by the state. Since the Soviet government did not yet pursue any policy of industrialization, this created an imbalance in the economy where the agricultural sector was growing much faster than the heavy industry. To keep their income high, the factories began to sell their products at higher prices. Due to the rising cost of manufactured goods, peasants had to produce much more wheat to purchase these consumer goods. This fall in prices of agricultural goods and sharp rise in prices of industrial products was known as the Scissor crisis (from the shape of the graph of relative prices to a reference date). Peasants began withholding their surpluses to wait for higher prices, or sold them to "NEP men" (traders and middle-men) who then sold them on at high prices, which was opposed by many members of the Communist Party who considered it an exploitation of urban consumers. To combat the price of consumer goods the state took measures to decrease inflation and enact reforms on the internal practices of the factories. The government also fixed prices to halt the scissor effect.

The NEP succeeded in creating an economic recovery after the devastating effects of the First World War, the Russian Revolution and the Russian civil war. By 1928, agricultural and industrial production had been restored to the 1913 (pre-WWI) level. - Wikipedia, 'History of Russia'

- "Stalin's communism caused a lot of poverty. For example, he engineered Holodomor, which was a mass starvation of Ukranians from 1932-33. And then there was the starvation in the slave labor camps, which killed uncountable numbers of people."
Ukraine wanted independence from communism. The matter is very complicated and does not deal with communism in its entirety.

Overview 2:
My opponent is trying to void my argument by stating that comparison is necessary. However, he has not proven his case because he hasn't compared it to any ideology either. If your going to tell someone what to do, do it yourself. Going back to my example, Michael Jordan had flaws too. He has missed a shot. He has fouled out. However, without comparison, how is it possible to prove that Michael Jordan isn't the greatest?

In conclusion,
my opponent states that communism is only possible if everyone works hard. This is the basis of his entire argument. In his definition, I remind you, he stated an economic ideal is one that should be worked towards. Communism has some flaws in a real world situation, yes. That is not because if its ideologies, but rather the capacity most people have. I end with this statement-

Even if a world completely composed of wealthy people is impossible, isn't it still ideal?
Korezaan

Con

Extend Overview 1 (OV1). It basically says that since communism is against human nature and since it requires every member of its population to be intelligent, benevolent, and diligent, the system will never work out.

Extend Overview 2 (OV2). This says that since my opponent is not comparing Communism to anything and is only saying "communism good" in his case, he does not reach the burdens placed upon him by the resolution.

Line by line.

1a. My argument is *against* Stalin.
1b. The definitions do not destroy the turn on the Stalin argument. My point there was that if we make Communism the greatest economic ideal then we would have a dictatorship that would probably do what Stalin did. It is against human nature to be communist, as people want rewards for doing more work, and require motivation to do things. Refer to OV1.

2a. Greatest is comparative indeed, but as long as I'm on CON and he's on PRO, he has the burden of proof to show that the resolution is true. I have no burdens at all in this debate other than to prove him false. Providing an alternative better than communism is a way I can attack his position, but I chose not to do that. Instead, I'm just attacking his case so he can't prove the resolution at all.
2b. "Hinting" isn't good enough; he needs to say his points clearly in debate.
2c. I do not have to defend laissez-faire.

3. He brings up this argument about how my VC (I'll just call it that, because it's the weighing mechanism) won't work because it's contradictory and it needs an opinion.
3a. Irrelevant; is true of every debate and clash between ideas.
3b. He doesn't give any warrants as to why it's contradictory.
3c. Insofar as I'm providing a way to weigh the arguments in the debate and he is not, we look to my VC, which says that when determining which idea is better than the other, we need to look at real world implications and not just what the idea promises. Since he makes no other responses, this VC is what will determine the winner of the round.

4. "My opponent states I don't state Stalin's regime. In reality, the industrial and economic growth was the capstone of Stalin's regime."
4a. Capstone is irrelevant; it's the side effects and costs, what it took to create the capstone that matters. If we only looked at the capstone of things then we'd basically look to how much profit slaveowners made without looking at the treatment of their slaves; we'd look to how much iron and coal is mined without regard to the children in the shafts; we'd basically just be using some people for the benefit of others. If we're only at the capstone, that means everything from child labor to slavery and forced prostitution are justified. And those aren't things we should idealize.

