The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

People planning to buy a new car who belive in capitolism should buy a Ford not a Chrysler or GM car

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
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,942 times Debate No: 8589
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (13)

 

sadolite

Pro

As I watch our Govt nationalize and socialize and subsidize virtually every aspect of our lives, I have come to the conclusion that capitalism can not and will not survive much longer, but then again that is most likely the plan in the first place. I can not prove that capitalism is under attack but actions speak louder than words and I see nothing that the current administration is doing with regard to economics that even resembles capitalism.

Ford has played by the rules. Ford has not accepted any kind of bail out. With GM and Chrysler about to receive a never ending bottomless pit of taxpayer money to prop them up indefinitely regardless of whether or not they make cars people want and buy puts Ford in an impossible position to compete. Ford has to make cars that people want and Ford has to make cars that people will buy or they will go bankrupt do to lack of profit. GM and Chrysler on the other hand don't have to worry at all. They will make what ever the Govt tells them to. If it is a complete failure so what, The govt isn't going to let them go under. But poor old Ford, they have to play by the rules or they are dead. There will be no bailout for Ford, they will just disappear and all that will be left is govt run GM and Chrysler. You will be forced to buy what ever they make regardless of whether you like it or not.

Buying a Ford will keep freedom of choice alive in the auto industry. Buying a Ford will reward Ford for playing by the rules. Buying a GM or Chrysler is rewarding failure. Buying a Ford will send a message to govt that we don't want what some self serving self righteous pampas politician thinks we should drive car. Ford deserves to be rewarded for sticking it out and not taking the easy road like GM and Chrysler. If Americans who believe in freedom of choice and capitalism want the auto industry in America to make cars they want, buy a Ford. Buy a GM or Chrysler and promote socialism and the govt takeover of all auto industries. Ford can't compete against a govt owned business with a never ending bottomless pit of money. It is unfair, UN-American and anti capitalist to allow GM and Chrysler this disgusting and vile advantage over Ford.
mongoose

Con

Capitalism: "an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled for profit rather than by the state." [1]

Why do you believe that capitalism will not survive? If it dies, then it will be reborn once people realize its benefits over whatever other option they have come up with. It will never be truly gone.

You say that Ford has played by the rules. They have. But what does that have to do with it? In a capitalist society, people buy whatever car they believe is the best deal for them. If a capitalist thinks that a GM or Chrysler car is a better deal than a Ford car, then he or she should buy the GM or Chrysler car. The other question is whether or not we should give them bailouts. We shouldn't. But as long as our tax money is going into these cars, why not buy it? It's not like it makes much of a difference. That is what capitalism is about: Getting the most profit.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

"You say that Ford has played by the rules. They have. But what does that have to do with it? In a capitalist society, people buy whatever car they believe is the best deal for them."

Con concedes that Ford is based on capitalism and not and not a ward of the state.

I never said anyone had to buy a Ford, I said if you believed in capitalism you should. A person who believes in capitalism will not promote socialist state run business and expect capitalism to survive. Capitalism can not compete against Socialism. Socialist state run business can never fail no matter how incompetent or how inferior a product it makes. It can never run out of money, the govt will just continue to pump money in it forever. Car companies that practice business under capitalism must produce cars that people will buy or they will go out of business. Con states that if it is a better deal then a consumer should buy what ever they want. Of course they can. What con fails to explain is how a company that has to play by the rules of capitalism and another one doesn't is capitolism. A business can't compete against another business that does not have to show a profit to stay in business. If you don't have to show a profit to stay in business then you can under cut the competition all day long. You can't expect the choice that capitalism brings if you force businesses that function under capitalism to compete with businesses that dont have to. All that will be left is govt state run business and you will buy what ever a politician wants you to buy. Buying from GM and Chrysler is your choice "now." When people see that they are undercutting Ford on every level, everyone will buy a GM or Chrysler as con stated and of course putting Ford out of business leaving only a Govt run pile of crap, endless money pit, rat hole that the tax payer will have to pay for for ever. And once this happens quality will not matter, choice won't matter and what you want as a consumer really wont matter most of all. You will drive what the govt decides you will drive. There is absolutely no pressure on Chrysler and GM to make a profit. There is no fear of anyone ever being laid off and there is no incentive to be innovative or produce cars that people like at Chrysler and GM. Ford has all of these nooses hanging around their neck and must produce a profit in order to stay in business. The end result for Ford is as sure as the sun coming up in the morning. Once Chrysler and GM start making their gov't subsidised cars, Ford will go out of business. Not because of capitalism and the free market that my opponent seems to think will be the case but because of socialist gov't interference in the free market. So yes buy a GM buy a Chrysler but don't expect capitalism to survive. If you do, don't cry about it when it doesn't. It is impossible for competing car companies to compete when one of them has no rules and an endless supply of money. Capitalism absolutely positively dictates this. There is not a single instance where a country that was capitalist that went Socialist ever returning to capitalism. Freedom disappears once a country goes full blown Socialist. The power shifts from the people to the privileged few in gov't and they will hold on to power for ever. Con seems to think it is just a matter of "Oh socialism didn't work we will just go back to capitalism." It doesn't work that way. Have you ever seen anything taken away by govt and given back to the entity it was taken from. Have you ever seen the govt release control of something it took control of. Huge burocracies will be built around GM and Chrysler. It will be impossible to return it to the private sector and be made to operate under capitalism. The argument that this wont happen does not work anymore, the slippery slope argument can't be dismissed anymore, there is overwhelming evidence that govt is taking over all of Americas largest industries and socializing them. My source is the evening news any day of the week any network you care to watch. Buying a GM or a Chrysler is like putting a nail in the coffin of capitalism.
mongoose

