The Instigator
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ameliamk1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,464 times Debate No: 39565
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

tylergraham95

Pro

First round is acceptance only.
Ameliamk1

Con

I accept.

Now, Laissez-Faire Capitalism ought to be defined for our readers:

"An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws." (1)

I will argue that this system is profoundly beneficial to much, if not all, of the population, and is structurally and intellectually sound.

Let this be an informative and civil debate, and may the best man win.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tylergraham95

Pro

Although I appreciate my opponents definitions, I would remind him that he was to use round one for acceptance only. I would also put forth a definition of my own.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism-an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.

My definition is superior to the one given by my opponent because mine sets the stipulation that the government may only protect property rights, where my opponents lacks stipulation to define the minimum of necessity.

I will construct my argument by presenting my contentions and then elaborating them. They are as follows:
1. Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization.
2. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world.
3. Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy.


"The belief that uniform benefit could be had by pure unregulated capitalistic economies died more than a century ago when people realized that pure market economies failed to produce a benefit to society as a whole." (2)

Contention 1:Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization.
Without regulation, corporations and other companies would be able to dominate their areas of industry at point that other companies would not pose any kind of significant competition, thus defeating the purpose of capitalism. "Corporate Aristocracy" would form when a select few massive corporation conglomerates have majority or total control over a specific area of industry. Historical examples include standard oil, AT&T, and the De Beers monopoly over diamonds. Standard oil and AT&T were thankfully broken up by anti-trust laws, but the De Beers diamond company still controls a vast majority of the diamond market. Left unchecked, corporations would have the potential to create a lasting collective of companies that act in a fashion similar to that of a feudal aristocracy. The difference being that instead of the individuals being the ones in power, the company would be the "individual" in power.

Contention 2:Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world.
For Laissez-Faire Capitalism to function, customers would ideally have near perfect knowledge of the products and services they were buying; corporations would also never employ any form of false or misleading advertising. Even with regulation businessmen are commonly "breaking the rules" or finding a way to work around them. Misleading advertisement and corporate irresponsibility means that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is bound to harm the majority. Without regulation, employment of shady business tactics could lead to the aforementioned Corporate Aristocracy/Oligarchy and monopolization.

Contention 3:Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy.
With the formation of a few ruling corporations through monopolization, conglomeration, and "Snowballing" business power, the government would be converted into an oligarchy. With the economy controlled by only a few large businesses, an oligarchy (rule by few) would form with the corporations at the head. The government in question would be irrelevant due to the massive economic control of the corporate aristocracy.

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and await his response eagerly.

1. Gaspard, Toufick. A Political Economy of Lebanon 1948"2002: The Limits of Laissez-faire. Boston: Brill, 2004. Print
2. http://mydd.com...
Ameliamk1

Con

Thank you for your argument, Sir.

To remind readers (and myself) of Pro's contentions, they are:

1. Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization.
2. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world.
3. Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy.

Contention one: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization.

Now, let us begin with the first contention, that of a "corporate aristocracy", and the perils of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." (1) Such examples from modern day would be Microsoft and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. (2) The way one of these monopolies is formed is the sale of goods or services of superior quality and superior pricing. The free markets funnel bad business and reward good business in this way. Microsoft is a clear example of this; overcoming competitors such as Oracle and Apple, (3) Microsoft reached the top of the corporate hierarchy, while prices dropped and workmanship improved. In a true Capitalism, the watered down "monopoly" is not a bad thing.

However, it seems that the present day "evil" monopolies are entirely Government-induced. For the purposes of intellectually honesty, it is best to use Pro's examples of monopolies, namely the companies Standard Oil, AT&T, and De Beers Diamonds.

AT&T: The Washington Post reports the incredible Government support for this phone company.