[Communism is a solution]
- I didn't twist his words. I was talking about the resolution. I say that it doesn't matter if his argument talks about the working class or not; the resolution doesn't specify an actor. And as soon as rich people get involved in this revolution, it's no longer communist because it doesn't fit the definition.

[Poverty cannot exist]
a. He provides evidence with no analysis or impact. We do not know what he is saying.
b. Talked about this last round: "If that's happening in communism and it's not happening with capitalism, There's no way communism can be the best economic system, let alone the greatest economic ideal."
c. Extend my previous arguments; this "Poverty cannot exist" argument no longer gets any of its impacts because it has not been shown by roycegee to be true.

"The classless society brings upon collectivization, or grouped up farms consisting of the ENTIRE population.
Classes do exist in American society (I'm assuming United States?)"

a. So why does this make Communism the greatest economic ideal?
b. Why does 100% employment rate mean it's a good thing? I can create a 100% employment rate by just making all the men slave farmers and miners and force all the women to be prostitutes, THAT'S 100% employment rate.
c. Classless society does not mean collectivization, so there is no link between a 100% employment rate and communism.

[Economic Growth]
"Bringing that up is irrelevant to the topic of economic growth."
a. Cross apply 4a.
b. Russia grew in industry, but it also sent a lot of its people to death and slave labor camps.

"Your definition of an economic ideal is an economy we should work towards.
This debate is not arguing about the possibility of a communist society's ability to function, as human nature opposes that. It's too much work. However, we can STILL work towards communism, the IDEAL society."

a. On the contrary, as I've already said in the VC, we are weighing this debate on the merits of how the economic system works in the real world. Every type of economic system has its own bright intentions and a future it looks forward to, but only when we look at their implications of the real world do we know what system is better or the best. A communist society's ability to function is factored into real world effects.
b. roycegee has just conceded to OV1 by saying that its premises are true. At this point you can already vote CON because he can't win the debate if my OV1 stands.

"My opponent is completely oblivious to the fact that Russia had just left World War 1 because it was in the midst of a revolution. The civil unrest and poverty was caused by the reigning royalty: the Czar. Lenin did his best to clean up the mess the Czars had created."

a. I'm not oblivious.
b. All of that stuff is irrelevant.
c. Extend the original wiki quote that was a warrant for my third response to [Economic Growth]

[Lenin]
You can stop reading it at the first line. The New Economic Policy was not communism.

[Holodomor]
a. Link this back to 4a.
b. It isn't complicated. Historians say that it was an example of a genocide.

[OV2]
"My opponent is trying to void my argument by stating that comparison is necessary."
- It is. And I warranted that claim.
"However, he has not proven his case because he hasn't compared it to any ideology either."
- I don't need to. Explained this earlier as well.
"If your going to tell someone what to do, do it yourself."
"Going back to my example, Michael Jordan had flaws too. He has missed a shot. He has fouled out. However, without comparison, how is it possible to prove that Michael Jordan isn't the greatest?"
- Straight turn: This is exactly why he needs to compare things.

Summary: roycegee has first of all, not broken through OV2 which says that he needs to compare to other economic systems, so he's already lost the round. Second he falls to OV1, which says that Communism is against human nature and since we can't make everyone nice and smart people it won't work. Then, none of his arguments really link to anything; he attempts to use them to say communism is good, but I link it all back to bad impacts in two ways: 1) It basically justifies child labor and other abhorring things, and 2) It allows people like Stalin to come to power and murder millions of citizens, all in the name of "the people". All the other arguments left don't matter because roycegee has shown no link as to why those points show how Communism is the greatest economic ideal, therefore at this point you can already vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
roycegee

Pro

1. Overview 1 has been void. The reasoning?

Yes, I agree with some points made in the overview. A communist society needs people with intelligence and loyalty. However, not every person needs to be. Just as in a capitalistic society, there is no need for EVERYONE to have the ideals of a communist member. In fact, there were many loyal communists in the Soviet Union. They were the backbone of society. So, what does this mean? If an entire nation could have these traits, wouldn't communism work? Again, please do not try to contradict this by practicality and probability, as this is not what we are debating about.

2. And yes, in #1 i compared it to capitalism. If my opponent insists, I shall compare it to capitalism. Happy? Your 2nd overview is now void.

