Does Communism Work?
Debate Rounds (4)
Communism - as defined by Karl Marx
Arguments in the comments section results in forfeiting the debate
You have 2,000 characters to complete your argument in.
This is a debate about Communism not Capitalism. Debating anything but Communism will result in forfeit of the debate.
Good luck Pro.
I accept this debate and would like to offer several definitions:
Work : The transfer of energy from one object to another.
Energy : The capacity or power to do work by the application of force.
Force : To make someone or something do something.
Furthermore, my opponent states that Communism will be defined by Karl Marx, but Karl has decided not to post his definition onto this debate; if my opponent wants to use a specific definition then he should refute mine in the next round.
Communism : A specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.
My opponent has also failed to establish a burden of proof. It is on the Con to prove that communism does not do work as he is the instigator and should be more prepared to prove his side than mine. If he wishes to oppose this burden, he is free to do so.
Finally, my opponent does not specify how to evaluate dropped arguments. If an argument is dropped, it shall be considered to be conceded as true.
I wish my opponent luck.
1. Communism is strongly against freedom of speech.
2. The validity of Karl Marx's ideas is very easily challenged
3. Per Capita GDP in free countries is far better than in communist's governments.
Henceforth Communism does not ever work.
Freedom of speech is the right of all men. If you were to live in a communist state, would you like being told that you cannot spread your religion (if you are religious). Even worse is when you were told what you believe. It is no secret that Russia was forcing citizens to profess atheism. If you were a Boston Red Socks fan, would you like being told that you were a New York fan?
Karl Marx professes himself as the savior of the common worker. In the later parts of his life he did no work but had his friend use the money he gained from evil capitalism it provide for all of his family.
Finally Per Capita GDP is way higher in free countries than communist countries. N. Korea has a Per Capita GDP of $1,800, while S. Korea has a Per Capita GDP of $20,400. China has a Per Capita GDP of $6,300, however America has a Per Capita GDP of $40,100. Clearly these facts prove that Communism doesn't work in any case. 
. Cultural Geography 3rd addition
Good luck pro.
Burden of Proof
This debate is already over. My opponent does not fulfill his burden of proof. As established in round 1, "It is on the Con to prove that communism does not do work." Remember that the definition of work is "The transfer of energy from one object to another." My opponent has failed to explain why communism does not transfer energy from one object to another. I mean... come on... he talks about per capita GDP. That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this debate.
Violation of the Rules
My opponent claimed that "This is a debate about Communism not Capitalism. Debating anything but Communism will result in forfeit of the debate." However, he starts talking about being a yankees fan and a red sox fan. Last time I checked, baseball =/= communism... He also states "Per Capita GDP in free countries is far better than in communist's governments." Free countries =/= communism. My opponent has forfeited the debate by not talking about communism.
Work = The transfer of energy
Energy = The capacity to d owork by the application of force
Force = Making someone do something
Thus, if communism makes somebody do something it works, extremely hard mind you.
Exibit A: The Hollywood Blacklist 
The Hollywood Blacklist was only created out of fear of communism. Therefore we can conclude that if communism didn't exist, the HB would not have been created. It logically followed that communism made people fear it and thus create the HB. As communism made people do something, it did work. And hey, it seems like a unique job, and we need those in a struggling economy with high unemployment!
My opponent affirms: "It is no secret that Russia was forcing citizens to profess atheism." Russia (Communism) forced people to profess atheism. Forcing people to do something is a sign of work. Stop hating on communism, he works harder than you do and all you do it bully him. Can't we all just get along?
This debate is does communism provide the most productive society and the richest economy. I thought that if you were actually going to debate you would understand what I meant and not change it for your own benefit.
My opponent keeps on referring to communism as a living human being. So I would like to clarify that we are talking about the totalitarian government known as communism.
Now to clarify the "Breakage of Rules". The reason I included the statements in controversy are 1. So that there was a comparison, and 2. So that there was an understandable comparison. These stats were included so that I could sow the short comings of communism.
Good luck Pro, and don't make a larger mess of this debate.
My opponent has chosen to refute my definition of work. We shall reject his definition as he did not explicitly oppose the rule that I established in round 1 reference dropped arguments: "If an argument is dropped, it shall be considered to be conceded as true." Insofar as my opponent has failed to refute my definition in round 2, he has forfeited the opportunity to do so.
He also claims "This debate is does communism provide the most productive society and the richest economy." However, the resolution states "Does Communism Work?" I am not an Oxford English Scholar, but I am rather sure that work is not equivalent to "provides the most productive society and the richest economy." We are debating the resolution, not random topics my opponent thinks of in round 3.
Burden of Proof
Extend that "It is on the Con to prove that communism does not do work." He never disproves the possibility of Communism forcing the transfer of energy. Remember that I only have to disprove my opponents case, not provide evidence in support of mine (which I do anyway) to win this debate. You can vote Pro right here.
Violation of the Rules
My opponent's response in round 3 was an attempt to justify violating the rules. He argues that he talked about baseball and GDP instead of communism because he wanted a comparison. However, the rules did not state that you must only talk about communism, unless you are making a comparison. They state that you must only talk about communism and nothing else or you will lose the round. My opponent has to prove that communism does not work while only talking about communism. Baseball and GDP =/= Communism.
Extend Exhibit A that goes dropped in this round. Communism caused the Hollywood Blacklist to be created. Insofar as it took energy to create the HB, Communism has by proxy forced the transfer of energy.
Extend my turn on the Con case. If Communism forced citizens to profess atheism then it forced them to use energy to talk, thus you affirm.
yoda forfeited this round.
1. Burden of Proof
My opponent never strictly proves that communism is incapable of working. He conceded this as his burden of proof by not refuting it the entire debate.
2. Violation of Rules
As my opponent forfeited last round, he did not refute that his round 3 response was simply an attempt to justify violating the rules without substantial grounding. The rules explicitly state you must only talk about communism. My opponent talked about GDP and Baseball. Neither of those are communist.
3. Pro Case
My opponent never refuted that communism directly caused the Hollywood Blacklist to be created. Remember that it took energy to create the HB, thus communism forced the transfer of energy by proxy.
4. Con Case
The turn on the con case goes unrefuted. If Communism forced citizens to profess atheism then it forced them to use energy to talk, thus you affirm.
Remember that you are always going to prefer my definition of work because my opponent failed to refute it in round 2. We have to adhere to the resolution provided, not arbitrary topics he makes up later in the debate. Thank you for judging, and good luck to my opponent in the voting phase.
In affirming, I do not support communism. I just do not believe he is as lazy as people make him out to be and the constant gnagging about his ability to succeed in life has caused him severe mental trauma. If you negate, you should feel ashamed of yourself, it's like picking on a kid with no friends. He'll be scarred for life. If you have a heart you will vote for communism!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and dropped Pro's definitions until R3, which is too late. Pro clearly wins on the definitions as the HB argument goes conceded, and Con never showed how Communism doesn't promote the transfer of energy.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.