The Instigator
Freemind
Con (against)
Tied
24 Points
The Contender
Maya9
Pro (for)
Tied
24 Points

Global Capitalistic Institutions

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/12/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,353 times Debate No: 4666
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (12)

 

Freemind

Con

Any global capitalist entity, ranging from Wal-Mart to Shell, is a form of centralized power. Any form of centralized power, ranging from a global capitalist entity to a national government, takes liberty away from the masses. Only the governing body of the centralized power has total liberty. The masses can do anything they want unless the centralized power precieves it as wrong, immoral or a threat.
Maya9

Pro

"Any global capitalist entity, ranging from Wal-Mart to Shell, is a form of centralized power."

True enough. They indeed possess power, and they are centralized.

"Any form of centralized power, ranging from a global capitalist entity to a national government, takes liberty away from the masses."

I have two responses to this statement:

1. This is an unwarranted, blanket statement. What proof do you have?

2. If we assume this statement to be true, why should it considered to be a bad thing? To have any form of effective government, some measure of liberty must be taken from the masses. Otherwise, any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences.

"Only the governing body of the centralized power has total liberty."

Again, what is your proof for this statement?

"The masses can do anything they want unless the centralized power precieves it as wrong, immoral or a threat."

Very untrue. There are many other considerations when it comes to what one can and cannot do, wanting being what one of them. Furthermore, "the masses" rarely to anything. For the most part, it is individuals that do things.
Debate Round No. 1
Freemind

Con

Flow across my capitlist entity=centalized power argument: opponent conceeds

Opponent argues the following on my second point:
"1. This is an unwarranted, blanket statement. What proof do you have?

2. If we assume this statement to be true, why should it considered to be a bad thing? To have any form of effective government, some measure of liberty must be taken from the masses. Otherwise, any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences."

The reason they have power at the expense of our liberty is because we give them the power. As my opponent stated, there is an extent to what an individual can do. Individuals can only gather power by others letting them get away with something. The only reason the U.S. government has the POWER to send us to war is because we have said that if the decide this, we will accept it. Thus we have GIVEN power to the U.S. and taken away our liberty to decide whether or not we ( as individuals) go to war. Following this logic, the centalized entities have power because we conceeded and said, you can have certain liberties of ours.

It should be considered a bad thing. This inherently takes away our liberties. And while there might be less consequences they still exist. If any individual is trying to hurt someone, then all the other individuals are there to correct the situation. They might get away with one or two things but for the most part the society will combat any significant problems.

My opponent asks what proof I have of the centalized governing system of the capitalist entity having complete liberty. As I have proved, they have power at the extent of our liberties. So, we have lost liberties while the centalized capitalistic entity has all of their physical rights plus, any and all actions interacting with us that we have accepted they can do.

My argument:"The masses can do anything they want unless the centralized power precieves it as wrong, immoral or a threat.

My opponent's response: "Very untrue. There are many other considerations when it comes to what one can and cannot do, wanting being what one of them. Furthermore, "the masses" rarely to anything. For the most part, it is individuals that do things."

What other considerations?

The masses does not have to apply to every one as a whole, in this case it is represenative of any one excluded from the governing body of the centalized power.

The centalized power will allow anything htat supports them. If an individaul advertises for the entity, the entity is not going to do any thing. If that same individual protests the entity, then that entity is going to use any and everything in it's Power (that we gave them) to quell the protest.
Maya9

Pro

"The reason they have power at the expense of our liberty is because we give them the power."

No, that is the reason they have power. The fact that we give them power does not imply that it is at the expense of our liberty.

"As my opponent stated, there is an extent to what an individual can do. Individuals can only gather power by others letting them get away with something."

Completely false. "Letting" someone "get away" with something may or may not give them power. Furthermore, "letting" someone do something may or may not be a factor. That individual may have the ability to do what they wish regardless of the actions of others. There are other ways to gain power: money, physical ability, and simply convincing someone that one's action is correct.

"The only reason the U.S. government has the POWER to send us to war is because we have said that if the decide this, we will accept it. Thus we have GIVEN power to the U.S. and taken away our liberty to decide whether or not we ( as individuals) go to war."

First, the government does not have the power to send "us" to war. They have the power to send our military to war. Members of our military are volunteers. It is their job to go to war.

Second, Congress decides whether or not to formally declare war. The members of Congress are elected by the citizens to represent them. By extension, it is the citizens that actually decide whether or not to go to war.

"It should be considered a bad thing. This inherently takes away our liberties."

Again, you have yet to prove why this is a bad thing.

"If any individual is trying to hurt someone, then all the other individuals are there to correct the situation."

No, the government via the police are there to correct the situation.

"My opponent asks what proof I have of the centalized governing system of the capitalist entity having complete liberty. As I have proved, they have power at the extent of our liberties."

From what I see, you have proved nothing.

"What other considerations?"

Refer to my second response.

"If that same individual protests the entity, then that entity is going to use any and everything in it's Power (that we gave them) to quell the protest."