4. Stalin was a dictator. However, you can not use Stalin as the role model for communism. Every leader has pro's and con's. In fact, many capitalistic societies have failed because of poor economic policy placed upon by the leader. On the contrary, Lenin was a great leader who improved the lives of the Russian Population. Sick of the greediness of the Czar, Lenin and the Bolsheviks effectively improved the economy that Nicholas left behind. So what? This means that the communism established is GREATER (comparison yay!) than the terrible government established by Czar.

I apologize, I am a newbie. I will establish my value criterion right now.

The problems of capitalism are just as great as those of communism, if not greater. However, in this debate, communism clearly wins. AGAIN, we are not arguing about which one will work. We are arguing about which one is more ideal. Can everyone agree on that? A more appropriate resolution is needed for one that is applied in the real world. Capitalism or Communism, which is better? Although Capitalism has a competitive market, this can only lead to a winner and a loser. If a person won, someone has to lose. In Communism, everyone ties. In Capitalism, innovation is great and likely. The same can be said about Communism. The problem about Communism is that it takes time to establish and a corrupt leader will only lead to chaos. However, if an ideal leader and an ideal population exists, it can be established that a communist society would win. This is because in the same circumstances, a capitalistic society would STILL have a loser. That is the flaw of capitalism. No matter how perfect, there will be a two-tier labor market. What this means is there are essentially two classes, with a small gray area in between. The losers are always the ones who make less money. The winners hog the market and provide no benefit to the poor. This is my value criterion for this debate. Judge, I understand that this is late and YES it should be considered in your decision.

5. My opponent says that the VC stands. According to his logic, his VC is completely mundane as EVERY debate has this as part of a value criterion. This is contradictory because the evidence I provided is a mix of facts and opinions. The SAME can be said about my opponents argument.

6. My opponent is arguing about the side-effects of the regime created by Stalin. I agree, forced prostitution is bad. I couldn't agree more! However, this is irrelevatn! ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THE ETHICS OF FORCED LABOR AND THE ETHICS BEHIND STALIN? The answer is no. This argument is void and I extend the argument because of topicality.

7. Communism isnt a solution.

The actor is the working class. Essentially, no rich people would be involved. Controversy existed in Cuba because the rich did not like the idea of having the land stripped. What did they do? They fled. The ones who did support, the actors, remained. - Wikipedia, History of Cuba.

His argument is void and I extend the argument further. Your definition of Communism is one created by Marx. If this is true, then the "rich" wouldn't exist. It would be abolished. That is the principle of communism.

8. Poverty can't exist

My opponent says "Just because communism aims for elimination of poverty does not mean it will achieve that goal." This is void because of my interpretation of the resolution, which he agrees with (see above). Again, we are dealing with ideal circumstances with both societies. Because of my agreement, I will extend this argument. In capitalism, poverty will still exist. A winner and a loser must exist.

My opponent supports this argument because he stated that the reason a person is motivated in capitalism is because of rewards. Rewards mean capital. This lack of balance creates a winner and a loser. In the same ideal circumstances, communism will NOT have a loser. Because no loser exists, Poverty can't exist. So what? This means that everyone contributes to the economy, instead of leeching off of unemployment and welfare (Capitalism). His rebuttal has been voided in all three subsections and I extend my argument by reason of interpretation and circumstance.

9. The classless society brings upon collectivization, or grouped up farms consisting of the ENTIRE population.

This is relevant because there is no unemployment. Again, topicality destroys your argument. Economy functions. Period. Your second argument is pinpointed toward Stalin. Read my 4th argument.

10. My opponent's VC says that real world implications should be used. This brings up the question. Is the world ideal? Even in capitalism, we have death of starvation, genocide, and poverty. The interpretation of the resolution should be taken as a society we should work towards. So what? This means that his own interpretation of the resolution contradicts his value criterion. Again, I am basing this off your interpretation explained in your Round 1. I extend this argument.

11. "My opponent is completely oblivious to the fact that Russia had just left World War 1 because it was in the midst of a revolution. The civil unrest and poverty was caused by the reigning royalty: the Czar. Lenin did his best to clean up the mess the Czars had created."

Okay, I agree with your point. My quote is nullified in terms of communism. Let's look at it again.

He says that his wikipedia quote still stands. Let's look at the time period.

At this point in time, WWI is out of the Russian mind.

This is the time the New Economic Policy is introduced.