Con

My opponent is pretty much saying that because GM and Chrysler are government-run, they will be able to beat Ford and give everybody bad deals. The thing about a capitalist society is that once this happens, another company will be able to come in with better goods and sell them. The logic behind capitalism is that people get to buy whatever they want if they think that it is a good deal. So it's not that they should buy a Ford, it's that they should buy whatever they want. That's the great thing about America.

They probably don't want to buy one though, seeing as they have so many less people, and eventually government is going to have to let it die.

http://money.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

"The logic behind capitalism is that people get to buy whatever they want if they think that it is a good deal."

The logic behind capitalism is cons definition of capitalism: Capitalism: "an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled for profit rather than by the state." Con has completely failed to explain how capitalism can survive against socialism. Some businesses have to operate under the rules of capitalism and some don't? How is that capitalism. Capitalism isn't about choice. Choice exists because of capitalism. choice is a bi-product of capitalism. Con concedes that Ford will go out of business he also concedes that it wont be because of capitalism.

"The thing about a capitalist society is that once this happens, another company will be able to come in with better goods and sell them."

Ya if they are going to compete against another company that has to play by the same rules. No one will even attempt to start a new auto company and try to compete against a govt run company that can never run out of money. Ford is already an established auto maker, It already has all of it's tooling in place. You have to risk your own money to start a business under capitalist rules. con does not understand even the most basic principles of capitalism and how it works. IT is impossible to sustain capitalism when the playing field is completely lopsided to one entity. Con needs to explain how this works and how it measures up to his definition of capitalism. He needs to explain how it is advantageous to capitalism and how it will flourish under these rules of one business gets unlimited resources and never has to worry about anything and the other one is saddled with having to come up with it's own money, make products that people will buy, manage budgets and costs, deal with all of the logistics of managing a business at a profit and on and on and on. Ya that's capitalism. The "new" form of capitalism I guess. Con misses the mark.

"eventually government is going to have to let it die." No govt is going to force it out of business using a completely unfair and vantage of unlimited resources. Again con completely misses the mark with regard to capitalism. Anyone who believes in and understands capitalism can see this heinous atrocity being waged against private industry.

Con would have you believe that this is fair and pro capitalism. He would have you believe that giving one entity all the advantages of endless govt subsidies promotes competition and choice. How can anyone planing to start a new auto company possibly succeed against a govt run business that can never fail and undercut them at every level? Once ford is gone that is it. No more choice You buy a GM or a Chrysler or you buy foreign there will be no choice in American made cars. It will be a govt auto or nothing. Foreign auto makers face the same fate as ford as they to have to play by the rules and they will all fall lock step and barrel as they to will also be undercut and forced out of business and then what choice will you have.
mongoose

Con

The logic behind something is not necessarily its definition. The logic behind cheese is not "the curd of milk separated from the whey and prepared in many ways as a food."

http://dictionary.reference.com...

After Obama's term runs out, we will have a better president, one who we can hope will let the company die. People are going to realize how wasteful this is, and choose somebody who knows what he or she is doing.

"Con needs to explain how this works and how it measures up to his definition of capitalism. He needs to explain how it is advantageous to capitalism and how it will flourish under these rules of one business gets unlimited resources and never has to worry about anything and the other one is saddled with having to come up with it's own money, make products that people will buy, manage budgets and costs, deal with all of the logistics of managing a business at a profit and on and on and on."

