The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

On Balance, Capitalism Is Superior to Communism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,294 times Debate No: 43415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)




Due to some technical problems on my part, Leninist and I have agreed to restart this debate.

Full Resolution

On balance, capitalism is a superior economic system to communism.

BoP is shared - pro has to prove that capitalism is superior, while con has to prove that communism is superior.


On Balance: "Taking everything into consideration; all in all."[1]

Capitalism: "A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit."[2]

Communism: "A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership and the absence of class."[3]

Superior: "Of high quality; high or higher in quality."[4]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.

Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)




I thank subutai for this opportunity to debate. I should also note that while these are all communistic ideas, some are more mine, heavily influenced by Marx, rather than completely Marx"s.
1. The economy
Private property, and the property owning classes, are inherently oppressive. They allow the few (bourgeoisie) to oppress the many. They take the produce of those beneath them whom they hold captive with debt, banks and the political establishment. Communism proposes a system in which the economy is used to produce what the people need. Such an economy is based on a democratic hierarchy of elected councils which allows those at the bottom to control the top. Historically, communist economies have suffered mainly from an over centralization of power (not necessarily the same as organization) in the economy. When things went wrong, the higher ups tried to deflect it rather than admit their mistakes and directly fix them. The system MUST have accountability at the heart of it and term limits, power of recall, and transparency are vitally important, but went by the wayside in the 20th century Stalinist systems. As comrade Roy Medvedev states in "Let History Judge", "[socialists] must overcome one of the most dangerous consequences of Stalinism-fear of speaking the truth."
Supply and demand for most commodities will be calculated by averaging demand over a certain number of years (probably around five) and then producing at a rate slightly above this. Years where production exceeds demand will produce a surplus which can be used in years where demand exceeds production. The rate at which production exceeds demand for a given commodity will vary depending on the volatility of demand for a commodity. Luxury commodities will be produced in such a way that everybody can receive certain amounts of them, though not in such excess that they either become worthless or it begins to interfere with more vital aspects of the economy. Computers and the digital age will allow us to track demand, compute supply and organize distribution with relative ease, when compared with earlier communist attempts. Governments and corporations already do this, and things like censuses, credit cards and smart phones could be adapted for a communist society.
Factories and farms would be balanced between productive efficiency and employment, ensuring everyone can work, and for a reasonable amount of time. Most work would fall into one of three categories, assigned, optional and semi-recreational. Assigned work would be similar in concept to jury duty. Some work is unpleasant, but must be done, like garbage collection. To ensure that it is done, everyone would be assigned a certain time when they must do one of these jobs. Exemptions would be rare, especially for political figures. Optional work may be a misleading way to categorize this section, as the option is not to whether or not to work, but rather what work one does specifically. This category includes factory jobs, farming, teaching and such, jobs which will be how most people contribute to society most of the time, and without which society could not function. Finally there is semi-recreational. This title to could be misleading, as recreational does not mean strictly that they are "fun". Rather, they are not necessarily essential to the day to day functioning of society. A coach, painter or philosopher could fall into this category. They are jobs which an individual decides to put some of his or her time into for the sake of the art, and although the state will gladly aid them in this endeavor with support and materials, they cannot expect more than perhaps a day off for a big game or art exhibition. There is one possible exception to this, which is that people who are considered true masters in an art or sport might make it their profession to aid the state in selecting people whose efforts are worthy of support.
2. Motivation
A common accusation against the communist system is that it fails to properly motivate people. Capitalism, for example, claims to offer the ability to move up and offers wealth to those who want it enough. But communism seeks a society of complete equality and no money. So what motivates a man to get up each morning and trudge to work? Well firstly, communist work and capitalist work should be distinguished between. Communism offers a sense of purpose and accomplishment to everybody who will work. It offers to give the people the control over their economy, and work for themselves and their comrades, rather than some fat cat. "In 1990, a collection of research papers edited by Princeton economist Alan Blinder extends the data set much further and reached the same conclusion: worker participation usually enhances productivity in the short run, sometimes in the long run, and rarely has a negative effect. Moreover, participation is most conducive to enhancing productivity when combined with profit sharing, guaranteed long-range employment, relatively narrow wage differentials , and guaranteed worker rights (such as protection from dismissal except for just cause)- precisely the conditions that will prevail under Economic Democracy." [2] This quote is about research related to cooperatives and businesses with worker participation in the US. There are some differences between communism and the cooperative system, but the lesson is clear, worker control and rights, plus economic distribution equals greater productivity.
3. Innovation
A communist system can provide innovation and technological advancement, without the pitfalls of capitalist motivation. In capitalism, there are of course the rewards. If you've got a good idea and questionable morals, you might be able to be incredibly rich. The problem is, innovation is not a guarantee from the profit incentive. When people create, or do anything, with the sole goal of profit, they are likely to cut corners and not account for anything which will not directly impede profit in the short term, as our most recent recession shows. There are other purer reasons for why we innovate though. Fame certainly plays into it, everyone likes to be a drum major, as Dr. King would say. But creation for its own sake is very human. If you have a good idea, you want to try and make it happen. Belief in the communist ideal is also a good way to foster innovation and motivation in general. Look at Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK-47 assault rifle, "... because his invention was never patented, Kalashnikov didn't get rich off royalties. "We worked for socialist society, for the good of the people, which I never regret,"".[3]
Communist innovation would be more like kick starter than Microsoft (although kick starter is NOT a communist group). A sort of online petition system would allow people to present their ideas to the public and if an idea was well liked than it would be classed as either a luxury or necessity item, and put into probationary production in a limited number to see if it was popular enough to be mass produced. People who had successful ideas would be able to get a new job organizing production and further improving their creation.
Capitalism damages people, it chains them to mediocrity with poverty, makes people cold and self absorbed, and rewards those people who display the worst human qualities with the most money. Communism is the only way we can end such self destructive tendencies in our species.