Read what the quote says, and that is STILL the effect of Capitalism. Don't flip flop around this argument, it won't work.

Clearly flawed argument. I extend my argument about the negative's of capitalism.

12. Holodomor

- "Stalin's communism caused a lot of poverty. For example, he engineered Holodomor, which was a mass starvation of Ukranians from 1932-33. And then there was the starvation in the slave labor camps, which killed uncountable numbers of people."

Ukraine wanted independence from communism. The matter is very complicated and does not deal with communism in its entirety.

Find where I argued it wasn't genocide. Don't put words in my mouth.

Mind giving me a quote? Who said the conflict wasn't complicated. Historian X doesn't count.

13. Straight turn: This is exactly why he needs to compare things.

I did, your turn. Keep in mind, ideal society. Your VC is flawed as it doesn't apply to the resolution.

My opponent hasn't attacked my interpretation of the resolution, as his VC is nullified. All of my previous arguments have been justified and in some cases have been extended. My opponent is addressing the resolution of real life circumstances, irrelevant to the topic. He brings up points about prostitution and ethics. This is completely irrelevant. In this argument I have linked it to communism and compared it to capitalism, one of the arguments he made about my debate. Those have now been nullified. My arguments all stand. Because of these reasons, you can already vote for me!

That said, I had a great time debating with you Matthew.
Korezaan

Con

My name is not Matthew. But that's irrelevant.

I am going to go in the order I presented at the end of my R2.

OV2: Every instance he compares, it's a new argument, so you shouldn't count it. But even if you count his arguments, it doesn't matter as they don't link to the topic. The topic say "Communism is the [GREATEST] economic ideal", not "Communism is better than capitalism". We are here to debate the former. That being said, all of his comparisons in his R3 can be disregarded.

Extend.

OV1: roycegee says that "[h]owever, not every person needs to be [intelligent and benevolent]", and backs it up by saying that not everyone in capitalism believes in capitalism, and it still works. This doesn't really dent my argument at all, as communism doesn't link into any of his arguments. In communism, "[the] system collapses very easily, as by ensuring that everyone get the same amount of capital, anyone can just stop working at any time and still get that pay." In capitalism, if you don't work, you don't get paid. It's a whole different system where doing the same action – not working – will achieve two very different results. The result in a communistic society from lazy people is an economy that won't work, as most people need incentives in order for them to want to do their job. The other problem in his counterarg is that communism, unlike capitalism, preaches something. It preaches that "we are all equal" or "the state serves the people". In such an open society that requires the intelligence and the benevolence of its people, even ONE person that is ruthless enough, that person will be able to control the entire population. (e.g. Stalin) Under those beliefs, many abhorring and immoral actions can be carried out, and if an economic system is going to lead to events such as the Great Purge, there is no way that communism is the greatest economic ideal – indeed, it wouldn't be an ideal at all.

Extend.

Line-By-Line (his R3's)

1. (Above)

2a. Capitalism is one thing. Communism is one thing. Comparing them is two things. "Greater", not "Greatest". Topic says "Greatest". Therefore, irrelevant.
2b. New arg.

4. "However, you can not use Stalin as the role model for communism."
4a. He presented it, I used it.
4b. In every instance of a communistic society, there was a dictator.
4c. Communism greater than one thing does not make it the greatest. I run faster than fourth grade brother. That does not make me the fastest person in the world.
4d. Lenin used NEP, not communism, to improve the economy.

[VC]
a. Being a newb is no excuse. He could've looked up VC in Wiki during R2.
b. Cross-apply 2a from this round. He's still comparing 2 things.
c. He tells us on his rebuttal to OV1, "please do not try to contradict this by practicality and probability, as this is not what we are debating about" and continues his response to my VC on #5, "his VC is completely mundane as EVERY debate has this as part of a value criterion." His very arguing that we should look to what's ideal and what can happen is the EXACT reason why this VC is not inherent in every debate.
e. I tell you why the debate needs to take into consideration if it will work or not. He doesn't tell you why the debate doesn't need that. I have warrants, he doesn't. You look to my VC at this point.
d. In communism, not everyone ties. Cross-apply OV1 from R1.
f. Cross-apply 4a from R2.
f. New arg.

6a. Cross apply everything I just said for the VC.
6b. He agrees with the impacts, therefore they stand.

