The Instigator
JacobPearson
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
tvellalott
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Economic competition results in numerous innovations that improve all of our lives

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/27/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,078 times Debate No: 12165
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

JacobPearson

Pro

Economic competition results in innumerable innovations that improve all of our lives. The productive capabilities unleashed through free market capitalism are unmatched by any other system, especially the tyrannical socialism. A system of low tax, private property and a completely unregulated market allows for social mobility and makes all of our lives better off.

Capitalism works.
tvellalott

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posing this argument, a topic I feel strongly about.

"Economic competition results in innumerable innovations that improve all of our lives."
I strongly disagree with this point. Economic competition should result in competitors lowering prices to out-do each other. This is not the case. All capitalist corporations bar none want to make as much profit as possible. As such, prices reflect not economic competition but supply and demand. Whenever we have a shortage of something, the price goes up across the board, which in no way makes ALL of our lives better off. Only people who can afford such items get them, regardless of how much they need them, while the lower, working classes must go without.

"The productive capabilities unleashed through free market capitalism are unmatched by any other system, especially the tyrannical socialism."
This is a completely nonsense statement. The most productive country in the world at the time of this debate is China. They are not a capitalist, but communist. People are losing jobs in every field because of the cheaper labour of China and India. Australia for example, has sent almost all of its manufacturing offshore because Capitalist corporations can make a greater profit in a Communist society.

"A system of low tax, private property and a completely unregulated market allows for social mobility and makes all of our lives better off."
A system of high tax, compulsory acquisition of farm land for government development and unregulated corruption is much more accurate description of what Capitalism has brought. The lower class remains stagnant for generation after generation.

Capitalism doesn't work. A study of human history will show you that power inevitably corrupts. In a Capitalist society, first you get the money, then you get the power, then you become corrupt and greedy.
Debate Round No. 1
JacobPearson

Pro

"I strongly disagree with this point. Economic competition should result in competitors lowering prices to out-do each other. This is not the case. All capitalist corporations bar none want to make as much profit as possible. As such, prices reflect not economic competition but supply and demand. Whenever we have a shortage of something, the price goes up across the board, which in no way makes ALL of our lives better off. Only people who can afford such items get them, regardless of how much they need them, while the lower, working classes must go without."
A lot of this is simply untrue. Competition comes from supply and demand. If something is in high supply and has a high demand, then competing companies will provide the consumer with these items at a low price and with a good service. Of course "whenever we have a shortage of something, the price goes up across the board" - that is simple economics and will happen regardless of a capitalist system or not. However the capitalist system ensures that competition will produce alternatives to the things in short supply. We have seen this with the ever dwindling supply of fossil and the creation of green alternatives. A great amount of Americans now own hybrid cars - this is thanks to capitalism, and, to quote a West Wing character, "if capitalism can do that in the most car crazed culture on earth, it must be right."

"The most productive country in the world at the time of this debate is China. They are not a capitalist, but communist."
Fortunately for the Chinese, this is largely untrue. China has largely liberalised its markets over the past 10 years. It is thanks to capitalism that the conditions of many Chinese have improved.

"People are losing jobs in every field because of the cheaper labour of China and India. Australia for example, has sent almost all of its manufacturing offshore because Capitalist corporations can make a greater profit in a Communist society."

The answer to this is simple - the countries that jobs are being lost in can repeal anti-capitalist restrictions upon free trade that cause jobs to be outsourced abroad. This includes the minimum wage. Globalisation and the outsourcing of jobs abroad is not a problem - it is simply the division of labour throughout borders, and as our world grows closer and our economies become intertwined it becomes even less of a problem. The idea that people in Australia would then be unable to find work is absurd - there is still a market in Australia and supply and demand will see him find a job.

"A system of high tax, compulsory acquisition of farm land for government development and unregulated corruption is much more accurate description of what Capitalism has brought. The lower class remains stagnant for generation after generation."
This is not capitalism! Capitalism does not preach high taxes (because it destroys wealth and creates bureaucracy and low production) and certainly does not preach for the government to compulsorily acquire private property for government development. You are not telling me the problems of capitalism when you say things like this, but actually you are quoting the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism preaches none of these things.
tvellalott

Con

If something is in high supply and has a high demand, then competing companies will provide the consumer with these items at a low price and with a good service."
I don't think so. These competing companies will use their powerful marketing and advertising teams to push their own products, pouring millions or even billions of dollars into their images. The more fashionable something is (ie. higher demand) the more reason your capitalist corporations have to put the price up.
Take Apple for example. The Macbook is not spec wise, worth their price. A Macbook (1) of almost identical specs to a Toshiba (2) is triple the price. The difference? Nothing the average person will really even notice. I believe it is an issue of fashion.