"AT&T and Verizon Communications were the biggest recipients of federal support from an $8 billion phone subsidy program, according to data released Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee." (4)

Additionally, AT&T receives massive tax breaks, allowing it an edge over competitors.(5)

Standard Oil: John D. Rockefeller's mammoth oil corporation had minimal Government support (6), reaching the height of its dominance during America's period of flirtation with laissez-faire capitalism. Refining 90% of America's oil (7), selling at low prices,(8) and employing a massive number of people, Standard Oil is a prime example of untampered capitalism paying off.

DeBeers Diamonds: With much of its support severed, DeBeers is on the decline. The support the company received on its ascension, however, was incredible, and much of these bonuses still exist. DeBeers is given extensive assistance from foreign Governments (9), as well as sizable tax breaks.

Putting all this aside, the primary concern is the possibility of crony capitalism; namely, that monopolies will infect Government and ruled their countries. Like the existence of monopolies, this infiltration of governing bodies is a direct result of socialism. Returning to the original definition of laissez-faire capitalism, the system is intended as a complete divorce of Government from market. There should be absolutely no gain for any robber baron taking political position, as there should be no way for a government to increase the wealth or standing of business. As open inquiry aptly says, "When socialist elites and insiders profit personally from market institutions, why is this only called, "crony capitalism," and not "crony socialism". (10)

Contention 2: laissez-faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world.

This interests me, as Capitalism seems to me to be by far the most realistic world view and system of economics. Capitalism accepts that people are selfish and greedy--and uses this fact to make everyone rich. The beauty of Capitalism is that in order for one to become true wealthy, it requires the enrichment of others through investment and job-making.
However Pro brings up several points to support his contention, which ought to be responded to. Pro says, "Misleading advertisement and corporate irresponsibility means that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is bound to harm the majority". While not specifying what "corporate irresponsibility" is, it is reasonable to assume that Pro refers to faulty products, "cutting corners", and cheap tactics. This is a classic argument, that since corporations want money, they will attempt to cut costs to the absolute minimum, endangering their employees and customers. In a laissez-faire capitalist system, it is profitable and in a company's best interest to play by the rules and make good products for two reasons:

The possibility of lawsuit. If a business were to release a faulty product or conduct other dangers practices that cause death or injury, that company is liable for compensation. For one example, Toyota's cars allegedly had a brake issue which led to several nasty crashes. (11) While Toyota was eventually acquitted of guilt after studies were done, (12) had the claims been accurate, Toyota would have faced a series of multi-million dollar lawsuits, as well as criminal cases. Despite their acquittal, Toyota has improved their design to avoid other similar calamities.
Business. In order for a company to attain customers and business, it must provide service or a product that is quality and affordable. If a business releases dangerous or bad merchandise, they will inevitably lose business, and often go out of business. (Unless the Government intervenes, as it so often does). An example of this would be Tielenic Acid, a medicine designed to reduce hypertension. However, it was revealed to cause hepatitis, and was quickly driven out of business by the forces of the free market. (13)

Businesses are forced to behave, because they are entirely subject to the will of the populace and of the free market, and lack the Government to stand in the way of natural justice.

Contention 3: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy

This argument is very similar to that of the first, and so similarly refuted. The Government should be entirely divorced from the economy, thereby automatically preventing any gains for corporation in politics. The Government in this situation would be relevant, because it exists in an entirely different realm. As for total economic control,
the entire idea of a "free market" rules this possibility out. (14) For the two reasons above, and the fact that competition can always ascend, both foreign and domestic, businesses will always compete to make the cheapest, most quality goods and services.

I am running short on characters, so I ought to rap up. As a reminder, Pro must demonstrate that laissez-faire Capitalism is unstable and will collapse naturally and almost inevitably. As of far, there seems to be no evidence for this claim, and the beautiful examples of this economic system in history have not yet been presented.

With that said, I look forward to Pro's response, and good luck.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(2) http://hnn.us...
(3) http://www.hoovers.com...
(4) http://online.wsj.com...
(5) https://www.freepress.net...
(6)(7)(8) http://mises.org...
(9) http://www.mediacoop.ca...
(10) http://www.duoism.org...
(11)(12) http://money.cnn.com...
(13) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(14) http://www.econlib.org...
Debate Round No. 2
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for his well thought out response.