7. Communism isnt a solution
7a. Irrelevant due to VC (refer to R1)
7b. The actor is everyone according to the resolution. Not everyone flees.
7c. Rich people would be in existence when the communism revolution starts. It's true that when communism finishes there will be no rich people, but at the beginning Marx says that the urban factory workers will initiate it. And that's not what the resolution says.
7d. New arg.

8. Poverty cant exist
8a. Irrelevant due to VC
8b. Extend a,b,c for this argument from my R2. They go unrefuted.
8c. Cross-apply 4a from R2.

9. "Classless"
9a. Extend a,b,c for this argument from my R2. They go unrefuted.

10a. It doesn't matter if the real world is ideal or not.
10b. No warrant for contradiction.

11. Can't understand what he's saying here.

12. He claimed it was complicated. I don't need to show anything.

13. roycegee doesn't show how my VC doesn't link.

"My opponent hasn't attacked my interpretation of the resolution, as his VC is nullified."

- His interpretation was made clear last round. He didn't have one before that.

"All of my previous arguments have been justified and in some cases have been extended."

- All of my previous arguments have been justified since R1 and most of them have gone dropped. His have not.

"My opponent is addressing the resolution of real life circumstances, irrelevant to the topic."

- I tell you why it's relevant, in R1. He doesn't tell you why it isn't, anywhere.

"He brings up points about prostitution and ethics. This is completely irrelevant."

- It's relevant because of my VC, which looks at the real world effects of systems.

"In this argument I have linked it to communism and compared it to capitalism, one of the arguments he made about my debate."

- Cross apply 2a from this round.

Summary:

The resolution says "Communism is the greatest economic ideal", and at the point where he only compares to one system instead of comparing to them all, he has already lost the round (OV1). Next, I bring up the argument that since communism relies on all of its population being intelligent and benevolent people, it won't work because that's against human nature, and all his arguments against that have been refuted (OV2). roycegee then bases all of his R3 on this new VC he installs, which talks about communism being better than capitalism, but I've already taken that out. At that point none of his arguments link anywhere, so he has no offense going for his side in the round. With that, my VC stands and since none of his arguments link to the requirements my VC has set up, his points definitely fall there at the final level. Because roycegee has not shown how communism is the greatest economic ideal; has not fulfilled the burden placed upon him by the resolution, the vote goes default CON.

Thank you roycegee, Luke Cumbee, and Mr. Ferreira, for making this first round of the Debate.org tournament possible.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
Oh right, I don't stoop to the level where I vote against my opponent on every single one of his past debates either.

GG.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
Lovely. Apparently I'm more well-known than you are.
And I never said you thought you were a higher being.

Thanks for playing.
Posted by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
No, I don't think im a higher being.
It just doesn't really matter at all.

And shut up James, I've heard lots about you ;)
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
Yeah, the manly debater is right on that one. I really don't get why people say "i could care less" all the time like they're some sort of higher being; when all they're really doing is make a fool of themselves.
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER2 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER2
"And I could care less what you or anyone votes"

LOL! I THINK YOU MEAN "COULDN'T" CARE LESS, CUZ IF YOU COULD CARE LESS, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU CARED.

AND THE JUDGE IS WRONG!
Posted by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
Well, manly debater, aren't you suited for making the decision.

:] And I could care less what you or anyone votes, it is the judge's decision that matters.

P.S. The judge voted pro :D despite his own opinion.
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER
COMMUNISM SUCKS. FACISM IS WAY BETTER. I'M VOTING AGAINST PRO AND I DIDN'T EVEN READ THE DEBATE. LOL!
Posted by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
As a last statement

Even in a perfect world, I wouldn't like communism as it still restricts innovation. Eventually, there would be a timeless world with only laborers.
Posted by ronnyyip 8 years ago
ronnyyip
no that was a good round, you won fair and square
Posted by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
Holy moly. I won? Good debate James. I think you should have won but I guess thats how judging works.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 3 months ago
Johnicle
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Firejack 6 years ago
Firejack
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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:33 
Vote Placed by Zapurdead 7 years ago
Zapurdead
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 8 years ago
Jokerdude
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by babyface 8 years ago
babyface
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by FalafelKing 8 years ago
FalafelKing
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 8 years ago
ronnyyip
roycegeeKorezaanTied
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