"Of course "whenever we have a shortage of something, the price goes up across the board" - that is simple economics and will happen regardless of a capitalist system or not. However the capitalist system ensures that competition will produce alternatives to the things in short supply."
Let me ask you, if not for a Capitalist system, why would we have a shortage of things people NEED in the first place? Why are essential items owned by private companies. People NEED medicines for example, yet the companies who produce these life-saving items do not have the public best interests as a priority. Stock holders and CEO pay checks come first. People NEED food, yet people are starving in every country in the world. People NEED a place to live, yet many people are homeless. How does Capitalism make these kinds of peoples lives better?

"Fortunately for the Chinese, this is largely untrue. China has largely liberalised its markets over the past 10 years. It is thanks to capitalism that the conditions of many Chinese have improved."
China is governed by three units. The Peoples Liberation Army(3), The State Council of the People's Republic of China(4) and the Chinese Communist Party(5). These three groups work together to govern the country. It is thanks to them the country is in the position globally that they are in. The CCP would certainly argue that China is NOT a capitalist country and being the largest political party on Earth, it would be a strong argument.

"Globalization and the outsourcing of jobs abroad is not a problem."
I doubt the 360 workers at Hobart and New Zealand Blundstone Footwear (6) who lost their jobs because their jobs were outsourced to Thailand and India would disagree.
"The idea that people in Australia would then be unable to find work is absurd - there is still a market in Australia and supply and demand will see him find a job."
This is ridiculous. I am a qualified Cabinet Maker and I can tell you from personal experience that your system is broken. How can it be cheaper to buy imported furniture produced overseas by overseas workers than furniture produced here by Australian workers if Capitalism is a good system that makes every persons life better?

"...You are not telling me the problems of capitalism..."
The problem with Capitalism is very, very simple and can be broken down into three statements:
Capitalism gives certain individuals the opportunity to make a ridiculous amount of money.
In a Capitalist system, money is power.
For the entire history of mankind, the people who have gained power inevitably become corrupt.
To paraphrase, Capitalism and Corruption go hand in hand.
That, is the problem with Capitalism.

Resources:-
(1) http://www.amazon.com...
(2) http://www.amazon.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JacobPearson

Pro

" These competing companies will use their powerful marketing and advertising teams to push their own products, pouring millions or even billions of dollars into their images. The more fashionable something is (ie. higher demand) the more reason your capitalist corporations have to put the price up. Take Apple for example. The Macbook is not spec wise, worth their price. A Macbook (1) of almost identical specs to a Toshiba (2) is triple the price. The difference? Nothing the average person will really even notice. I believe it is an issue of fashion."
Yes, but if they pour millions of dollars into images that don't pay off with the product (i.e. if they advertise it as absolutely awesome but it turns out to be crap) then the news about this gets out, and people refrain from buying the products of that company in the future. Apple can put as many fancy adverts about apps for buying bananas as they like, but if the iPhone turns out to stop working after a day then who is going to believe the advert for the iPad? The company must provide a good product and the advertising will reflect this.

"Let me ask you, if not for a Capitalist system, why would we have a shortage of things people NEED in the first place?" The only possible reason for a shortage of supply in a truly capitalist system would be if it was a finite resource - i.e. oil. "Why are essential items owned by private companies" - because private companies are based on competition and bettering their services. With private companies you have a choice. The only alternative is government control, from which there is no choice. You cannot go to another government company if you don't like the first one because there is no other one. So when there is only one provider to something that is in desperate need, there is no incentive to better the service, lower the price, discover new products, invest etc. etc. etc.