My opponent begins by naming a list of current "monopolies" such as "Microsoft and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac." And claims that these "watered down" monopolies are not a bad thing. Microsoft isn't even close to monopoly. The PC industry is a highly competitive market that is a constant battle between Apple, Google, and Microsoft. If Microsoft were a monopoly, it would control upwards of 90% of the PC industry and make it near impossible for PC companies to compete in America. Furthermore he claims that the monopolies of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are "not a bad thing" but does not realize that that monopoly was partially to blame for the 2008 housing melt-down (1)

Furthermore, Fannie and Freddy are TOTALLY contradictory to his next point: "However, it seems that the present day "evil" monopolies are entirely Government-induced." Because both companies are currently government sponsored.
My opponent also talks about the modern day subsidies that AT&T receives. I was not referring to the current AT&T, but the AT&T that was broken up US anti-monopolization laws in 1984.
My opponent actually aids my claim by pointing out that Standard Oil was formed with no government intervention. The standard oil monopoly would likely still be in massive control of American Oil had it not been broken up by the Sherman anti-trust laws.
My opponents refutation of my first contention are weak if not helpful to my argument. He claims monopolization is "not a bad thing" but who would want any aspect of an industry totally controlled by one company? So much power held by businessmen could be very harmful to the people. Furthermore, monopolization eliminates competition, and therefore defeats the purpose of capitalism. Also the time when America "flirted with laissez-faire capitalism" was also known for terrible food safety standards as pointed out in The Jungle and child labor.

"the system is intended as a complete divorce of Government from market"
This entire point is almost laughable. My opponent seems to imply that men looking make profit will always "play by the rules." This simply is not true. There are indeed men who make great business through honest tactics and hard work, but there are countless men who lie, cheat, steal, and swindle to make profit. Crony capitalism forms because humans are, by nature, greedy and self serving. Good intentions, terrible results.

"Businesses are forced to behave, because they are entirely subject to the will of the populace and of the free market, and lack the Government to stand in the way of natural justice."

Again, this is why capitalism only works in ideal circumstances. If the populace was uneducated on what the true harms of a product were, or the irresponsible actions (bribery, pollution, etc.) that a corporation was taking, then how would these mystical "free-market forces" stop that company from gaining a competitive edge. My opponent seems to be under the naive notion that a powerful company is unable to lie and cover up it's faults. Without government enforcement, companies will lie for profit.
My opponents Toyota example is yet another contradictory example to his argument. This is an example of how irresponsible business will hurt the populace until government steps in and stops them. His example is contradictory to his previous statement regarding "total divorce of government and business."

"This argument is very similar to that of the first, and so similarly refuted. The Government should be entirely divorced from the economy, thereby automatically preventing any gains for corporation in politics. The Government in this situation would be relevant, because it exists in an entirely different realm. As for total economic control,
the entire idea of a "free market" rules this possibility out. For the two reasons above, and the fact that competition can always ascend, both foreign and domestic, businesses will always compete to make the cheapest, most quality goods and services.


My opponent claims these benefits of the almost magical "free-market" but cites only an opinionated source that is only based on speculation not fact.

SUMMARY
My opponents points are irrelevant, contradictory, naive, or based on speculation. Furthermore, since it is not assumed that Laissez-faire capitalism is structurally stable, my opponent has TOTALLY FAILED to point out that laissez faire capitalism is stable.

I await my opponents response eagerly.

1.http://www.investopedia.com...
Ameliamk1

Con

Thank you for your response, sir.

Now my opponent brings up and issue that I planned to discuss last round, before running out of characters, and that issue is BoP. Pro says "my opponent has TOTALLY FAILED to point out that laissez faire capitalism is stable". This implies Pro thinks half the BoP is on my shoulders. I, however, would disagree, and I will use a contention-list to prove it.