No, I don't.

"No govt is going to force it out of business using a completely unfair and vantage of unlimited resources. Again con completely misses the mark with regard to capitalism. Anyone who believes in and understands capitalism can see this heinous atrocity being waged against private industry."

This is largely irrelevant to the debate at hand, but oh well. The government doesn't have to "force" GM or Chrysler out of business. They can do that on their own.

"Con would have you believe that this is fair and pro capitalism."

No, I wouldn't.

"He would have you believe that giving one entity all the advantages of endless govt subsidies promotes competition and choice."

No, I don't.

"How can anyone planning[sic] to start a new auto company possibly succeed against a govt run business that can never fail and undercut them at every level?"

Because we would have a better government who learns from mistakes. I hope.

My opponent is arguing that people who believe in capitalism, a system in which people buy what they want to, should buy a specific car over another. That is against the concept. You're saying that people who believe one thing should follow a different thing. It doesn't work that way. I just think that people should buy what they want. You're making this argument what it's not.
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

"The logic behind cheese is not "the curd of milk separated from the whey and prepared in many ways as a food."

Con equates capitalism to the process of making cheese? con also considers the rules by which capitalism function are also irrelevant but anyone who intends to invest must operate by them so how can they be irrelevant.

"After Obama's term runs out, we will have a better president, one who we can hope will let the company die. People are going to realize how wasteful this is, and choose somebody who knows what he or she is doing."

Cons assumption that we will have a better President is pure conjecture and wishful thinking. It does nothing to support his argument. As far as I know and hear Obama is the greatest President that ever lived, he has been compared to God. What makes con think Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It is very possible that it is Obama's plan to drive Ford out of business and create a govt monopoly of the auto industry and nationalize it so it can dictate what kinds of cars will be built from now on based on what govt policy wonks think is best for you.

Con fails to explain how capitalism is to survive if some businesses are forced to play the rules of capitalism and others are afforded a bottomless pit of money with no risk of going out of business.

The government doesn't have to "force" GM or Chrysler out of business. I thought Gm and Chrysler had to stay in business? Or the entire economy would collapse. Which is it.

"Con would have you believe that this is fair and pro capitalism."

No, I wouldn't. Then what would you have us believe?

"He would have you believe that giving one entity all the advantages of endless govt subsidies promotes competition and choice."

No, I don't. Then what does promote competition and capitalism?

How can anyone planning[sic] to start a new auto company possibly succeed against a govt run business that can never fail and undercut them at every level?"

Because we would have a better government who learns from mistakes. I hope. Con Hopes. This does nothing to advance his argument.

Con "hopes" it will all go away. Not a very convincing argument.
mongoose

Con

"Con equates capitalism to the process of making cheese? con also considers the rules by which capitalism function are also irrelevant but anyone who intends to invest must operate by them so how can they be irrelevant."

By certain logic, one can equate anything to anything. The rules can be irrelevant when they are not what this debate is about.

"Cons assumption that we will have a better President is pure conjecture and wishful thinking. It does nothing to support his argument. As far as I know and hear Obama is the greatest President that ever lived, he has been compared to God. What makes con think Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It is very possible that it is Obama's plan to drive Ford out of business and create a govt monopoly of the auto industry and nationalize it so it can dictate what kinds of cars will be built from now on based on what govt policy wonks think is best for you."

What, are you saying that it is possible to have a worse one? Oh no....

If that is Obama's plan, then there is little we can do to stop it for the next several years. We can only HOPE that these bills are not passed.

"Con fails to explain how capitalism is to survive if some businesses are forced to play the rules of capitalism and others are afforded a bottomless pit of money with no risk of going out of business."

The pit is not bottomless. It only lasts as far as it takes for us to realize that Obama's plans are stupid. Once that happens, the pit has a bottom: the top.

Capitalism would bounce back once the people realize that it's better.

"The government doesn't have to 'force' GM or Chrysler out of business. I thought Gm and Chrysler had to stay in business? Or the entire economy would collapse. Which is it."

What? If GM or Chrysler went out of business, then life would continue. We should let them die.

"No, I wouldn't. Then what would you have us believe?"

You're PRO. I'm CON. You just tried to defend yourself against one of your own questions. I never said you did anything. I would like you believe that capitalists should buy what they want, no matter what it is.

"No, I don't. Then what does promote competition and capitalism?"

You're answering questions you asked me. Why? Greed and need promote capitalism, which promotes competition.

"Because we would have a better government who learns from mistakes. I hope. Con Hopes. This does nothing to advance his argument."