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Leninist for accepting this debate. Also, I would like to note that con misinterpreted the debate structure. Instead, he will make round 4 a bye round to make for even rounds.

I. Supply and Demand

If there's one thing people know about economics, it's supply and demand - as the supply increases, the price falls because (assuming the demand stays the same) the overall worth of the product is less; as the demand increases, the price rises because (assuming the supply stays the same) the overall worth of the product is more. Because businesses seek to maximize profit, they seek an equilibrium point of supply and demand. What all this means is that surpluses and shortages, which are very common in other types of economies, are not generally found in Capitalistic economies because of the laws of supply and demand.

"At this point, the allocation of goods is at its most efficient because the amount of goods being supplied is exactly the same as the amount of goods being demanded. Thus, everyone (individuals, firms, or countries) is satisfied with the current economic condition."[1]

II. Competition and Innovation

Capitalism, because of its inherently competitive nature, creates a sense of competition (i.e. for the most profit). What this means is that companies will produce the best products (to maximize sales) for the most efficiency (to minimize costs from inefficiency). "Competition in the marketplace is good for consumers and good for business, too. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of products and services high. It benefits businesses by promoting innovation's improvements to make products different and often, to make them better in ways that consumers want."[2]

Competition therefore leads to innovation, and it is innovation that has been the driving force behind the industrial revolution and subsequent rapid increase in technology. In other words, capitalism breeds innovation, which improves the lives of everyone. "Capitalism has made advances possible, not solely in providing life's necessities, but in science, technology, and knowledge of all types upon which human society depends. Freedom attracts innovators and explorers and gives life to their ideas. Freedom for people to act in their own self-interest is the mainspring for a diversity of ideas, innovations, and experiments that lead to the discovery of new products, services, and other means of production."[3]

In general, capitalism encourages efficient enterprise, which inevitably leads to a more wealthy society capable of expanding its economy, and ergo its wealth, even further.

