The Instigator
RobbyByron
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valar_Morghulis
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Democratic Socialism (Pro) vs. Free-Market Capitalism (Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 1 vote the winner is...
Valar_Morghulis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,152 times Debate No: 37386
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

RobbyByron

Pro

In this debate I will be arguing that Democratic Socialism is a better economic system overall than Free-Market Capitalism.
I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Valar_Morghulis

Con

I accept the debate. May the best man win.
Debate Round No. 1
RobbyByron

Pro

I would like to begin by saying that free-market capitalism was responsible, for a considerable part, in causing the global financial crash of 2008- deregulation, an ideal of the free market system, permitted the banks not only to practice Subprime lending, but also to package these loans into mortgage-backed securities, effectively packaging a huge number of high-risk loans into a complex financial product.
Not only has the free-market system permitted large corporations to wreak such havoc in the economy, but also compelled us, as taxpayers, to save the 'too big to fail' financial institutions: in the USA, the government was forced to pay out over $120 billion in order to keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat; in the UK the government spent "37 billion bailing out RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS.
It is evident that Free-Market Capitalism is responsible for this deregulation, and deregulation for the financial meltdown we are still reeling from today: in 1982, under Ronald Reagan, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which effectively propped up under-capitalized banks, and doubled the ceiling on direct investments by savings companies from 20 to 40%. Both these measures have augmented financial instability: the latter permits extremely risky trading; the former encourages it.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk...
Valar_Morghulis

Con

I would like to thank the Pro for this debate so let us get started. So first off lets define what free market capitalism essentially is.

"Free market" essentially means that producers are free to enter a line of business and sell their products at whatever price they can charge; meanwhile consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept.

The interaction of the two is the "market", and a key to its function is freely-floating prices (the pricing mechanism), with prices going up or down reflecting supply, demand, and scarcity. The healthiest markets are those in which there are many producers competing for business, and also many consumers competing for the available products.

The "capitalism" part refers to systems in which money is collected via savings, and channeled to productive economic activity via financial markets -- so that savers get a return on their money, and entrepreneurs and managers get access to capital to invest in their businesses. Capitalism is characterized by banks that take deposits and lend the capital; and by stock and bond markets that also direct savings into capital investment.

So with that out of the way let us address the Pro's arguments.

"I would like to begin by saying that free-market capitalism was responsible, for a considerable part, in causing the global financial crash of 2008- deregulation, an ideal of the free market system, permitted the banks not only to practice subprime lending, but also to package these loans into mortgage-backed securities, effectively packaging a huge number of high-risk loans into a complex financial product. Not only has the free-market system permitted large corporations to wreak such havoc in the economy, but also compelled us, as taxpayers, to save the 'too big to fail' financial institutions: in the USA, the government was forced to pay out over $120 billion in order to keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat; in the UK the government spent "37 billion bailing out RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS."

So firstly the Pro has demonstrated a keen lack of understanding to what the actual economic system in the United States is. The United States is not a capitalist economy; this is a common misconception. The United States is a mixed economy. A mixed economy is defined as,

"A mixed economy is an economy that includes a variety of private and government control; reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism." [S1]

To argue on the platform that the global financial crisis of 2008 was brought on by a system of free market capitalism is completely false as I pointed out earlier. The global financial crisis was brought on by a clearly strained mixed economy which advocated bad (and sometimes outright fraudulent) lending practices.

"Not only has the free-market system permitted large corporations to wreak such havoc in the economy, but also compelled us, as taxpayers, to save the 'too big to fail' financial institutions"

As I said earlier the United States economy is not a free market economic model.

The financial crisis happened due to four particular terms that most people are probably familiar with by now.

1. Sub Prime Mortgages (SPMs)
2. Collatoralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)
3. Frozen Credit Markets (FCMs)
4. Credit Default Swaps (CDSs)

During the dot.com bubble which saw moderate crash in tech investments; Alan Greenspan the Federal Reserve Chairman of the United States on September 11, 2001 dropped interest rates to a meager 1% to promote more lending practices through wallstreet and various other credit services. This resulted in a staggering abundance of cheap credit.