" People NEED medicines for example, yet the companies who produce these life-saving items do not have the public best interests as a priority." The development of new medicines is why medicine companies need to make a profit. If they gave away free medicine to anyone and everyone they would have no money to develop new medicine and research for the cure to illnesses. "People NEED food, yet people are starving in every country in the world. People NEED a place to live, yet many people are homeless. How does Capitalism make these kinds of peoples lives better?" The only countries I can think of where there is ABSOLUTE poverty and ABSOLUTE starvation are countries which have refused to adopt capitalism as a system - namely African countries. If we want to help the people in poverty we should let them adopt capitalism, and we should make our governments adopt more capitalistic policies towards Africa - by helping to remove trade barriers both on imports from foreign countries, through stopping subsidising our own industries. Aid is best used in humanitarian crises and thus not provided from government to government. It tends to be that some of the biggest problems are caused of it not caused exacerbated by the terrible socialist governments that some of these countries have. Zimbabwe is one of the most disastrous countries in the world in terms of economic policy - inflation is in the billions, unemployment is at 99%, millions are in poverty and dying of starvation etc. And the cause - price controls and government regulation. Socialist policies like compulsory land acquisition.

"... The CCP would certainly argue that China is NOT a capitalist country and being the largest political party on Earth, it would be a strong argument." Private property laws in China have completely changed. People are encouraged to become private businessmen. The one-child policy has led to a more individualistic outlook of children and therefore the future. China is by far no longer a communist country. A real communist country would be North Korea, who are now allowing some private enterprise due to the large scale starvation caused by centralised economic policy.

"I doubt the 360 workers at Hobart and New Zealand Blundstone Footwear (6) who lost their jobs because their jobs were outsourced to Thailand and India would disagree. This is ridiculous. I am a qualified Cabinet Maker and I can tell you from personal experience that your system is broken. How can it be cheaper to buy imported furniture produced overseas by overseas workers than furniture produced here by Australian workers if Capitalism is a good system that makes every persons life better?"
It means that your governemnt and the New Zealand government had price controls, regulations and minimum wage laws that have driven companies elsewhere. In a truly free market, if you could produce quality cabinets and compete with other people/companies to sell them at low prices, you could make a lot of money from it. Obviously this cannot happen at the moment with the amount of regulations that restrain you.

"Capitalism gives certain individuals the opportunity to make a ridiculous amount of money." No, it gives EVERY individual the opportunity to make as much money as they want. Please remember that when people have a lot of money, there are two things they can do with it - 1) they can spend it. This gives other companies a profit, which goes to staff, developing new products that improve everyones' lives and starts a cycle that repeats itself. 2) They can invest the money. This will mean the creation of more jobs - which benefits everyone - and will again start a cycle of spending and employment.

"In a Capitalist system, money is power." Not true. Wal Mart is the largest company in existence - it is powerless. The consumers have total power. If the consumers decided to wake up tomorrow and never buy anything from Wal Mart again, then Wal Mart would go bust.

"For the entire history of mankind, the people who have gained power inevitably become corrupt." Again, money does not automatically equal power. Money can only buy power when the government abandons capitalism and starts interfering in the economy by imposing tariffs, high taxes, regulations and subsidies, which cause the problems you have described.
tvellalott

Con

Apple can put as many fancy adverts about apps for buying bananas as they like, but if the iPhone turns out to stop working after a day then who is going to believe the advert for the iPad? The company must provide a good product and the advertising will reflect this."

If this argument were correct, the strongest products would almost always be the most popular. The N64 was arguably a stronger product than the PlayStation, but Sony certainly won that generation of gamers.

If this argument were correct, products with major faults would stop being bought (XBox360 anyone?)
---------------------
"The only possible reason for a shortage of supply in a truly capitalist system would be if it was a finite resource."
What resource is infinite? Name one. The capitalist system works on the idea of infinite growth, yet the Earth has finite resources.
"...The only countries I can think of where there is ABSOLUTE poverty and ABSOLUTE starvation are countries which have refused to adopt capitalism as a system..."
"...China is by far no longer a communist country. A real communist country would be North Korea, who are now allowing some private enterprise due to the large scale starvation caused by centralised economic policy..."

We are not talking about ABSOLUTE poverty and ABSOLUTE starvation. We are talking about ABSOLUTELY everyone benefiting from a capitalist system.

