The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Play Devil's Advocate! (4)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,690 times Debate No: 60652
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)





-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)
-The debate cannot be a one-round debate
-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10
-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued
-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating (with the exception of troll debates)
-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater (in other words, debates named "my opponent will contradict himself")
-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 2 votes on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less
-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable
-My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments
-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D
-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence, or the legalization of gay marriage. I already did those two topics.

Please read and follow the rules carefully, otherwise you'll get a full 7-point forfeit.

Good luck and have fun!



RESOLVED: Communism can work*


Communism- Is "when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."

Henceforth, the communism we will be talking about here is the anarchronistic communism advocated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Can-Possibly, in some situations

Work-The quality of being sustained for a long time, and also prosperous at the same time

Debate Round No. 1


(Remember, kc1999 is trying to say that communism will work while I say it won't, since he is playing devil's advocate)

Onto the arguments.
For one, communism violates human rights--people want their own private property, they would rebel because their rights are violated, as found in "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". [1] Furthermore it is immoral to violate such human rights to "(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others , and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." As stated forth by source [1]. This shows that private property is an important right of people that cannot be taken away. In fact, people hate communism so much, they've rebelled a gazillion times, as noted by source [2]. This is further supported by source [3], in which show the philosophies of Marxism, which although show that communists care about everything concerning the common people, this only takes away more rights of the people. In most communist societies, some people tend to be greedy, go against the law and take more than they are supposed to, still creating inequality--no matter how hard you work, you still gain the same exact money, taking away the incentive for education and skills, as suggested by source [4]. Masses of land-owners have rebelled against the infamous collectivation in the Soviets from 1928 and 1940. [11] The farmers died at the hands of executioners rather than wanting to be forced to work for the communists. When private farming was outlawed in China, so much people died that it was pretty much the most dangerous and deadly famine of all time. [12] In addition, source [4] also goes as far as to conclude reasonably that "economic productivity in communist societies declined and new “status”-based inequalities emerged where well-connected party elites enjoyed riches and leisure and ordinary workers did not." This shows how unfair a communist society is.

Communism is also very unfair. Millions of people have died to a communism government-- even just counting in the 20th century, more than 85 million people died as a result from communist rule. [5] Not only that, even though everyone seems to have the same status, there has to be someone still ruling over them. And thus, there has turned into only two classes, the lower class consisting of all the citizens, and the rulers who could be definitely considered the "upper class". As you can see, the class struggle isn't stopped here--it continues on.

Not only that, communism does not work. Once again, the revolutions point this out. And even without the revolutions, the economy collaspses. Due to Marxism depending on the "labor theory of value", [6] it turns out to be an oversimplification of the actual market, and many markets have actually collapsed when following Marxism prices, with source [7] explaining exactly why the Marx's theory fails, with three very important points:
"1.Overly intensive urban indus­trialization has so reduced manpower [longer] suffi­cient food to sustain the bloated cities.

2. The manpower drain .... in­supportable burden of con­sumer demand; the bureau­cratic overhead is simply crushing.

3. ...communist imperialism has withdrawn so many military and police from the productive labor force that...only women remain to do the actual work of national sup­ply and maintenance."
In fact, the Marxism theory fails so bad that source [7] gives a good example of Russia falling back to being a "backward, sec­ond-rate economic power, hope­lessly bogged down in Marxist theory" by 22 reports. The main reason is the lack of labor force--again, as I mentioned above, people lack incentive to work because everyone earns the same exact amount of money regardless of what job they work in. Moreover, Russia's economy was so bad that there was huge lack of soap for a moment in their worse times! [8]

Communism would also not work due to its ineffectiveness. It's pretty much destroying the environment ruthlessly and using up all the resources selfishly as one big body of working. [9] Why is it so? The economy is very ineffective, as noted above. Some of the population won't work at all. Most of the workers won't even try. They'll get money for not working. The slippery slope causes environment damage. How unthinkable! Meanwhile in capitalism, the economy is much better, which is why people don't use important rivers for irrigation within capitalist economies. In fact, research shows that free markets are far more effective than communist economies. [10] Because the communist economy is very ineffective, they cannot properly distribute the resources--once again contributing to my "environment damage argument".