Not necessarily. Our government allows protests all the time.
Debate Round No. 2
Freemind

Con

What is power? It is the ability to do what one wants when one wants. Say Person A wants to do an action by him/herself. Because it interacts with no one no power must be used to accomplish this action. Now say Person A wants to Interact with Person B. In order for this interaction to happen Person B MUST lose his/her right to decline action. If Person B willingly engages Person A, then Person B has GIVEN Person A Person B's liberty to choose not to make this interaction. Like Wise, if Person A FORCES Person B to interact, then Person A has TAKEN Person B's liberty to not interact. Either way, Person B must lose his/her liberty to choose not to interact in order for Person A to have the POWER to interact. My opponent's argument that money, physical prowess, and genuine belief are all examples of how Person A could attain Person B's liberties. This proves that power is gained from the loss of liberties and that point should be flowed to the con.

"First, the government does not have the power to send "us" to war. They have the power to send our military to war. Members of our military are volunteers. It is their job to go to war."

The government DOES have the power to send the UNITED STATES to war. What are the United States? The land and EVERY SINGLE legal citizen of the U.S. So: yes, the government CAN send us to war. This proves my point judge and should flow to the con.

"Second, Congress decides whether or not to formally declare war"

This contradicts my opponent's previous statement. Congress is the government bud. They are who send us to war.

"The members of Congress are elected by the citizens to represent them. By extension, it is the citizens that actually decide whether or not to go to war."

No. Congress is an centralized entity that we have given power to. This centralized power is what sent us to war, not the people. This proves my point judge and should be flowed to the con.

My argument:"It should be considered a bad thing. This inherently takes away our liberties."

Opponent's argument "Again, you have yet to prove why this is a bad thing."
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were just an average american who doesn't care about your own freedom. I personally would like to have as much free choice as I can concerning myself...but that's just me apparently.

Opponent:"any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences."

My Refutation:"If any individual is trying to hurt someone, then all the other individuals are there to correct the situation."

Opponent:"No, the government via the police are there to correct the situation."
The police are SOME of those individuals I mentioned. Any person can perform a citizen's arrest. So: when my opponent tries to argue that "any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." it is obvious that they cannot do WHATEVER with out consequences. A whole multitude of people can prevent or punish it. This completely proves my point judge this argument flows to the con.

My statement:"My opponent asks what proof I have of the centralized governing system of the capitalist entity having complete liberty. As I have proved, they have power at the extent of our liberties."

Opponent:"From what I see, you have proved nothing."

Look to the beginning of this speech, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for someone/something to have power without obtaining it from others. Following this, if these entities have power then they have it at our liberties' expense, thereby, giving them liberty we do not have.

My question:"What other considerations?"

Opponent's answer:"Refer to my second response."
Allow me to restate it. What OTHER considerations? Judges, my opponent gives one weak statement, wanting,(which they do not explain) but says there are more to make the argument sound like it should hold much sway in this debate. The fact is it was a weak argument. Do not allow them to give an answer no because I would not have a speech to argue it. My opponent cannot bring up any new arguments and if he does they need to be scratched from the ballot and ignored in this debate round. As you can see I have refuted his statement that other considerations go into it and that should flow to the Con.

My statement:"If that same individual protests the entity, then that entity is going to use any and everything in it's Power (that we gave them) to quell the protest."

Opponent's refutation:"Not necessarily. Our government allows protests all the time."
We aren't talking about the government son. We're talking about global capitalistic institutions. In 1995 the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha deemed hanging to be the necessary means to quell the articulate voice of poet Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight fellow Ogoni activists.(http://www.commondreams.org...) What were these voices protesting? Shell Oil Company. Who paid off General Sani Abacha? Shell Oil Company. Even the U.S. government will launch massive P.R. campaigns after protests to try and make it seem like they are everything the protesters want them to be. So my original argument that the centralized power will do everything it can to protect it's being and beliefs, whether it's through the force of killing or through the process of telling us what we want to hear, is proved. I have clearly won this point and it should flow to the con.

In closing: I have clearly won the arguments on; Power=Loss of liberties, the government's ability to send us to war, the government's centralized power to govern the non-centralized population, loss of liberties=loss of freedom, the consequences of actions, my opponent trying to use the unstated "other considerations" as a voting issue when it is not, and that as a whole, when one or multiple people take action centralized power does not like or agree with, that power will do everything it can to make the people not a threat to the powers beliefs and security.

Of the 9 arguments brought up in this round, I clearly win eight and the last one is:"Completely false. "Letting" someone "get away" with something may or may not give them power. Furthermore, "letting" someone do something may or may not be a factor. That individual may have the ability to do what they wish regardless of the actions of others. There are other ways to gain power: money, physical ability, and simply convincing someone that one's action is correct" which is essentially just a different view of the Power=Loss of liberties argument that I clearly won.

I would just like to remind that any new arguments should be considered invalid because I will not have a chance to argue them. My opponent can extend any already stated argument just not bring any new arguments to the round.