This practice of lowering interest rates to abysmal levels provided the large institutions to create huge amounts of lending leverage to amplify investment and lending outcomes.

Accelerating to 2008 Wall Street decided to bridge the gap between homeowners and mortgage securities in order to secure higher leveraging outcomes to increase credit majorities through the federal reserve. This resulted in the creation of what we now call mortgage back securities (MBMs). The combination of mortgage backed securities allowed investors to compartmentalize these debt obligations into collateralized debt obligations (CDO's)

As risky lending increased due to cheap credit and the cycle of low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, Wall Street insured the safer asset loans through interest investment to make the loans appear safer in return then what they actually represented in risk.

This deceit allowed credit rating agencies to falsely rate these securities with extremely high triple "AAA" ratings which is the highest level of security a return investment can earn. This allowed Wall Streets investment bankers to fraudulently capitalize their securities to stock holders and return lends in exchange for payments cycling through the securities.

This practice of lending intensified when the banks began offering mortgages and other securities with no down payments, and no proof of income and thus the SPMs were born. This allowed Wall Street to completely ignore risk lending since the burden of risk was provided to home owners and hedge fund institutions who platformed the risky investments back into securities until the cycle ended.

This made Wallstreet rich. However like all faulty systems of securities (and this one was obviously no exception) it began to quickly strain and collapsed. Homeowners who claimed large mortgages far beyond their means defaulted leading to mass and sudden housing foreclosures.

The housing was then reallocated and put up for sale. The foreclosures however did not slow down and houses were resecured with mortgage payments completely grinding to a halt. This resulted in an absurd drop in the price of home ownership with the average price of a house collapsing below half of it's original value.

As a result collateralized debt obligations become suddenly worthless with no possible way of any receiving any return value. They become toxic assets (assets which hold no marketable value). [S2]

Then speeding up into 2008 the slow snowballing crisis reaches its full impact. Brokers and hedge fund managers began to panic with increasing loads of toxic assets. They take out massive loans to offset the toxic assets and refund their current projects. This however was not enough to save the bad credit already accumulated. This began the domino effect of bankruptcy after bankruptcy with the result of the entire financial system of the United States collapsing from abysmal securities. All worthwhile investments turned toxic and the brokerships were left completely shattered.

Loans could not be lent and the economy of the United States grinded to a halt costing the United States billions upon billions of dollars in worthless assets.

So now we are in the aftermath of this recession (mostly). As we can see the recession both in the United States and globally was certainly not the cause of the free market system exploiting home owners and mainstreet out of their money. The recession and the economic downturn was the result of the United States federal government's decision to lower interests rates so low that banks were not encouraged to safe lending procedures.

Ultimately as we can see the recession was due to a failure of the US government to set proper interest rates for the US market economy and because of this it is most certainly not the fault of any free market system.

The Pro has simply failed to demonstrate how this was a failure of free market capitalism and how democratic socialism is therefore somehow superior. I look forward to the Pro's response.

Sources:

[S1] http://www.princeton.edu...

[S2] http://www.investopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 2
RobbyByron

Pro

The Con makes a very good point when he says that the United States is a mixed economy, and I apologize for the semantic error on my part when I referred to "the free market system" as a whole- I recognize that it would have been more accurate to say "the predominantly free-market economic system" (Of the USA) . However, I still maintain that free market policies are predominantly responsible for the banking crisis leading up to the 2008 crash:

"During the dot.com bubble which saw moderate crash in tech investments; Alan Greenspan the Federal Reserve Chairman of the United States on September 11, 2001 dropped interest rates to a meager 1% to promote more lending practices through wallstreet and various other credit services. This resulted in a staggering abundance of cheap credit."