And finally....communism violates human rights. "Wait, didn't you already say that?" You may say. You are right, yet you are wrong. You see, communism violates more human rights than just merely private property. It also violates their rights to the Pursuits of Happiness, an "unalienable right". [13] You see, people may want to own their own private property. Moreover, since I already proved communism destroys the incentives people have to work high-skilled jobs, it limits people's creativity. How'd I leap to that conclusion? Well, good voters, here's how I reach the conclusion: if people want to do something and be awarded greatly, only to be awarded as much as if they were doing something they hated, then it limits their creativity thought in at least some ways. Those people want a sense of accomplishment, but they didn't get it, and they are tempted to quit, thus limiting people's creativity thought.

-Communism limits people's rights--twice
-Communism is ineffective
-Communism is unfair
-Communism has failed many, many times
-Communism can NOT work.



Firstly, we would like to start with several axioms that we must hold true throughout this debate.

Axiom One: A Communist State is an oxymoron

Axiom Two: The USSR and the People’s Republic of China is not a Communist Society

Axiom Three: Monetary Values in a Communist Society is non-existent

With these axioms defined, we shall move on to establishing the common postulates of this debate.

Postulate One: That Industrial Output Capacity has been positively influenced by Heavy Capital

This postulate needs no defense; it is almost a truism. Due to the Industrial Revolution, there has been a huge increase in Industrial Output in all industries. The Russian Coal Industry has experienced one of these huge boosts from 1866 to 1902, in which, in 1866, 26 million tons of coal was produced; in 1902, 1005 tons of coal was produced.

Postulate Two: With the Increase in Heavy Capital Supply, Heavy Capital can be cheaper to make

This postulate is based upon the supply-demand theory; when someone introduces more of the same product into the same market, the price for that product reduces.

Postulate Three: Modern Machinery is still increasing Industrial Capacity Output

Modern machinery, more advanced than the machines of the 1800s, can increase Capital Outputs dramatically; accordingly, countries with higher equipment share scores has been shown to have higher TFP growth than other countries with fewer equipment share scores. Botswana has a 0.15 equipment share score, yet it has one of the highest TFP scores. Apart from this, from June 2006 to June 2013, rates of production doubled in China and also grew 64.9% in “developing Asia”. Modern machinery is clearly helping the workforce of these countries produce more capital in order to satisfy the world market.

With this said, I shall move onto my arguments.

1R1AC: On Manual Labor

The workingman is on the tethers of starvation; he works everyday, is alienated from his product, and yet he is paid horribly less. In fact, from a $100 dollar Nike Shoe, only 0.04$ of the profits made is given to the worker; manual labor is paid slavery. But we are now presented with a dilemma; what if manual labor was no longer needed? As it is clear from postulate one and three, machinery-based capital outputs is increasing. There is almost no doubt of this; it is increasing at such a high rate that human manual labor is not needed. Under capitalism, accordingly to Marx, workers are turned into objects that the capital uses in order to obtain their resources. However, imagine if all workers were replaced by automated machines; these automated machines would be two things. (1) It would be both more efficient in creating capital for the market, and (2) it would be much cheaper than hiring a group of people to do it.

With this being said, it would be correctly proven that soon, heavy machinery will overtake manual production of labor, and when this happens, soon the communist society will be achieved. Why? Because manual labor is the labor that creates class inequality. Class inequality persists because manual labor persists; the capitalist society is just a bridge between us, and communism. There have been three developments in society now; the slave society, in which the aristocracy was created, the feudal society which created the capitalists, and the capitalists which created the proletariat.

Under slave society, the aristocracy took control and created feudalism; under feudalism, the merchants took control and created capitalism. Capitalism, in this case, has created the proletariat and the proletariat shall lead the overthrow of the capitalist arrangement; however, this argument is based upon the fact that humans go through a cycle of differing systems; these systems are made possible by drastic human changes (slave-feudal transition made possible by power, feudal-capitalist transition made possible by money), and the change here is the Industrial Revolution, as the Industrial Revolution has led to the possible abandonment of manual labor.