We are not debating whether Capitalism works better than Socialism or Communism, which is clearly doesn't (Look at East and West Germany before the fall of the Berlin wall). We are talking about whether Capitalism makes every persons life better. If I can prove that it makes even one persons life worse, I win this debate. However, I feel strongly that the Capitalist system doesn't work at all, which is the point I hope to prove.
----------------
"...It means that your governemnt and the New Zealand government had price controls, regulations and minimum wage laws that have driven companies elsewhere..."
"...Not true. Wal Mart is the largest company in existence - it is powerless..."
"...Again, money does not automatically equal power..."

This literally made me laugh out loud.
Sure, Wal-Mart doesn't have any power, but the company is one of the worlds largest according to revenue.
How can you honestly say that Mike Duke (1) and I have equal power?
I am a lowly worker bee with credit card debt and rent to pay. Mike Duke is the CEO of WalMart, a multi-billion dollar company. If he wanted he could arrange for a piano to fall on me.
Money IS power. You cannot get one single thing in this world without money. The more money you have, the more access to health, comfort and security you have.
------------------------
"...Money can only buy power when the government abandons capitalism and starts interfering in the economy by imposing tariffs, high taxes, regulations and subsidies, which cause the problems you have described..."

I think you have it mixed. Only when a government abandons DEMOCRACY and one man has more power than another does money start buying power. The little man loses his rights because he doesn't have the power (ie. money) to fight, while the Stratton Oakmonts (2) of the world flourish. He was caught, but how many individuals profit from other peoples misery every day? How many individuals profit from loopholes in economic laws?
-------------------

I am really a nobody. No-one will listen to me. I don't have a better plan.
The world is too full of Margaret Thatcher types (3) sprouting "T.I.N.A" (There is no alternative). Even with a world wide collapse of economic stability, like the recent G.F.C, still no-one is saying "Well maybe our system needs a tinie tiny bit of reform."
I just feel we need an upgrade. Some kind of Capitalism where the gap between the poorest and the richest isn't so huge, because as it is the gap is only going to get bigger.

The poor suffer under our Capitalistic system.
There are certainly many more poor people than rich people.
So under the current Capitalistic system, more people suffer than prosper.
Capitalism as it is, doesn't work.

RESOURCES:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
JacobPearson

Pro

"If this argument were correct, products with major faults would stop being bought (XBox360 anyone?)"
If you truly believe that the market doesn't punish companies who make faulty products then you are blind to how it operates - if Microsoft kept making products with faults, no one would buy from them. The only difference between capitalism and other systems is that capitalism provides you with the choice between many companies, rather than one monopoly.

"What resource is infinite? Name one. The capitalist system works on the idea of infinite growth, yet the Earth has finite resources."
There are many infinite resources - trees for example. As long as the cutting down and production of trees is less than that of their growth, they will be infinite. However I fail to see how any system other than capitalism can solve the problem of finite resources. When the Government owns a sector of the economy it has no way to calculate supply and demand by the price mechanism. Unlike market oligopolies or even monopolies the Government sets the output and price at levels not decided by the market but by central planners. The price mechanism is the only method of compiling the data of millions of people into one understandable format where businesses can set their output and prices at the most profitable levels. Because no one person can know all the information, limited information is spread throughout the economy. There is no need for a man who produces toothbrushes to know the price of coal, and visa versa. Their prices and outputs are not determined by centralised information but by only the necessary information themselves and their competitors have garnered.

No central planner can hope to absorb all this information and so the price and output of nationalised industries is naturally skewered. This creates shortages and overconsumption, misallocation, bad quality, and economic chaos. The marketplace naturally tunes itself to the economic situation of the time. Central planning cannot do that because it cannot hope to compile all information centrally, regardless of the size of a bureau.

"Consumer demands" merely constitutes the demands of the population to receive the goods they like at the price necessary. At the times when our society has been most cohesive, it has been because prices were low and goods were plentiful. In all historical situations, the opposite of social cohesion has come about because of economic poverty. The best method of binding a society together is to allocate resources in the provision of goods at maximum efficiency; i.e. the free market.