Whilst the Con is absolutely correct in stating Greenspan's decision to lower federal reserve interest rates, he neglects to mention that the interest rate was lowered gradually, did not reach said meager 1% until 2003, and almost immediately began rising, until reaching a very healthy rate of 5% in the summer of 2006. Therefore, it is an overstatement to say that the US government failed to set proper interest rates, and certainly to say that an interest rate of 1%, rising again after less than a year, and in use over three years before the banking crisis started, can be significantly responsible for causing it.

"1. Sub Prime Mortgages (SPMs)
2. Collatoralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)
3. Frozen Credit Markets (FCMs)
4. Credit Default Swaps (CDSs)"

As the Con earlier said, ""Free market" essentially means that producers are free to enter a line of business and sell their products at whatever price they can charge; meanwhile consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept." In these 4 Financial Products I believe that we have seen an instance where free market policies are completely innapropriate, as they allow for the 'producers' to create and trade incredibly risky and complex products: If the financial sector had been subject to more stringent regulation, these products would not have been allowed to exist in the first place, and the world would not have suffered the huge banking crisis that it did in 2008. However, government agencies, in the period leading up to 2008 were being lobbied strenously by the financial sector.

It is not only in the financial sector that free market policies are innapropriate; In the healthcare industry also, free market policies have proved to be disastrous: In the USA ,one of the very few developed nations to still have a privatized healthcare system, the average cost of healthcare per person is $8,604, while in Sweden, under a nationalised system, it is $3,432 (USD PPP). Yet Sweden still manages to have a higher life expectancy, number of physicians per capita, number of nurses per capita, whilst the USA boasts an infant mortality rate almost twice that of Sweden. Most disturbing, in economic terms, is despite the fact that the system is privatised, the US government spends a higher proportion of its revenue on healtchare than Sweden.

The fact is, under a free-market dominated healthcare system, Americans spend far more for a far worse service than the Swedes. But how can this be, when the 'invisible hand' of competition should drive prices down and care standards up, when rival firms must compete for customers?

Because sick people are worth more to health companies than healthy people. From a healthcare company owner's perspective, the more people remain dependent on the service, the more profit he will make. This is why a socialist system of healthcare (the nation pooling its resources through taxes, for the benefit of all), as shown by Sweden is far more effective- It is run in the interests of keeping an entire nation healthy and productive citizens, not making a profit on the back of people's ilnesses.


Sources:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
http://www.statisticbrain.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

P.S. For the sake of clarity which the Con has provided regarding his own case, I shall do the same-

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens take part. It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Socialism is where a community puts it resources together and work for the common good, not just for each individual's own benefit.

Democratic Socialism is an economic system whereby citizens put their resources together in the form of taxes, which are received and spent by a government operating under a system of democracy.

Valar_Morghulis

Con

While it is obvious that the Pro displays a good understanding of economics, the Pro is still obligated by burden of proof to present why a democratic socialist model is superior to a free market capitalist system which the Con has obviously been unable to substantiate as I will demonstrate below.

"The Con makes a very good point when he says that the United States is a mixed economy, and I apologize for the semantic error on my part when I referred to "the free market system" as a whole- I recognize that it would have been more accurate to say "the predominantly free-market economic system" (Of the USA) . However, I still maintain that free market policies are predominantly responsible for the banking crisis leading up to the 2008 crash:"

It isn't a semantic error. You have provided factually incorrect and misleading information. The United States is as I have stated earlier in the previous round, nowhere near a free market system. It is a mixed economy where the United States Federal Government heavily regulates both the private and public sectors of it's economy.

An article published by the reputable Economist describes my point entirely on how completely driven away the United State's economy is from any Laissez-faire model of capitalism.

"Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity" - The Economist [S1]

"Therefore, it is an overstatement to say that the US government failed to set proper interest rates"

It is not an overstatement it is a fact. The Federal governments policies were responsible for the chain of events that led to risky lending and irresponsible lending on the part of Wall Street and it's subsidiaries. If proper interest rates had been maintained credit would have remained more stable and Wallstreet would not have had the ability to lend out risky amounts of capital.

"The fact is, under a free-market dominated health care system, Americans spend far more for a far worse service than the Swedes. But how can this be, when the 'invisible hand' of competition should drive prices down and care standards up, when rival firms must compete for customers?"