1R2AC: On the Proletariat

Accordingly to Eric Hobsbwah, “the proletariat is a class created by the capitalist system, and this class will lead to the destruction of capitalism” Accordingly to the last paragraph, the stages of human society development is based on the needs for resources and the struggle between classes. The need for power led the aristocracy, which soon led to feudalism. Feudalism, due to the invention and creation of money, and the enforcement of it, created a class of money mongers, in which we called capitalists. These capitalists soon led to the next change of society; capitalism. Capitalism developed due to the fact that money was the basis of all societies, and merchants knew how to use this around the best. The factor that led to the transition to feudal power was power; feudal to capitalist money; capitalism to communism capital. Whoever controls the production of the capital will lead the world into a new stage of socioeconomic and political development. And the people who control that are the proletariat. [1]

It is clear that capitalism has done two things to the proletariat; (1) the proletariat was disciplined by the very capitalist arrangement that enslaved them, and (2) the capitalist arrangement intended to preserve the current system will be soon overthrown by the fact that control of the means of production are reducing. This is supported by the mere fact that the proletariat is increasing, and increasing fast. With this said, it is soon to be known that soon the whole world will be of one class; of the proletariat.

Under the society of the proletariat, there will be several changes; the proletariat will shake off the several yokes that have enslaved them; money, private property, and class. In the proletariat community, money will be abolished; this is seemingly improbable in the future, but this is not an impossible expression. Mindset comes before action; humans are adopting a very anti-capitalist expression in their environmental awareness. With this mindset, one would soon see that money might, or would be abolished. Under the proletariat arrangement, class will be abolished; this is already happening. Accordingly, social inequality has been decreasing since 2000, and albeit it is still at a high level. But the most important factor is this property analogy; albeit it has been strawman-ed by many anti-communists, private property is land and natural resources; resources that belong to the society. This is made sure by the fact that in countries like China, the public sector is larger than the private sector. [3]

Taking this into account, we must argue that economically, from both previous cases, we are heading towards a period of communism, a very huge change, in which the proletariat shall lead a change that humanity will forever remember!

1R4AC: On the State

As a Left-Hegelian, Marx believed in an idea of freedom that is mixed in with his hard-anti capitalist rhetoric. Hegel was a German philosopher who theorized in the fields of freedom. Accordingly to Hegel, freedom was achieved only when self-consciousness has been achieved. Marx included this into his anti-Capitalist rhetoric, adding that once workers are self-conscious about their struggle, they will prevail in the “capitalist-worker” fight. Freedom is necessary for stability and justice; but when are humans in a state of freedom? [2]

Humans are in freedom, accordingly to Hobbes, when human have the complete liberty to do anything. We are working towards this; the state has degenerated from an absolute one to a more anarchic one. Soon, as economic conditions (of 1R1AC) get better, the state will no longer need.

This argument shall be explained thoroughly during the next round.



[1] The Communist Manifesto-Karl Marx



Debate Round No. 2


Kc1999 makes very, very interesting arguments. I half-expected my opponent to immediately start attacking my arguments and crumbling them down to the ground like he did in the smoke-ban debate. However, he seems to have focused more on building his arguments rather than crushing mine, so I'll try to rebut his arguments the best I can.

1. Heavy capital/communism makes the industry more efficient?
My opponent seems to be confused and made a mistake. From 26 million tons to 1005 tons signifies a gigantic decrease, not increase. Anyhow, as we know, America is definitely not a communist country. Not that I know of. It is far more effective than Russia...


Furthermore, at maximum Russia can't reach even 300 million short tons...


While on the other hand the US can produce up to...

That's right...way way up high to almost 1,200 million short tons!!!
This only proves further that the US, a non-communist country, works far, far better than a communist country. Your truism/first prostulate is invalid.

2. Heavy capital can be cheaper to make with more supply
This point fails because if this point is true, then the US is far cheaper due to its absolute MASSIVE supply compared to Russia's tiny supply. Thus without communism stuff is even cheaper than kc1999 claims.

3. Modern Machinery
I'm not sure how this helps his argument. I'll check out the rest of his arguments and see if they work.

1. Manual Labor
Machines are much, much more expensive than hiring people. It is very very difficult to produce a lot of machines to keep up the work, and especially the maintainance fee, keeping the machines working and well is especially difficult to do. The communist government would have to hire people to maintain the machines anyways, which is quite counter-productive, because my opponent's argument works on how "people don't have to work", especially since the communism government isn't very efficient as pointed out in my previous round.