III. Private Property

One of the many advances in human civilization has been the advent of private property. Private property allows for rights to be endowed upon people, where people can keep what they earn. In the words of Ludwig von Mises, "...[private property is the basis for] joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner's success as a means for the attainment of his own." This goes back to the laws of supply and demand mentioned earlier - whereas in other economic systems, shortages are common, capitalism's need for private propery allows for one to satisfy needs and wants because of certain rights.[4]

"In enriching most those who are most productive, capitalism allows the survival of billions of people who would not otherwise have survived. In fact, capitalism gives everyone, particularly the weakest, whom it is accused of harming â€" the best chance not just to survive but to thrive. One of many ways this is revealed is the vast increases in leisure that markets have made possible, while real incomes dramatically increased at the same time."[4]

IV. Empirical Evidence

The amount of empirical evidence comparing capitalistic countries to non-capitalistic countries is astounding. Time and time again, there is a markedly clear divide between the capitalistic, wealthier countries and the socialistic/communistic, poorer countries. There is probably no better regional divide than North Korea and South Korea: "Four decades ago, GDP per capita was comparable with levels in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. In 2004, South Korea joined the trillion dollar club of world economies, and currently is among the world's twenty largest economies."[5]

Here is a graph comparing economic freedom and per capita income:


There is a clear trend line that develops as economic freedom increases - per capita income increases. Overall, economic freedom correlates with general economic development, as seen in this chart comparing economic freedom quartiles to overall economic growth:


It is easy to see the correlation here.

Overall, capitalism improves the lives of everybody by eliminating surpluses and shortages, encouraging innovation, establishing the necessity for private property, and in general, contributing to a greater increase in total capital and per capita income in a nation's economy. Communism does not have the necessary components for this present, and therefore do not experience the successes of capitalism I just mentioned.




I'm going to make this the bye round, so it will be as if we just switched order for the first round.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to again thank my opponent for allowing me to redo this debate so I could present this argument which I was unable to present in the first debate. In this round, I will be arguing against communism as per the debate structure.

I. Communism in Theory and Practicality

Many things look good on paper, but in practice, they are horrible. Substitute any such military plan to prove this point. Even with good intentions can things turn bad. As the old proverb goes, the road to hell is paved by good intentions. Communism is a good example of this. Even assuming that communism works even in theory, in practice it has never worked, based on all prior examples, including, but not excluded to the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China (early), and Cambodia.

Even theoretically, it still fails: "Communism, or socialism, couldn’t succeed, Mises wrote in 1920, because it had abolished free markets so that officials had no market prices to guide them in planning production... As Mises pointed out, the raw materials, labor, tools, and machines used in socialist production are outside the market. They are owned by government and controlled by government planners. No one can buy or sell them. No market prices can develop for them because they aren’t exchangeable... Because the raw materials, tools, machines, factories, and farms are not privately owned. Without the bids and offers of private owners, prices reflecting their relative market values cannot develop. And without market prices, it is impossible to coordinate production activities so that the goods and services consumers need will be available. That is why Communism fails.."[1]

Essentially, this goes back to my first argument. By the nature of communism, it does not have the characteristics of capitalism, and therefore does not share in the benefits of it, including fulfilled desire, efficiency, and prosperity. "Under communism, all property- especially the ‘means of production’- factories and capital- was owned by everyone- or no-one… the state owned it. This removed much of the scope for human creativity and enterprise. People had no real economic freedom to create a business, they had to fit into the ‘big plan’. This caused people to stop trying hard (unless they had a gun put to their back) and society overall became less productive."[2]

II. Difference in Economic Statistics

This is mostly an extension of the point I made in the first argument.