The Con once again displays a lack of understanding as to how the American health care system works. The comparison here is faulty. The United State's health care system is hardly a free market in any sense of the term and to compare it to a socialist model like Sweden is a false dichotomy. Therefore the comparison to Sweden is not only incorrect but irrelevant.

To provide proof of my claim I have provided an article from the United State's Department of Justice which thoroughly analyzes the serious challenges the United State's is facing due to a completely over regulated and mismanaged health care system.

"Health care is subject to extensive regulation at both the federal and the state level, much of which "arose haphazardly." [S2]

Conclusion:

As shown through this round of my argument it is clear that the Pro's understanding of American economics is incorrect and the arguments he has presented are fallacious in some portions.

Sources:

1. http://www.economist.com...
2. http://www.justice.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
RobbyByron

Pro

"The United States is as I have stated earlier in the previous round, nowhere near a free market system."

On the contrary, according to the Heritage Foundation (A think-tank and self-proclaimed advocate for free enterprise and limited government) the USA has the 10th most free economy in the world. In addition, it also states that from the period from 2001 to 2006, the USA had an incredibly high 'financial freedom' score of 90, despite the previously mentioned interest rate lowering (followed by an almost immediate rise).

In addition, according to Questia,

"The free market economy is used in many countries throughout the world including the United States, viewed as a leader in the field."

According to the Con,

"If proper interest rates had been maintained credit would have remained more stable and Wallstreet would not have had the ability to lend out risky amounts of capital."

However, surely Wallstreet's ability to lend out risky amounts of capital is not so much to do with interest rates, but with regulations on the financial sector? The Garn St. Germain depository institutions act, which I mentioned previously

"
Allowed savings and loans to make commercial, corporate, business or agricultural loans of up to 10% of their assets."

"The Con once again displays a lack of understanding as to how the American health care system works. The comparison here is faulty. The United State's health care system is hardly a free market in any sense of the term and to compare it to a socialist model like Sweden is a false dichotomy. Therefore the comparison to Sweden is not only incorrect but irrelevant."

Note that in my previous argument, I referred to the US healthcare system as "free-market dominated" not "free market". In addition, the fact is that unlike countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, which do have socialist healthcare policies, the US has over 1,000 healthcare insurance providers, competing for service with one another. And as the Con said in his first argument,

" "Free market" essentially means that producers are free to enter a line of business and sell their products at whatever price they can charge; meanwhile consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept."

Am I right in thinking that the Con believes that too much government intervention is detrimental to a country's system of healthcare? If so, then how is it that Sweden's system, as I have previously demonstrated, which effectively has 100% government intervention, outperforms the USA's, which is fundamentally composed of a myriad of for-profit organisations?

I shall now adress the issue of regulation which the Con touched upon several times in his previous argument.

Since many advocates of total free-market capitalism often like to claim how restrictive regulations are to the economy, I believe the best way to counter this is with an example of when a lack of regulations did not (as in my example of the 2008 financial crisis) cause a banking crisis that spiralled into a huge recession, causing millions around the world to lose their jobs and homes, but caused an explosion at West fertilizer chemical plant in Texas, killing 14 people and injuring more than 200- according to the Royal Society of Chemistry,

"During a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing on 27 June, CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso stated that ammonium nitrate fertiliser storage ‘falls under a patchwork of US safety standards and guidance’. He said the holes include a lack of federal, state or local rules restricting storage of large amounts of ammonium nitrate near homes schools and hospitals."

In addition, other nations have far sticter regulations imposed, and clearly for the better-

"Other nations have gone much further than the US on ammonium nitrate safety. The UK recommends dedicated, noncombustible storage buildings and noncombustible bins, Moure-Eraso noted. In the US, even the most current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard allows ammonium nitrate to be stored in wooden buildings and in wooden bins, and does not mandate automatic sprinkler systems unless more than 2500 tons is being stored. That threshold vastly exceeds the approximately 30 tons of ammonium nitrate that devastated West Fertilizer."