2. Whatever that word means
My opponent makes a very elaborate story plot and talks about the abolishment of money. I'm not sure how this helps to his argument. Anyhow, he then talks about how we're leading to a period of what? It won't work, as I already said. We're not discussing whether or not capitalism works, only whether or not communism works.

3. Random stuff about Marx
"Humans are in freedom, accordingly to Hobbes, when human have the complete liberty to do anything. "
Exactly. And what I said about pursuit of happiness? Can't do that in communism countries. Your manual labor argument goes against your freedom argument, because now people can't work due to machines doing everything for them.

Irrefuted arguments
-Right to pursuit of happiness (strengthened by my opponent's own manual labor argument)
-Communism's unfairness
-Communism does not work because it reduces manpower and withdraws military and police
-Communism is ineffective
-People have right to creativity
-The US, a non-communist country, works better and produces more supplies than Russia, a communist country (Thus the coal can be produced more cheaply due to the supply-and-demand theory as my opponent already talked about)

I suggest my opponent spend more time with his actual arguments rather than trying to construct truisms.
Back to you, Krit.


3R1ARC: Capital

The opponent is mistaken here; capital is not communism. In fact, capital is "preproduced goods" A capital is made by either two sources, capital itself and labor. With this said, we must give examples of capital, as the opponent is clearly mistaken; a car is capital, a book is capital, my computer is capital. A communist? Meh, not so much. Henceforth, the opponent's points about Coal in the United States seemingly proves my point, that heavy capital (machines) have a positive effect on capital outputs.

3R2ARC: Capital Expense

The opponent states that "machines are much more expensive" than hiring people, and it "is very difficult to produce a lot of machines" But here has to observe the fact that capital intensive industries, or at least, factories tend to do better than labor intensive ones; capital intensive production has increased profits (in a company) by 100%, due to the fact that capital intensive production allows for more capital to be produced at a lesser cost. Apart from this, labor-capital ratio is rising [1]; these factors correlate with the fact that capital outputs are increasing [2]. Capital investment is a one time investment; in places, like Japan, where the working class is set to be outnumbered by the elderly, using capital intensive porduction would allow for workers to be easily replaced with machines. Machines are much unlike people; they can do the same job, effectively and consistently, over a long period of time. When a machines breaks, the machine can be fixed; when a person breaks, replacing him would cost more. Using the example of Japan, the United States invested quite abit of money and capital into it during the Post-War era, and it is now one of the largest economies in the world.

3R3ARC: On the Proletariat

Here I am just pointing out the several conditions that would allow the transition to communism; the abolishment of the money-over-man mindset, lessening social inequality, and the demolishing of the powers of the state; I am not here to talk about how capitalism cannot work, but I am here to talk about the result of capitalism, which is to say the least, communism.

NOTE: The opponent takes many oxymorons as truths. "Communist government" "Communist nation" We shall see how this is fallacious against our definitions in a while.

3R4ARC: On Human Rights

What is human rights? These rights are several conditions that we humans were entitlted to via birth. These rights are natural born, and henceforth, shall be taken for granted. However, there comes a larger problem; does communism violate human rights? Communists hate private property. In a communist society, private property is non-existent, as it creates economic inequality. But what is private property in this case; it is definitely, so to say, not personal property. Private property, accordingly to Marx:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom.

This may sound enraging at first, but see through this:

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Karl Marx here makes a very important distinction between the two; private property is what creates inequality. Their is only one property that creates inequality, and that is, such commodities that nature has given man, but which has been privatized by men of worth; things like land, oil, natural resources. etc. These are the objects that nature has given us all to share, and should not be in the hands of few. These things also create economic inequality; the ownership of these objects often mean that people would be commanded by their "bosses" to do something. Private property is not the hard earner property on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is the means of production. The means of production shall be held in common.

3R5ARC: On Dissent shown under Socialist Governments

(Note that the opponent's second source outlines the communist revolutions) Ideally, this argument can be easily dismissed; communism has never been tried and successfully implemented once on this earth. Western political scientists, albeit they have called the governments of the Soviet Bloc and China "communists", know very well that these countries did not think themselves as communists, but socialists. When practicality is non-existent, one has to break down to theory; theory suggests that under communism, the people would be happy, creative and prosperous due to the fact that he no longer has to be alienated from his produced capital. This argument shall be extended in my next case.