1. All unstable things things have flaws
2. All flaws are expressable
3. Therefore, if someone cannot express any flaws in something, until more evidence comes to light, that thing must be assumed stable.

Even if Laissez-Faire Capitalism is unstable, if my opponent fails to point out the flaws, then the debate goes to me.

Is monopoly good?

Organizing the contentions as much as possible, Pro begins by attacking my choices of monopolies. Pro may have whatever monopolies he wants, the arguments do not change. The only thing worth mentioning on this point is that while Fannie and Freddie were in part responsible for the housing bubble, this is through shady and dirty business, which would have been shut down by the free market, but instead was supported by the Government. (1)

On to the actually contention, that monopolies are not bad. The only evidence that Pro uses to back this claim up is saying, "monopolization eliminates competition, and therefore defeats the purpose of capitalism." This is only true to the extent that companies eliminate competition by being the best, and offering the finest service or goods in their industry. Should they falter to these ends, competition will rise up to crush them. Blackberry would be an excellent example of this. (2) While not a full monopoly, Blackberry did dominate the market in sales and popularity. (3) Now they are really a footnote in the mobile phone industry, and just today lost nearly 18% of their market value. (4)

My opponent goes on to quote specific passages, to which I will attempt to respond without quoting long passages.

"If the populace was uneducated on what the true harms of a product were, or the irresponsible actions (bribery, pollution, etc.) that a corporation was taking, then how would these mystical "free-market forces" stop that company from gaining a competitive edge?"

Well you can't, to a certain extent. The free market will not stop this unless it hurts someone. As soon as a business begins to exploit or harm its customers or employees, people will notice, and the free market will destroy that company or force reform,
through a rise of competition, lawsuit, or refusal to do business. It seems acceptable to do "shady business" otherwise, if it does not hurt anyone.

"My opponent claims these benefits of the almost magical "free-market" but cites only an opinionated source that is only based on speculation not fact."

Have it your way. (6) (7) (8) (9). My opponent calls the benefits of free markets "speculation". Pro is not wrong, but capitalism is speculation in the same regard that gravity is speculation--it hasn't been scientifically proven, but there is such an amount of empirical and logistical evidence that it is undeniably so.

Conclusion

I saw no response to my contention that businesses cannot form an aristocracy because of the wall between market and Government. Of course it is up to the reader, but I have seen nothing that clearly demonstrates that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is unstable.

With that said, good luck sir.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) (5) http://www.nytimes.com...
(6) http://listverse.com...
(7) http://www.econlib.org...
(8) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(9) http://bobzermop.hubpages.com...
Debate Round No. 3
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response

My opponents point regarding "Is monopoly good?" is a weak mitigation against my refutation. He makes weak mitigation against my attack on his poor, contradictory, and/or irrelevant choices of monopolies, and then goes on to make a claim based on a wiki source. He continues to claim that monopolization is a good thing, and that one can only achieve monopolization through being the best. I assume by this he meant having the best product or service, but this is not true. Corporations are capable of employing deceitful tactics in order to increase their sales or competitiveness. Furthermore he points to blackberry as an example, but Blackberry only controlled 43% of its industry at its high point. (1)

"As soon as a business begins to exploit or harm its customers or employees, people will notice, and the free market will destroy that company or force reform, through a rise of competition, lawsuit, or refusal to do business. It seems acceptable to do "shady business" otherwise, if it does not hurt anyone."
This is only the words of my opponents opinion. This statement is not backed up by any source or fact, and is purely speculation. The underlined portion is again a reference to the miraculous "Free market" that opponent refers to. He seems to believe that corporations will not try to cover up their mistakes and misinform the public. This is not logical. It is logical to assume based on the fact that crimes are almost committed everyday, that businessmen who are trying to make profit would be sometimes willing to break laws, and lie in order to make profit. (2) The SAC insider trading scandal as of late is a perfect example of corporate greed leading to fraudulent business tactics. (3)

My opponents says that the stability of Laissez-Faire Capitalism has "such an amount of empirical and logistical evidence that it is undeniably so." and cites only a forum, the definition of free-market capitalism, and two clearly biased sources, one being titled "Top 10 Greatest Benefits of Capitalism. This source shows obvious bias, isn't talking of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and is an opinionated entertainment article from an entertainment website.