Conclusion

Unregulated capitalism, at its worst, does not only cause recessions and people's livelihoods, but also their lives.


Sources: http://www.heritage.org...;
http://www.questia.com...;
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk...;
http://www.slideshare.net...
http://www.rsc.org...;
Valar_Morghulis

Con

"On the contrary, according to the Heritage Foundation (A think-tank and self-proclaimed advocate for free enterprise and limited government) the USA has the 10th most free economy in the world. In addition, it also states that from the period from 2001 to 2006, the USA had an incredibly high 'financial freedom' score of 90, despite the previously mentioned interest rate lowering (followed by an almost immediate rise)."

The heritage foundation is simply one in many advocates of free market idealism and their single advocation shouldn't be taken as gospel.

"However, surely Wallstreet's ability to lend out risky amounts of capital is not so much to do with interest rates, but with regulations on the financial sector?"

More circular points. Also begging the question a bit much? As said earlier regulations were one aspect but the ability of the federal government to set proper interest rates to encourage proper credit was the solution and they failed.

"Note that in my previous argument, I referred to the US healthcare system as "free-market dominated" not "free market". In addition, the fact is that unlike countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, which do have socialist healthcare policies, the US has over 1,000 healthcare insurance providers, competing for service with one another. And as the Con said in his first argument,"

Oh please stop with the semantic dancing. If you are unable to be that clear you should have specified earlier instead creating a strawman platform for rebuttual.

"Am I right in thinking that the Con believes that too much government intervention is detrimental to a country's system of healthcare? If so, then how is it that Sweden's system, as I have previously demonstrated, which effectively has 100% government intervention, outperforms the USA's, which is fundamentally composed of a myriad of for-profit organisations?"

And again I said before your comparision was fallacious which you have convienantly ignored.

"Since many advocates of total free-market capitalism often like to claim how restrictive regulations are to the economy, I believe the best way to counter this is with an example of when a lack of regulations did not (as in my example of the 2008 financial crisis) cause a banking crisis that spiralled into a huge recession, causing millions around the world to lose their jobs and homes, but caused an explosion at West fertilizer chemical plant in Texas, killing 14 people and injuring more than 200- according to the Royal Society of Chemistry,"

And as I described and sourced earlier so is overregulation in relation to the US Healthcare system and many other sectors of the US economy.

"Unregulated capitalism, at its worst, does not only cause recessions and people's livelihoods, but also their lives."

Putting up strawmans like, "Since many adocates of total free-market" make this debate fallacious on your end. I never claimed regulations where the death knell of an economy. Regulations are fine but over regulation as listed in my economist article in the previous round explains why too much is simply too much regulation.

Debate Round No. 4
RobbyByron

Pro

I shall conclude by making a full case for democratic socialism.
Overall, when one examines countries with predominantly democratic socialist policies, such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland, their GDPs per capita are in the top 20 of the world (according to the world bank). This, in itself, is not particularly remarkable, but what is more important is the relative income equalities in these nations: they have gini index percentages (according to the world bank) of 25, 25.8 and 26.9 respectively (0% meaning income is completely evenly spread for all citizens, 100% meaning 1 person owns the whole nation's income), in comparison to the US's and UK's figures of 45 and 34. This shows that wealth can be created and maintained just as well in democratic socialist economies than in more free-market leaning economies, and what's more, the wealth distribution created by said economies is far fairer- It is only right that, under democratic socialist policies, such as progressive taxation (with Sweden as a leading exponent, with a top income tax rate of 57%) the ones who have benefitted the most from society, from the employers who take an advantage of an educated and skilled workforce, to the lawyer who has studied at a state-funded university make the greatest contribution back to it.
What's more, when the vast majority of people are sufficiently above the poverty line (Sweden and Norway officialy have a poverty rate of N.A.%), thanks to policies that provide a decent minimum wage (although due to the power of unions in Norway, Sweden and Finland, there is no need for a formal minimum wage) in, without the government having to subsidise employers who pay poverty wages, this creates a healthy amount of disposable income in economic communities, which, in turn, stimulates further economic activity.