3R6ARC: On Happiness, Imperialism and Fairness

It is ironic that opponent would use happiness as an argument against communism; communism is the free will at it's best state! Under the capitalist arrangement, free will exists only in name, as the worker is on the verge of starvation; he has to work not because he likes it, but because he is forced to. Apart from this, the capitalist arrangement limits creativity because the worker simply has to do one task; this limits his creativity, but increases productivity. UNDER communism, however, the worker is free to do whatever he likes; the concept of manual labor is now non-existent. Why so? Because capital intensive labor has taken control of all works done previously by manual labor; the worker henceforth works in some white collar job, and he is happy. Since there is an abundance of food in the communist society, since capital intensive production as stated via the first postulate of R1 (and justified in this round) can produce more than labor intensive.

So if a worker enjoys what he likes, then of course, he would go to work everyday; henceforth, this concept of laziness is non-existent. Then we come to talk about imperialism; imperialism is a horrible force, and many "communist" (in reality, socialist Stalinist countries) countries have pursued it; however, there are no nation-states under the communist ideal. Why so? Because the nation-state only exists as a tool for the bourgeios to control the proletariat; the nation-state only exists as a neccessary tool for the bourgeios to use against the masses. However, when both are non-existent, then of course, the nation state, like money, will be unneeded.

Now, we come to talk about the fair part; but what is fair? Whatever is fair, let us say, is just. Justice is easily defined; the Aristotelian view takes justice as "repaying debts and following contracts" However, we are to take the slightly modified Platonic view; "repaying debts and following contracts to those who deserve it" The worker is oppressed by the very production proccess of capitalism; he has to pay debts and follow contracts to those who do not deserve it, under the current arrangement. Is this just? No, but it is the process. Communism is the complete opposite of capitalism; under communism, money will be non-existent. Money oppresses everyone; the liberation from money would henceforth cause the people to be truly free.


The opponent cannot call witnesses against something that has not been tried yet; if the opponent object, I await him to name a community within the last 100 years, who has achieved a classless, stateless, moneyless, society. When practicality is non-existent, one has to fall to theory.

Apart from this, we are talking about possibility; this argument shall be expanded in my next round.


Debate Round No. 3


Final round.
" is not communism." Therefore my opponent has wasted time randomly talking about capital, since if it has a positive effect, and capital =/= communism, then communism does not have this positive effect that capital creates. Ineffective argument.

" ...factories tend to do better than labor intensive ones" Okay, but there's still the problem of paying people to do absolutely nothing, which is pretty darn hard. And what about keeping the machines intact, working? Changing the power supply when needed? You still need to hire maintanance people...

The human rights: Means of production eh? Well people have the rights to pursuit happiness via producing goods to supply their family. Means of production=pursuit of happiness. Without private property people cannot pursuit their happiness with businesses or whatnot. In addition my opponent has failed to show how human rights to creativity are not violated.

"communism has never been tried and successfully implemented once on this earth"
Exactly. That just shows every politicial and ruler knows it will never ever work.
--But again I'm confused. Is Russia not a communist country?

"theory suggests that under communism, the people would be happy, creative and prosperous due to the fact that he no longer has to be alienated from his produced capital."
What the heck. You just said that with machines coming, people won't have to work, therefore they will become alienated from the work force. Seriously Krit?

Twisting the odds upon me by saying in communism lets people have free will: The problem here is too much free will. This only helps my argument about communism being ineffective, since people can do absolutely nothing and still get money.
People don't work because they don't have to--> Less production for the government --> Destroying of environment and less hand-out--> Less people work because they have even less money than before--> More destroying of environment to balance hand-out--> People of eco-friendly protestors start complaining and stop working--> Communism starts to collapse and less money to people--> People start work strikes and rebel--> Communism fails

-Communism is very unfair because people have died under rule of communism government, and the class struggle continues on regardless of the rules and the lay-out of communism
-Communism is still very ineffective (Because people can get stuff by doing absolutely nothing), and it damages the environment
-Communism still limits people's creativity/incentive to work
-People still have rebelled against communist societies (See round 2 arguments), showing that in fact they do think communism violates their human rights
-Not everyone is equal... (see round two)
"economic productivity in communist societies declined and new “status”-based inequalities emerged where well-connected party elites enjoyed riches and leisure and ordinary workers did not." [4]
-US has an extremely effective coal production system, the best in the world, and it does not work under a system of communism

You lose, kc1999.