"This chart, comparing inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP in Chile and Cuba, is a good illustration of the human cost of excessive government. Living standards in Cuba have languished. In Chile, by contrast, the embrace of market-friendly policies has resulted in a huge increase in prosperity. Chileans were twice as rich as Cubans when Castro seized control of the island. After 50 years of communism in Cuba and 30 years of liberalization in Chile, the gap is now much larger.":

And expanding on the former example of North and South Korea (the classic example on the difference between capitalistic and communistic economies), "A centralized economy, with top down control and no free markets doesn’t work. It’s as simple as that. Just look at this graph depicting economic growth in North Korea vs. South Korea from the 1950s until the present day...":


III. Opposition Arguments

This section will concern my opponent's initial arguments regarding communism.

I've explained previously how communism does not create a sound economy because it gives the power of the "invisible hand" to the government instead of the people, where it belongs. I've also shown in my previous arguments how capitalistic arguments are good.

My opponent's last two arguments consider motivation and innovation; two topics which I also covered in my first arguments. I'll let my opponent object to those before I defend my points, but I will add this: "This little real-life experiment convinces me that committees of experts, even at smart venture capital firms, will often not recognize real innovation. I think that America’s business success through the decades has occurred because we have so many people with specialized knowledge who are willing to put their money, time and resources on the line for ideas that can’t be proved to a committee." And this concerns my opponent's immediate arguments.[5]




I would like to thank Subutai again for this opportunity to debate. I will now proceed to criticize capitalism, and attempt to refute my opponent initial arguments. I"m going to borrow a bit of your structure.

1. Capitalism in theory
Capitalism is based on the idea that greed is the ideal motivator for humans. It encourages the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few who have a disproportionate amount of power over the economy, and by extension the lives of ordinary people. Capitalists claim the economy is run by the free market, but this term is itself a paradox, as the market itself can never be "free". Traditionally the idea of a "free market" is described as one without government intervention, "When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism- with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." [2] The paradox here is that even if the state is not involved the market shall always be distorted by concentration of wealth. In a system purely driven by money and profit, those with the most money who make the best profits naturally gain the ability to decide how the system is driven. In the most recent crash in 2008, it was not (directly) the negligence of the state, but rather wealthy Wall Street aristocrats, who caused the recession. The argument that the Market will purify itself of these people for their business practices was also proven false because these very people who caused the problems generally made huge amounts of money, and at best received negligible (compared to their wealth) fines providing no real reason for someone not to do the same thing again. Now you might say, well why not just meet in the middle, regulate the market a little but let it function mostly on its own. Well firstly this still does not guarantee a fair system for the common people, only makes it harder for the rich to crash the economy. And the profit motive means that after its been long enough for people to forget why the regulations were there in the first place, the businesses start to pull them down again. It is very likely that there will soon be another recession, as the holes in the system which caused the last recession have not been plugged, the investors just haven"t re-discovered their courage to invest mindlessly yet. [3]
Historically Speaking
My opponent has been quick to use the history of "communism" to try and prove that it cannot be done. I will not attack my opponents most recent post yet because that would be unfair, but I would like to address his reference to North Korea in the first post. Firstly, North Korea is not really communist. The very idea that you would pass leadership to your son is the antithesis of everything Marxists think should be the basis of a just political system, that is democracy and grassroots involvement in the political system. Besides that, I would point out that until the 60"s North Korea had a better standard of living than South Korea.
(South Korea's GDP is higher, but North Korea had less than half as many people so GDPc was higher in the North.)
North Korea began to slow because the second Kim thought it was worth while to run the economy into the ground and let programs like the national food system, which was responsible for feeding the population, to fall into ruin so that he could obtain nuclear weapons.
As for South Korea, it is playing through the stages of capitalism like all capitalist countries do. It grew rapidly when there were plentiful opportunities for investment, then began to slump as the opportunity for rapid investment disappeared. It has temporarily regained its good growth rate by moving towards automation, but this will ultimately cause problems for the capitalist system as it will begin to run out of ways to employ people.
I would also say that Cuba is an unfair example as the embargo makes it hard to judge how the system would perform objectively, however this chart shows that up till the point where it lost the only people willing to trade with it on a large scale, it was doing the best out of the caribbean nations.
Finally, none of these systems were actually communist. They were all deviations of Stalinism, which, while it claims to be communist, abandons many of the aspects which are key to a successful socialist system. Perhaps the most important are democracy and accountability, which were completely absent in the Soviet and other 20th century "communist" systems. As I explained above, without these things, the system becomes overly centralized and stagnation and failure are sure to follow.
My opponent"s previous points
Subutai claims that Supply and demand in the marketplace are alone are enough to prevent shortages, assign a fair price and ensure the most efficient allocation of goods. But on the contrary the system is often very inefficient because companies may not produce to meet demand, but rather to create profit. What that means is that rather than trying to produce a quota which will provide the goods in question to everyone who needs them, a company will make a better profit by producing less than demand. The less it produces the more demand inflates the prices they can charge. A good example is diamonds. Diamonds are quite expensive thanks to corporate marketing campaigns to increase demand, but in reality they are quite common. [4] This also ties back to my point that wealthy businesses can distort the market just as much as a corporation. The same can be said of many other businesses to, it is pretty common knowledge that most of our clothing is produced for and worth much less than we pay for it. Many businesses employed in the making of our food cut corners to make more profits (recall the "pink slime" and "horse meat" scandals). [6] In the medical industry as well, where pharmaceutical companies go out of their way to try and get doctors to prescribe their over priced and not necessarily more effective drugs. [5] The fact is that supply (businesses) has become quite adept at manipulating demand (consumers), and often unfairly.[2][3] [4][5][6]
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank Leninist for this debate. Because of time constraints, I will make my argument short.