"We are talking about whether Capitalism makes every persons life better. If I can prove that it makes even one persons life worse, I win this debate."
But you can't. I honestly did not set this debate out with the plan to use the semantics of the argument to win, however as you have, I shall. There is no possible way to prove that capitalism has not benefited the lives of everyone. Although it may seem that the poor man has not benefited, how can you disprove that the invention of the Apple iPod has not helped him? For when they hire workers who then spend money on products which bring up the economy as a whole, the companies and workers invest in areas throughout the country. The poor man has been helped by higher employment through the innovation that is unleashed thanks to competition.

"However, I feel strongly that the Capitalist system doesn't work at all, which is the point I hope to prove."
Of course it does. In its purest form, it is the only system that has worked. It is the only way in recorded history through which people have bettered themselves.

"Money IS power. You cannot get one single thing in this world without money. The more money you have, the more access to health, comfort and security you have."
Correct, because nothing is free. There's no such thing as "free" healthcare - someone needs to pay the doctor's wage, the electricity of the hospital building, the wages of the nurses, the medication, the tests etc. etc. When you start raising the taxes on the rich to do this, you create economic decline. Higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods; and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, yours will be gone, along with your savings and your job and my job —and no power in the world (no economic power) will be able to revive the dead industries (there will be no such power left).

"I think you have it mixed. Only when a government abandons DEMOCRACY and one man has more power than another does money start buying power. The little man loses his rights because he doesn't have the power (ie. money) to fight, while the Stratton Oakmonts (2) of the world flourish. He was caught, but how many individuals profit from other peoples misery every day? How many individuals profit from loopholes in economic laws?"
Democracy is the system that ensures one group of people (the government) have power over another (everyone else). The republican system makes sure that governments is limited to its role of protecting rights, not violating them. When the governments passes legislation to force businesses to do one thing or another, it is in direct violation of that business' property rights. There should be no economic laws. Not one economic law has produced something good - governments has no way to know what companies need and how they should provide services.

"The poor suffer under our Capitalistic system.
There are certainly many more poor people than rich people.
So under the current Capitalistic system, more people suffer than prosper.
Capitalism as it is, doesn't work."

Really?
http://blog.ctrlbreak.co.uk...
http://freebazaarblog.com...

To summarise, we didn't all start off rich and then capitalism made us poor. It was the other way about. Consumers have total power under capitalism. A billionaire may invest his billions into producing cars, but if consumers do not want them, he will go broke. Profits reward businessmen for satisfying consumers. To be sure, the businessman probably does this out of self-interest, but he still must satisfy consumers. It is not through the goodness of their hearts that the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker provide their wares to me, but I still end up with beef, bread, and candlesticks – if I want them. Capitalism is based on the voluntary exchange of goods between individuals - nothing else. All other systems require force and coercion to uphold themselves.

Capitalism has taken us from this (http://assail.files.wordpress.com...) to this (http://www.library.drexel.edu...) in the space of 50 years.

From this (http://www.simondelliott.com...) to this (http://www.ploynt.de...) in 30 something years.

As an end-of-argument competition, guess which bit is capitalist? ... http://i11.photobucket.com...
tvellalott

Con

I wish my opponent the best of luck.
My round 4 argument will consist of my final rebuttals and my conclusion.

…In its purest form, it is the only system that has worked. It is the only way in recorded history through which people have bettered themselves…
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that there is no system better than Capitalism in place anywhere in the world is not a logical argument that Capitalism is a good socioeconomical system. History is full of systems and ideas that we look back on and cringe at. Leeches in medicine? Earth is flat? Earth is the centre of the universe?
I purpose that Capitalism is one of these systems.

…There are many infinite resources - trees for example. As long as the cutting down and production of trees is less than that of their growth, they will be infinite…
(1) Yet:
90% of West Africa's forests are gone.
90% of Madagascar's forests are gone.
88% of South Asia's forests are gone.
In Central America 40% of its forests have been lost in the last 40 years.
As of 2007 only 1% of Haiti's forests remain.
And it goes on and on.
I conclude that a LACK OF FORESIGHT due to GREED is the cause of these problems.