"I saw no response to my contention that businesses cannot form an aristocracy because of the wall between market and Government. Of course it is up to the reader, but I have seen nothing that clearly demonstrates that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is unstable."
If my opponent cannot see this then he has not read my argument. In previous rounds I clearly stated how and why corporate aristocracy would form, and why my opponents "wall" is easily traversed.

SUMMARY
I have won this debate because my opponent has failed to prove the stability of Laissez-Faire Capitalism or disprove sufficiently my own contentions regarding the flaws and instability of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. This is evident in the contradictory and/or irrelevant and/or biased/inaccurate nature of my opponents sources. My attacks on my opponents argument have been thorough and effective. My own points stand strong.

Vote Pro

1. http://www.entrepreneur.com...
2. http://www.fbi.gov...
3. http://dealbook.nytimes.com...

This all said I would like to lend a HUGE thanks to my opponent for a wildly entertaining debate.
Ameliamk1

Con

Thanks to Pro for an excellent debate, and may the best man win.

Now, the matter of BoP must once again be addressed, as PRo again claimed my failure to show Laisezz-Faire Capitalism as stable. In round three, in the very first section and very clearly, I stated why my opponent holds the BoP. Given no response, the BoP must be assumed Pro"s.

To reiterate, this is why my adversary holds the BoP:
1.All unstable things have flaws
2. All flaws are expressable
3. Therefore, if someone cannot express any flaws in something, until more evidence comes to light, that thing must be assumed stable.

Now, my argument that monopoly is good is rather irreverent, given the BoP is on pro, so it would be best to return to Pro"s original three contentions.

Contention one: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization.

My original response to this fallacy was that Laissez-Faire Capitalism marks an absolute separation of market and Government, similar to that of religion. Pro"s sole response to this in round two was:

"This entire point is almost laughable. My opponent seems to imply that men looking make profit will always "play by the rules." This simply is not true. There are indeed men who make great business through honest tactics and hard work, but there are countless men who lie, cheat, steal, and swindle to make profit. Crony capitalism forms because humans are, by nature, greedy and self serving. Good intentions, terrible results."

Pro is correct, many executives and businesses do not play by the rules, which is why Capitalism and its Governments should be parted. The very reason crony capitalism occurs is because Government can give businesses advantages, including tax-breaks and subsidies. In a Laissez-Faire system, this is simply not permitted, rendering the entire concept of crony capitalism void. As stated in round 1, crony capitalism would be more aptly named "crony socialism". A great example of this would be Monsanto, a GMO company, who through donations and support for political candidates have avoided and averted all attempts at restriction and obstructive legislation. (1)

Contention 2: Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world.
Pro states, "If the populace was uneducated on what the true harms of a product were, or the irresponsible actions (bribery, pollution, etc.) that a corporation was taking, then how would these mystical "free-market forces" stop that company from gaining a competitive edge."

I had stated so previously, but there are two primary reasons why this is the case.

1.Lawsuits. There is an innumerable list of things for which a company can face lawsuit. Injury, faulty product or service, institutional racism, just to name a few. Companies are forced to stay in line, and it is in their best interest to at least release safe products, and at least build stable places for their workers, because of the incredible amount of money at stake in lawsuits.
2.Business. The only way a corporation can turn profit is when people or institutions utilize their products or services, and if they do a bad job, consumers will not do so. If lawsuits keep businesses from doing anything dangerous, the possibility of losing business makes sure companies produce quality ware. Do a bad job, and you won"t get customers. Rip off consumers, and you won"t get customers. It"s that simple.

Contention 3: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy.