That's what you said, not me. Are you debating me, or are you trying to debate yourself? I can't refute arguments you make against yourself.

"Con 'hopes' it will all go away. Not a very convincing argument."

Don't you hope it will go away? Besides, this is irrelevant.

In conclusion, by the very concept of capitalism, capitalists should buy what they want. End of story. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
"The thing about a capitalist society is that once this happens (the government presents an option), another company will be able to come in with better goods and sell them. The logic behind capitalism is that people get to buy whatever they want if they think that it is a good deal."

No, that's called socialism.

And if you agree with this ideology, why are you against health care?

Haha that is NOT capitalism; how do you suppose the government will be able to produce an option? Uh, taxes. Did you even think this out?!
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
OH just great, now I have heard it all. Not only is the gov't handing out $4000 in it's cash for clunkers scam on the tax payer, now we as taxpayers are going to shell out another $4500 for a total of $8500 for every new GM or Chrysler sold. Now I defy anyone anywhere to tell me how Ford is suppose to compete when the gov't is giving Chrysler and GM an additional $4500 in incentives to buy their cars but not Ford. This country is going down the sh## hole people and If this isn't proof enough that the Govt is trying to nationalize the auto industry you will never get it or it is exactly what you want. I will never f##king buy a GM or Chrysler I wouldn't even take one if they gave it to me. I hope that those f##king companies are desroyed by every act of nature imaginable.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
"There is nothing about Capitalism that prohibits a good capitalist from using their buying power to exert pressure." UHH, I as a tax payer now own part of GM and Chrysler and I don't want anything to do with it. But I have to own it and I cant sell my share to a tax payer that does. Now that's what I call capitalism!!
Posted by magpie 7 years ago
magpie
Govt. will not/can not allow itself to fail. GM will be forced to survive no matter how poorly it performs. That gives strtegic advantage to GM, because the consumer through subsidization has made the Chevy less expensive at the dealership, though it may be far more expensive to the taxpayer. Subsidized enterprises always win over the unsubsidized.
Watch out for Obamacare. It will have the same disastorous effect as the govt. run auto industry.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Adam Smith did write Wealth of Nations & the invisible hand was made famous by that publication, but it didn't originate there. Adam Smith also advocated Capitalist theory in several of his works.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"Why not move away from Capitalism? Oh wait, we've never been even close to Adam Smith's theory, so we can't really say we're losing Capitalism."

He's the guy who wrote Wealth of Nations, correct? Are you talking about the "invisible hand?"
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
RFD:

Before: Con
After: Con
Conduct: Tied
Sp/Grammar: Con ("capitolism")
Arguments: Tied
Sources: Con

There are so many ways that Mongoose could have separated himself from sadolite & won this that I can't even recount them all here, but he never really did. It's clear that Pro's grasp of capitalist & socialist theory is not adequate to the task he's trying to accomplish, but Con never actually bothers to exploit any of this. So, in terms of being convinced, there wasn't really much here. Pro presents an entirely unrealistic socialist takeover scenario of the auto industry. But, there was never a slam dunk response to this. Not only that, but while a free market is inherent to Capitalism, capitalists use their buying power to influence markets all the time. Any boycott example will do here (apartheid, civil rights, any old economic sanction, etc., etc., etc.). There is nothing about Capitalism that prohibits a good capitalist from using their buying power to exert pressure. In fact, that's what Capitalism is all about. For Con to win on this, he had to do a way better job of warranting the argument.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Why not move away from Capitalism? Oh wait, we've never been even close to Adam Smith's theory, so we can't really say we're losing Capitalism.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
I 100% agree with you Sadolite IMO captalism is already dead in the auto sector, and no, mongoose Americans will NOT learn from their mistakes we never have learned. What makes you think we will just suddenly wake up next election? The war against capitalism has been years in the making dating back to the establishment of a central run bank. We, never learn though. People said nobody could be worse then George W. Bush, that of course was a very foolish statement and so is the idea that we will get a better president next time around. The chances are is that we will end up getting more of the same or worse on either party ticket. This country still has capitalism in it but trust me it will come crashing down if Americans do not wake up within the next 3 years.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
1. They are both nouns.
2. Both of their definitions are not the logic behind them.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
sadolitemongooseTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
sadolitemongooseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
sadolitemongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by magpie 7 years ago
magpie
sadolitemongooseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
sadolitemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
sadolitemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
sadolitemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
sadolitemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by HalakMushareff 7 years ago
HalakMushareff
sadolitemongooseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
sadolitemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06