The Instigator
C-Mach
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
brittwaller
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Corporate Capitalism Has Not Failed

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  
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: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,682 times Debate No: 598
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (23)

 

C-Mach

Pro

Corporate capitalism is the only system that has worked flawlessly (Well, not flawlessly, but it outweighs all other systems). As a matter of fact, we're using it today, and we HAVE THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN HUMAN HISTORY beacause of it. Sort of biting the hand that feeds you, eh brittwaller?
brittwaller

Con

I'm not biting the hand that feeds me because Corporate Capitalism doesn't feed me, period. I'm also well aware that it is the predominant economic system of our day, but existence isn't necessarily success.

As for the Standard of Living argument: African slaves brought to the US probably had a better Standard of Living here than in Africa, but they lost their freedom, or rather it was taken from them. Not a very good trade-off if you ask me. In absolute terms, the standard of living has been more or less improving throughout history for most peoples; in relative terms, not so much.

My primary contentions with Corporate Capitalism are: 1) the unarguable gap in the distribution of wealth in even the wealthiest countries, 2) the massive amount of poverty that exists (again in even the wealthiest countries), which "the market" is evidently supposed to fix, 3) the climate of insane consumerism and materialism created by capitalism and its focus on "the bottom line," or profit, 4) the pursuit of material or monetary gain as a means to happiness, even if it means disregarding the well-being of other humans, other species, and the environment in general, once again because it is "profitable" to do so, no matter what other consequences occur, and 5) the ridiculous amount of political power attained by corporations. I don't think Adam Smith had in mind vast companies someday being regarded as persons when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.

Some examples: Today, true power is in the hands of multi-national corporations, not governments. If one country imposes a ban on something, be it a product or a part of production or limits on pollution, the corporation will simply seek out a less developed country and more or less bribe that country to be the host of whatever was banned by the former country. The large corporations' interests are always taken care of, though, because it can filter its money equally to politicians on either side of, say, an election, and no matter what party wins, the corporation is taken care of. If someone were to try and threaten to take away that power, the corporation would respond by threatening to move or actually moving its operations from one place to another, resulting in lost jobs and wages. If the minimum wage is too high, the corporation will move to where it is cheaper and there are less labor restrictions (see China.) This is ignoring the fact that even when laborers are paid at least minimum wage, no one person can really live off of that wage decently in your "HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN HUMAN HISTORY" fantasy land. Ultimately, with Corporate Capitalism, there is no public accountability for actions taken. As much as the government is a mess, at least there is SOME accountability to the citizenry.

There is also the lack of drive for innovation: why do we still use, in the VAST majority, gasoline in our cars? We all know about global warming, we all know that other technology is, and HAS BEEN available for some time to replace gas-powered automobiles. The answer: there is too much money to be made by energy companies and automobile companies while the getting is good, or while there is still the natural resource oil to sell. There is basically a conglomerational monopoly over oil between energy companies and auto companies. They're getting their money, right, so to hell with consequences.

I won't go into numbers or statistics this round.

Cui bono via capitalism? The minority of large players that have enough money in the first place to spend money to make money.
Debate Round No. 1
C-Mach

Pro

C-Mach forfeited this round.
brittwaller

Con

Are we still debating this? After all, you did challenge me, C-Mach. Please argue or at least comment as to why you forfeited.
Debate Round No. 2
C-Mach

Pro

C-Mach forfeited this round.
brittwaller

Con

Hmmm. Well, as poorly constructed as my Round 1 was, I will let it stand, but I implore all rational persons to refrain from voting, as no real debate took place. Perhaps we'll try again later, C-Mach? Today is Christmas anyway...

Peace
Britt
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Conduct: PRO started a debate and made CON make open arguments but didn't bother to finish the debate. So therfore CON gets this vote.

Spelling and Grammar: When one side forfeits the rest of the rounds, my vote goes to the other side. So therefore, CON gets this vote as well.

Convincing Argument: PRO forfeited the last two rounds while CON disproved PRO's points. So therfore the points here go to CON.

Reliable Sources: Neither side used any sources so therefore a tie and a overall CON win.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Conduct: One of my pet peeves is when a debater doesn't really provide an opening argument and forces his/her opponent to go first. CON gets this vote. That and PRO forfeited his rounds

Spelling Grammar: PRO didn't get a chance to demonstrate his capacity for spelling and grammar due to forfeiture, thus, Con gets this point as well

Convincing argument: CON manages to demonstrate his side of the resolution quite well when it comes to disproving PRO's assertion that corporate capitalism is flawless. Particularly the economical failures that have occurred in the past. In addition, citing how corporations hold a monopoly over fuel sources also strengthens his argument quite well. Added to the fact that PRO forfeited all of his remaining rounds, it is clear that this vote goes to CON.

Reliable sources: CON spoke of citing some statistics, but never did so, thus, it's a tie in this department.

Yours truly,

The anime fanatic of the cleaners.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
The beginning of the last paragraph should have read "Cui bono via Corporate Capitalism?"
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 week ago
Mharman
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 jbg 8 years ago
jbg
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 Mikedapimp 9 years ago
Mikedapimp
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
C-MachbrittwallerTied
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