Propositions Under 1ARC on Capital

1. Capital intensive labor is one of the most effective ways of production in the world; opposition's statement is based on a misunderstanding of my whole argument, which I have made so clear.

1.1 Opposition states that if capital =/= communism, ∴ argument has been invalid because communism is not mentioned anywhere; however, in affirming that such a statement like this, one has to look at the status-quo conditions. Status-quo conditions states that people are producing more and more through capital-intensive production.

1.11 If anyone does not understand how "truths" can be shown via proving the opposite of the predicate (capitalism), then one must see that one of our assented proposition held throughout this debate is based upon the fact that humans go through many "stages" of development

1.2 Capital intensive production is producing in an efficient manner; soon, manual labor will be abolished due to the abundance of neccesary capitals.

1.3 When the abundance of heavy capital is established, "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen" shall be established.

∴ Communism can be created due to the abundance of neccesary "capitals"

Propositions Under 2ARC on Means of Production and "Happiness"

2.1 Oppositions takes postulates of "work day, eat night" mentality. Or, acccording to Keynes, "the real wage of an employed person is that which is just sufficient (in the estimation of the employed persons themselves) to induce the volume of labour actually employed to be forthcoming"

2.11 It has come to my understanding that this postulate must be shown wrong; I shall do so via a critique of capitalist wage systems. Workers get paid accordingly to how much they produce; their capital. However, often times, this is the "minimum wage" The minimum wage may be high in just places, and low in unjust places. Some workers do adopt "work day, eat night" mentality, but this mentality is not driven from the need to feed his family, but the need to satisfy his own senses.

2.2 The opponent's propositions on the "pursuit of happiness" via satisfying family may be true on the surface, but in reality, it is not. This maybe shown by the employment of the happiness formula, but using pure inductive logic, happiness is base from several social and personal factors; social factors include (a) social environment, (b) voluntary activities, whilst personal factors include (a) biological basis, (b) personal satisfaction. Social factor values maybe high, but personal factor values will be low, for it is nature of men to seek his own wants.

2.21 But many may object that communists want to abolish personal property; they are incorrect. Communists want to abolish the property which aleniates the worker from the capital, which is private property. Private property is to be said to have the abilities to make capital; personal property is for one's consumption.

2.3 Means of production is not the pursuit of happiness; means of production is the pursuit of money. For does a worker work for the sake of producing the capital, or for earning his wages; does a miner mine for the sake of mining, or for the pursuit of money? Clearly, in both cases, the latter is the case; this is the same. Does the capitalist control private property for the sake of controlling it, or for earning money? The latter satisfies this question. Earning money is not neccesarily happiness; many can say that money cannot directly buy happiness. However, this is not always the case, for if the maker of the money uses it for unjust purposes, then I affirm to you that he cannot be happy. Such was the case of former Thai PM Thaksin, who is exiled from his lands due to the unjust obtaining of money. I affirm that the capitalist himself is not happy at seeing his follow mortal suffer; we humans are easily turned to be pitied for; we do not enjoy the seeing of our kinsmen suffer.

2.4 But it has to be henceforth shown that the ownership of private property is immoral; some men were henceforth born to work, whilst others are born to control. However, a change in mindset due to new epistemological methods are producing humans that are psychologically "superior" to older generations. If this trend continues, there will be more workers against nature than workers by nature; henceforth, if the ownership of private property is moral, then it would have to be shown that there are more workers who work for the sake of working, not for the sake of producing money.


1. Opposition defines private property as personal, but then defines it as the means of production.
2. Opposition states things about the maintanance of machines; it has to be shown that machines can be maintained by programmers and computer engineers, who actually do their job for the sake of doing it, not for the sake of gaining money.

∴ The ownership of the means of production cannot create happiness.