…it is simply the division of labour throughout borders, and as our world grows closer and our economies become intertwined it becomes even less of a problem….
…But you can't. I honestly did not set this debate out with the plan to use the semantics of the argument to win, however as you have, I shall. There is no possible way to prove that capitalism has not benefited the lives of everyone…
My opponent is correct in saying the world is growing closer. He is also correct when he says that I cannot prove that Capitalism has not benefited the lives of everyone.
However, I do conclude that there is a flaw in his logic. He states many times, providing (somewhat cryptic) graphs and flows charts showing that poorer people are less poor in Capitalist countries. I don't deny this. However, the world being as it is now, as its "grown closer" and our economies have "becomes intertwined", it's hard for him to argue that the things we are doing in our fabulous Capitalist societies aren't effecting people all around the world. Take my tree statistics above. Africa is a very poor group of countries. Their resources have been PLUNDERED. Their governments are largely CORRUPT and their people are UNHAPPY.
I purpose that our societies have profited from plundering the natural resources from all over the world, with little or no thought of the FUTURE of the Native people.

…It means that your governemnt and the New Zealand government had price controls, regulations and minimum wage laws that have driven companies elsewhere…
Indeed. Why have these poor Corporations been forced offshore? MAXIMUM PROFIT. The best interests of workers don't even come into the picture, ie. NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

…There's no such thing as "free" healthcare...
I purpose that healthcare (2) and education (3) can be provided to everyone cheaply without doctors and teachers being disadvantaged.

…The consumers have total power…
Customers have some power. My opponent never mentioned CEOs or Stockholders having any power or say.
I purpose that customers have some power, but the ultimate power lies with the people who will receive the profit, not the people who receive the product.

…No, it gives EVERY individual the opportunity to make as much money as they want…
I purpose that people who have money have more opportunity to make more money than people who have nothing.

…There should be no economic laws…
Huh?

In conclusion, you will have notice I put some of the words of my final rebuttals in capitals.
FORESIGHT
GREED
PLUNDERED
CORRUPT
UNHAPPY
FUTURE
MAXIMUM PROFIT
NO ACCOUNTABILITY
These are the words I relate to Capitalism.
It is a system which focuses more on NOW and less on TOMORROW.
Yes, it worked for thousands of years, then we had this little thing called the Industrial Revolution (4).
Things became bigger and faster. Resources like fuel started getting burnt at a ridiculous rate. People started multiplying as the standard of living improved. Things grew exponentially. Capitalism stops working with people have too much money, because they have to much power.

I purpose that Capitalism is an archaic system which is inhuman, undemocratic and unsustainable (5) and I believe my arguments show proof of all of these statements.

Let me close with one final analogy.
Capitalism is to the world like Crystal Meth is to the brain.
I don't want my world burnt out.

Vote CON

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5) http://www.counterpunch.org...
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
Capitalism: BP cause a disaster of catastropic proposions and before they even fix it they are trying to find loopholes to get out of paying as much damages as possible. Priorities much?
Posted by JacobPearson 7 years ago
JacobPearson
It's not outdated because it's not been truly in place for around a hundred years! We now have a mixed economy and it does not work.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
The whole point of my arguments was that Capitalism is out-dated and needs a drastic overhaul. We need a better, more sustainable system. Oh, and I was clearly talking about the standard of living during the Industrial Revolution...
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
Con admitted defeat and made basically admitted that capitalism is better in his last paragraph he said
Yes, it worked for thousands of years, then we had this little thing called the Industrial Revolution (4).... People started multiplying as the STANDARD OF LIVING IMPROVED.

He just admitted that Capitalism improved the standard of living
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
tvellalott,
I would love to debate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Socialist transition to Marx's Utopian Communism) vs Capitalism with you
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
I saw that. Capitalism indeed improves some peoples lives, but definately not everyones.
Posted by Spaztoid 7 years ago
Spaztoid
JBlake:

Indeed, that was going to be one of three points I was going to make. I didn't mention it up front because I am not in the debate and because it is one of the strongest points against the resolution, so I was going to wait.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Spaztoid: I noticed the trap, too. That is why I asked him to clarify. I was going to focus on the "all our lives" part.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 7 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
But it is cyclical - growth followed by recession.
And what do you mean by 'economical competition'? Who is competing with whom?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Define "our."
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
JacobPearsontvellalottTied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
JacobPearsontvellalottTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 7 years ago
ravenwaen
JacobPearsontvellalottTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
JacobPearsontvellalottTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
JacobPearsontvellalottTied
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 Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
JacobPearsontvellalottTied
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:60