"If we look upon the history of the world, and especially upon the history of England since 1865, we realize that Marx was wrong in every respect. There is no Western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way. All these improvements of the last 80 or 90 years were made in spite of the prognostications of Karl Marx. For the Marxian socialists believed that the conditions of the workers could never be ameliorated. They followed a false theory, the famous "iron law of wages" " the law which stated that a worker's wages, under capitalism, would not exceed the amount he needed to sustain his life for service to the enterprise.

The Marxians formulated their theory in this way: if the workers' wage rates go up, raising wages above the subsistence level, they will have more children; and these children, when they enter the labor force, will increase the number of workers to the point where the wage rates will drop, bringing the workers once more down to the subsistence level " to that minimal sustenance level which will just barely prevent the working population from dying out. But this idea of Marx, and of many other socialists, is a concept of the working man precisely like that which biologists use " and rightly so " in studying the life of animals. Of mice, for instance.

If you increase the quantity of food available for animal organisms or for microbes, then more of them will survive. And if you restrict their food, then you will restrict their numbers. But man is different. Even the worker " in spite of the fact that Marxists do not acknowledge it " has human wants other than food and reproduction of his species. An increase in real wages results not only in an increase in population; it results also, and first of all, in an improvement in the average standard of living. That is why today we have a higher standard of living in Western Europe and in the United States than in the developing nations of, say, Africa.

We must realize, however, that this higher standard of living depends on the supply of capital. This explains the difference between conditions in the United States and conditions in India; modern methods of fighting contagious diseases have been introduced in India " at least, to some extent " and the effect has been an unprecedented increase in population, but, since this increase in population has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the amount of capital invested, the result has been an increase in poverty. A country becomes more prosperous in proportion to the rise in the invested capital per unit of its population."[1]

Thanks, and apologies for this short argument; I've had a lot of schoolwork.




I thank Subutai for the final time for this opportunity to debate.

I would like to thank Subutai for this debate.
When I was back in high school the textbook they had us read our history from said of Marx that he wrote in response to the grievous conditions of the 19th century and that the main reason his and other Marxists’ predictions failed to come true was because of social reforms.
“Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty”--supposedly petty--details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers”!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,--we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.”
But indeed, is this passage not true this very day? To be sure, restrictions based on gender and race have been all but removed legally, but in reality, there are still there. If you asked anyone in America whether it was the average voter or the average corporation who had more effect on politics, what would they say? Would they look at the billions of dollars the wealthy pour into their candidates [1] and honestly say this is a government of the common man? I think the polls putting congress at an approval rating of less than fifteen percent would say no. [2] This is the democracy of the capitalist system.