Judges you must vote on the 9 arguments previously stated. You have two ways of looking at it.

Either,

--award the "Completely false...one's action is correct" argument above to the pro and the rest to the con finishing with 8 con points and 1 pro point. This would be a con ballot.

Or

--award all nine arguments to the con finishing with 9 con points and 0 pro points. This would be a con ballot.

I'd like to thank my opponent for a challenging debate and I'd like to thank the Judges for their time in reading this debate.

All I can see is a Con Ballot.

Thank You.
Maya9

Pro

"Now say Person A wants to Interact with Person B. In order for this interaction to happen Person B MUST lose his/her right to decline action. If Person B willingly engages Person A, then Person B has GIVEN Person A Person B's liberty to choose not to make this interaction."

If person B willingly interacts with person A, there is no liberty left to lose. The liberty of deciding whether or not to make the interaction has already been exercised by person B in the act of engaging person A in the first place. Furthermore, I would argue that if a person possesses a liberty, it is their choice whether or not to give it away (regardless of how you may feel about it.)

"Like Wise, if Person A FORCES Person B to interact, then Person A has TAKEN Person B's liberty to not interact. Either way, Person B must lose his/her liberty to choose not to interact in order for Person A to have the POWER to interact. My opponent's argument that money, physical prowess, and genuine belief are all examples of how Person A could attain Person B's liberties. This proves that power is gained from the loss of liberties and that point should be flowed to the con."

In this case, I would argue that person B never had any liberty in the first place. If a right can be taken or given, it isn't a right. In order for liberty to even exist, an individual must have the ability to defend that liberty. If he or she does not, it is simply a privilege bestowed upon them by someone else. The simple fact that person A had the ability to force person B to do anything shows that person B had no say in the matter before the interaction ever took place. Therefore, there was no liberty to lose.

"The government DOES have the power to send the UNITED STATES to war. What are the United States? The land and EVERY SINGLE legal citizen of the U.S. So: yes, the government CAN send us to war. This proves my point judge and should flow to the con."

So "every single legal citizen" goes to war? That would be interesting, but no. Only some people, some of whom aren't citizens at all, are sent to fight. They volunteered for that job. That was their choice.

"This contradicts my opponent's previous statement. Congress is the government bud. They are who send us to war."

But they are not bureaucrats. You make it sound as if the government just does whatever it wants while the citizenry helplessly look on. Every member of Congress was placed their by the will of their constituents.

"No. Congress is an centralized entity that we have given power to. This centralized power is what sent us to war, not the people. This proves my point judge and should be flowed to the con."

This just shows a revealing ignorance. Congress can hardly be considered centralized. The only time that the members of Congress are physically together is when votes need to be taken. They spend most of their time apart, in their own states.

"I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were just an average american who doesn't care about your own freedom. I personally would like to have as much free choice as I can concerning myself...but that's just me apparently."

Ad hominem. What I may or may feel about my own freedom is irrelevant to the argument and certainly does not magically make your statements true. I was simply stating that you can't just use unproven premises, regardless of how obvious they seem to you.

"The police are SOME of those individuals I mentioned. Any person can perform a citizen's arrest. So: when my opponent tries to argue that "any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." it is obvious that they cannot do WHATEVER with out consequences. A whole multitude of people can prevent or punish it. This completely proves my point judge this argument flows to the con."

Now you're just taking my words out of context. I said that "any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." IF there was no government to control them. Nice try, but no cigar.

In this day and age, any person who performs a "citizen's arrest" is more likely to be hauled in for assault than anything else. It is a naive and antiquated notion.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
Yes it does. And I agree entirely that there ABSOLUTELY no hope for the human race. We're a society of rapists and murderers bent on destroying the plants. Another thing that scares me about our current society is our ignorance. I really don't like how stupid we've become, using "words" like "slided". I don't think you'll find that one in a dictionary.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Does acting like an arrogant jackass usually win you debates? If so, my faith in humanity just slided further into the abyss.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
well son, I never tried to say she was not older or a female. I dont actually believe she is my son. i'm using it as a pronoun for her, that is all.

And flowed means:
It is a term used in policy debate. Real competiton style. It's a process of organizing and keeping track of arguments. Flowed to the con means that the judge would mark the argument as won by the con side. It's used to help the judge keep track of what voting issues should be awarded to whom.
Posted by JoeBob 8 years ago
JoeBob
So Freemind, what does "flowed" to the Con mean? Are we judges flowing? Because I thought we were judging and evaluating and deciding. We are deciders!

Also, you might have taken 2 seconds to note that your well-spoken opponent is female (and older than you) before you called her "son."
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
FreemindMaya9Tied
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:61 
Vote Placed by jihan_kim 8 years ago
jihan_kim
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 Derth 8 years ago
Derth
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 lorca 8 years ago
lorca
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 JoeBob 8 years ago
JoeBob
FreemindMaya9Tied
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 miketschultz 8 years ago
miketschultz
FreemindMaya9Tied
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