Sources http://data.worldbank.org...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.cia.gov...
https://www.cia.gov...
http://www.forbes.com...

P.S. I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting and challenging debate. (Given that it's my first debate) It's been a rather steep learning curve. I hope that he has enjoyed this debate as much as I have.
Valar_Morghulis

Con

I thank the Pro for this debate.

Throughout this debate it was the task of the Pro (through burden of proof) to prove why democratic socialism is superior to free-market capitalism. However the Pro failed to do so on a number of levels to which I will list.

The Pro claimed that the global recession of 2008 was caused by the free market systems throughout the financial sectors of the United States. This claim however was refuted when I displayed that the reason for the recession was because of the abysmal interest rate policies of the United State's Federal Reserve.


The Pro claimed,

"Not only has the free-market system permitted large corporations to wreak such havoc in the economy, but also compelled us, as taxpayers, to save the 'too big to fail' financial institutions: in the USA, the government was forced to pay out over $120 billion in order to keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat; in the UK the government spent "37 billion bailing out RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS."

The reality of the situation ultimately was that it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that allowed this economic downturn to happen and not from the result of free enterprise.


The Pro then continued a string of unfounded criticisms relating to the United State's health care system and how it's so called free market policies made it worse then the democratic socialist models of the European Union. The problem is (like with many of the Pro's arguments), is that the comparisons and dichotomies he presents are inherently false due to the fact that the United States is not a free market economy and to argue off of it as a platform is fallacious.

The Pro throughout the debate attempted to hide his errors by dodging them with semantics such as,

"Note that in my previous argument, I referred to the US health care system as "free-market dominated" not "free market".

It is rather clear that the Pro while displaying a basic understanding of the concepts in this debate, fails to substantiate his claims through the burden of proof that the democratic socialist model is somehow superior to a free market system.

Hopefully the errors made by the Pro become clear. Vote Con.

All Sources:


1. http://www.princeton.edu...

2. http://www.investopedia.com...

3. http://www.economist.com...

4. http://www.justice.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
I'd like to say that the UK's Healthcare is failing badly, and people have no free choices... You only go in when the Government says you can.

Canada's Free Healthcare has the waiting list of the DMV, and is failing to move people through that list at a consistent and appropriate pace. Sweden's Healthcare would easily fail as well once you consider a variable in Europe... Minimal Armies. Europe has small armies due to the US presence. Even with this, the UK can't afford it's Healthcare, and Sweden is already taxing at 50%+ and taking up 70%+ of the economy. If they had to maintain an Army like the US does rather than a combine force half the per capita of the US, (Sweden's being 00.4% of their nation compared the average 1-2% of most nations) their Healthcare would fail.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Also want to point out that Lord's idea is Appeal to Moderation...

You two keep this going... No FF's... I have learned a lot reading these arguments.
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
There are two typos I made in round 3 by mistake. In order to prevent any confusion I will list them here.

1. "to a free market capitalist system which the Con has obviously been unable to substantiate as I will demonstrate below."

2. "The Con once again displays a lack of understanding as to how the American health care system works."

Both of these sentences should have Con (myself) replaced to Pro (Robby).

Apologies for any confusion that may have caused :)
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
@Lordgrae

"and in economics the right answer is around the middle."

No it is quite the opposite actually.
Posted by Lordgrae 3 years ago
Lordgrae
It's funny because pure capitalism and pure communism don't work on a large scale. Free market capitalism is slightly more centered, but Pro's side should be the winner, because it is a more centrist viewpoint, and in economics the right answer is around the middle.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
RobbyByronValar_MorghulisTied
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: CONDUCT: I did see Pro bring up many fallacies. SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: Both were the same. ARGUMENT: They did amazing until the end, then they both just kind of... fell apart. If I had to measure the best of the two, I'd say Con made the least fallacious and relevant case. SOURCES: Both sides were even.