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths." (From "The Communist Manifesto," 1848)
Here Marx addresses reactionaries who condemn the idea of doing away with private property, but this statement is an eternal truth in capitalist society. What exactly should the workers and average people care if the wealthy minority lose their unfair advantage?

"Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society." (From "Capital")
There is an idea from social democrats and keynesians (liberal we call them in the US) that capitalism only works if there is a balance between the worker and the employer. But this is another contradiction of the capitalist system. So long as greed for profit is the sole motivator in an economy, those who have money will use it in pursuit of more. One way to do that is to try and break down whatever rights the workers may have, or find some workers with fewer already. Union busting in the West and outsourcing jobs are something that goes on everyday.

The market system is flawed, and in a most fundamental way. It is the fundamental nature of human competition that it must end. In history nations conquered each other, now corporations devour each, and in their mad pursuit for profit they will gladly drag us all down with them. They own our governments, they write our papers, indeed one would be hard put to find some aspect of life which capital has not squirmed its way into. And despite all the profits and the greed which we are told are good for the economy, capitalism has managed, in less than a century, to bring us back to the point at which we stood in the 1930’s. There is even evidence to show that it is worse. For example, the official unemployment statistic says that 8% of Americans are out of work. But this does not count people who are not looking for work, which drastically raises the unemployment rate. [4] Even worse for the average American is debt, which is now higher even than during the great depression.
Capitalism is collapsing, regardless of whatever the media says about “recovery”. Communism is the only way forwards, and only by creating a system where we produce for use with the goal of long term sustainability and the advancement of all of society can we truly move forwards. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leninist 2 years ago
Hm. William, I did understand that Subutai had said that I should make round 4 a bi-round, But I felt it made more sense to make round 2 one instead.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
I'll vote, after customer support shows me how to use my phone to get my voting rights.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
10 days isn't enough.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
You should have set the voting period at 1 month, 3 months, or 6 months if you want to get multiple voters.
Posted by Leninist 3 years ago
Do know of a way we could get more voters?
Posted by Leninist 3 years ago
Indeed, but this time in used citations.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
I just came from a similar debate with Mr. Leninist. Lol.
Posted by Leninist 3 years ago
They are these days. But I would not use them for an essay or something.
Posted by Viet 3 years ago
Wikipedia is very very reliable source! *lol*
Posted by Leninist 3 years ago
OK thanks for the help. That will be very useful in future.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
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: I was convinced by Pro because of his arguments on how capitalism helps create growth. His statistics on how it raises GDP per capita and economic growth helped him build a strong case for the debate. Con was unable to refute these arguments with the idea that capitalism is failing (which it isn't).
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides' arguments were subject to flaws. Many of con's objections to capitalism were based off of systems that deviate from pure capitalism; however, pro never points this out, failing to possibly argue that bad capitalism is better than any communism, missing this entirely from his round 4 defense of arguments, which were severely lacking. In general, pro's arguments were stronger, but he did not address con directly in either round 3 or round 4. However, not only did con misinterpret the debate structure, he failed to make his round 4 a bye round, making round 2 instead a bye round. Further, con's arguments had several spelling and grammar errors, as well as incorrect spacing between titles and paragraphs. For these reasons, I give conduct and S/G to pro, while I leave the arguments vote tied due to deficiencies from both sides.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall, a great debate. Both Pro and Con were able to adequately uphold their stance on the resolution. Spelling & grammar, conduct and use of sources is shared. Arguments are tricky: but I will choose whom I think has better presented their points. That would be Con. But I will give a point (through conduct) for Pro's outstanding competition.