Propositions Under 3ARC on Human Rights

3.1 Anarchy is the original state where humans have the most rights. Under anarchy, all rights are respected.

3.2 Opp. has stated that this side has not shown how rights to creativity are protected and respected; as affirmed, workers work for the sake of making money under the capitalist arrangement. This is no creativity; gaining money is not creativity. Workers do not work for the sake of working; they abhor work. They hate their bosses; they are never satisfied. This is shown by the amount of trade and labor protection agencies around the world.

3.3 Under communism, workers work for the sake of working; workers, who under the capitalist system might have become miners, now work as artisans, as they enjoy craftsmenship. Workers, who under the capitalist system might have become industrial factory workers, now (under communism) can become musicians, as there is no need to worry about starvation as "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen" is satisfied.

3.4 If workers work for the sake of working, then they would be more happy, and in the process of doing so, more creative.

∴ The human right of creativity is respected

Propositions Under 4ARC on Alienation

4.1 Alienation is caused by the separation between the worker and his product; alienation creates a negative effect on the man, because this proves that he works because it is his duty to be the breadwinner of his family; henceforth, he is unhappy, but has to work. This is capitalism.

4.2 Alienation is solved whent the separation between the worker and his product ceases; mild alienation may be acceptable. But for a man and his capital to not be separated, there has to be a change; workers have to work for the sake of working. And this comes with the understanding that machines will be able to provide a basis for human society.

4.3 If machines provide men with all the neccessary capitals, and a abundance of them, then human society would become prosperous and third contention would be satisfied.

∴ Communism abolishes alienation and creates human happiness

Propositions Under 5ARC as an Appendix

5.1 Oppositions points on deaths because of class struggle and communist governments is false; as present in the axioms, communism is the stateless. It is freedom.

5.2 Opposition talks about communist rebellions; the only rebellions against communism is when that rebellion will re-establish tyranny.

5.3 Opposition talks about equality; not everyone is equal under communist society. However, he cites a socialist society.

5.4 The US has no say in this debate, as we are talking about possibility, not neccesity.

5.41 Modal realism; in some universes, communism can work. Modal realism proves resolution easily; communism can work is no proposition like 4=2.

5.42 On opponent's hypothetical situation; first step is already fallacious. Communism can only be created when production rates are guranteed due to the fact that capital-intensive production has taken over labor-intensive production. Communism, henceforth, can "work" and will.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
@Endarkened: how could you find that abusive? This debate was based on modal realism from the "can" statement. Apart from that, I have to disagree with your vote, as it states that "private property belongs to the state" which makes no sense, as I am more than sure that I stated that "private property" was to be in common, or to be abolished.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
@debatability srs do it, not like my Global Warming Debate
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
ohhh this looks interesting. i'll totally vote.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
still tied... -.-
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Love the setup! ... However on this issue I have too much bias in the instigator previously known as pro's favor. Had I more time this week I might try to grade the arguments, but I am fresh out due to starting school.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
;< I don't care about communism. Sowwie fellas. <3
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
lol, sure.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
I affirm that you can be better than me, simply by restoring your self confidence.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
true, I suppose.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
@9space, you my friend, need to stop overestimating people. Confidence; that is all you need.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I will be honest, I came here expecting 9spaceking to be trampled, crushed and utterly destroyed. I was pleasantly surprised, Nye has shown himself to be a capable, and strong debater. I see him easily beating me in a politics debate, and even being able to put up a fight against whiteflame (though losing horribly). As for this debate, seeing as how it was for me very close, and this is not my forte I hold off voting. Krit was, as always, a good debater. I do not think I can give an absolutely fair vote here though. Happy to clarify this rfd.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. I liked seeing both sides try as devil's advocate - especially Krit. However, I think I will have to award points to PRO for a few reasons. Firstly, CON introduced the entirely new argument of modal realism in the last round, which I find abusive. I award PRO the conduct points for that. However, CON also failed to refute several of PRO's contentions - such as the violation of the right to property. While many of PRO's arguments did not really relate to communism (Russia was not communist, nor was China), the core tenet of the abolition of private property remained. CON's only response was that private land was the state's, but as this was a neutral statement, devoid of benefits or drawbacks, it did not advance CON's case. Arguments go to PRO.