The arguments for contention one can more or less be extended here. Government and market should exist in entirely different realms, and manage entirely different functions. Additionally, without Government backing of a monopoly, competition can always ascend and dethrone its former better. Without Government, corporation cannot take hold of an economy.

Final conclusion:

Let us define stable. "Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation." (2) So to win this debate, Pro must have proved that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is not self-standing, and cannot survive any lengthy period of time. With the BoP on him, it seems to me Pro has failed in the absolute to do so. Pro settled on a tough contention for himself, and while being a worthy debater, failed to complete his objective.

Once again, well done Pro, and may the better debatee win.

(1) http://benswann.com...
(2) http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
Both parties have well thought out ideas. Admittedly, being a supporter of free markets, the Pro had a long way to go to prove to me that Free Market Capitalism is structurally unstable.

Conduct to the con due to the Pro's habit of calling his opponent "naive, contradictory" etc, while himself not staying on topic at all.

The topic instigated by the Pro suggests a systemic flaw/flaws in Laissez Faire Capitalism, leading to collapse or weakness. The Pro's 3 main contentions indicate some issues he has with current situation created by the current breed of Capitalism (which is FAR from the laissez faire model). None of the Pro's points suggest an instability in free market economics, rather they are things the Pro doesn't find moral or helpful, leading to the ambiguity in his arguments. I remind the Pro that his debate was over the STABILITY of laissez faire economics, not it"s merits or morality, which is what the Pro seems to want to argue. Pro would have been better off contending that capitalism is inherently dysfunctional because it is an infinite growth system based in a world of finite resources( or some logical argument proving the fallibility of the capitalist system) Even if his notions of inevitable monopolies and oligarchies are true(which is questionable), he fails to connect this to instability. The Pro seemed more interested in alluding to a debate over the morality of free market mechanisms, while Con repeatedly asked for him to stay on topic, which again was to prove/disprove the Stability of the laissez faire system.

The Con provides the Pro with Rudimentary Free Market Theory (which mind you has never actually been implemented on an industrial society), and why this doctrine is stable, and makes an attempt at debating intensely complex and subjective economic theory.
Posted by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
I am currently trying to post my argument, but the site currently isn't letting me, so its not my fault it my argument is not posted.
Posted by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
I am currently trying to post my argument, but the site currently isn't letting me, so its not my fault it my argument is not posted.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
@bigfau
Sorry to inform you of this but the United States is FAR from a laissez-faire capitalist economy.
Posted by BigFau 3 years ago
BigFau
we need Laissez-faire Capitalism or i don't know where this country would be without it
Posted by BigFau 3 years ago
BigFau
we need to help business by deregulating it not hinder it by regulating it
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Most of the world would agree with you, my friend. That is why there are laws to stabilize it and give workers rights.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
tylergraham95Ameliamk1Tied
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: Judgements posted in the comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
tylergraham95Ameliamk1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Full disclosure: I was asked to vote on this by Pro, and I also tend to be on the left politically. However, it is my practice when judging debates to divorce myself from any personal views I might hold and to evaluate the round using a blank slate paradigm. That being said, I felt that the Jungle example, as well as Con's own concession that Standard Oil was not government sponsored, lent credence to Pro's C1. If I buy C1, I find it hard also to not accept Pro's C2, because only in an ideal market would monopolies not form. I think Con could have made a more interesting argument to rebut Pro here: that monopolies are not bad. This would have turned Pro's offense against him and won Con the round. As it stands, Pro is garnering a majority of the relevant offense, and so I am forced to vote Pro. This was an interesting and well-done debate. Thank you, and best of luck in future!
Vote Placed by jnedwards11 3 years ago
jnedwards11
tylergraham95Ameliamk1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct , grammer & sources were fine. Con ultimately won the debate because PRO never proved the definitive unstability of free markets to me. (Tough stance) Con gave me reason to believe Capital markets can be successful w/out government control. He also wasn't forced to defend (in depth) the most destructive results of laissez-faire ideology, which to me atleaset, is a considerable lull in technological advances due to a lack of competition.