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

Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/17/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 44184
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




First round acceptance.
Second round debate.

Rules are simple: You simply have to prove that you are a better anti-communist than the other person, and you win.
Debate Round No. 1


The Commie swines and scums have attempted to break the back of the proletariat by introducing the movement of the bourgeoisie! The Commies are the real bourgeoisie! The Communist Bourgeoisie class which attempts to harass the working class shall die in the flames of agony. Stalin was a bourgeoisie swine, coming from an aristocratic family and he now attempts to influence his dirty hands to the free workers, or the almost free worker. The Far-Left Communists have failed to improve anything and have only succeeded in freeing the class that it secretly loves the most, the bourgeoisie! In their ranks, there are only anarchist and liberals who want the worst for the nation! Is this not a clear indicator that communism will only destroy the world!

In third world countries, aristocratic communist pigs have always attempted to seduce the working class into one of it's foolish propaganda. Meanwhile, trade unionists and social democrats warned the workers about the impending advance of Aristocratic Communism into their soil; they call them comrades and they attempt to unite the world, but in reality, they are part of a greater conspiracy, organised by someone, to rule the world and trick the proletariat into following there movement blind!

The Working Men deserves to be free to work on his own will, and on his own pace, but the Communist Oppressors attempt to impose this system that has for so long been obsolete to the world, and we will keep it obsolete. Communism will go down the well, but it's scars will remain forever, unless we thoughtfully improve worker's conditions.


First of all, I want to thank KC for doing this debate with me. In this round, rather than addressing any of his points, I will simply explain why I am anti-Communist.

I believe in many things that are the polar opposites of Communist ideology. First and foremost, I believe in Capitalism. As Communism argues for the lack of private ownership of property, while Capitalism promotes the lack of government involvement in the economy, it is impossible for one to be both Capitalist and Communist. Communists believe that the government can allocate resources and goods as it chooses (whether it be equally or not). On the other hand, I believe that the economy should be controlled by laissez-faire free markets, in which the government has no role.

If the government were to allocate resources and if there were no private property, what would the incentive be to work? A classic story that demonstrates this is a professor deciding to average the test scores of everyone in the class and give each student the average. To make a long story short, they all fail. While the tale has no clear origin and is attacking Socialism, the same principle (that people are less willing to work without a tangible benefit) applies to Communism.

Finally, I believe in freedom of speech. While a lack of freedom of speech is not inherent in Communism, many Communist countries, including China, have severely restricted freedom of speech, as the government generally has more power in these countries. Also, what Communist countries, other than China, which has a substantial amount of underground Capitalism, have succeeded?

I look forward to hearing your next argument.
Debate Round No. 2


The opponent seems to have a murky knowledge of communism, and what it really is. Firstly, I would like to define several terms:

1. Communism: A classless, stateless, moneyless self-administering society

The opponent states things about oppression, but in a self administering society like that of communism, where would the oppression come from?

2. Private Property (Marxism): Private Enterprises in general

Therefore, if Private Property is Private Enterprises, how could the worker not have any incentive for work?

Now, with some terms defined, I would like to add that all the points the opponent has given me, I have to accept, as we anti-communists must create a brotherhood against the devil that commonly launches attacks on our almost utopic society.

Instead of attacking my opponent's points, I shall do the same thing he does: explain my views on communism.

The working man is the backbone of the nation; any nation. The working man produces, sustain, and is relied upon to create a greater good and benefits for the nation. However, the working man faces a popular dillema: either work, and get society's support, or do not work, and do not get society's support. If they work, they face society's support, but low pay. If they do not work, they do not get society's support.

In 1848, some socially phobic aristocrats and high living bourgeoisie decided to write a manifesto to attempt to seduce the workers into a dream, so they could shut their mouths up. Karl Marx, a son of a government official, and Engels, a son of a capitalist factory owner, decided that they could stop their workers from complaining about the system by luring them into another system, which would destroy the working class: why?

1. The Communist Society is an Obsolete Society

In early Christianity, Christian societies seemed to have practice a simple form of communism. According to the book On Politics by Alan Ryan (pg 207: The Justification for Private Property), they seemed to have put all their property on a pool table, and the inhabitants of that community would come and take what they needed: this practice is known as mutual aid, and is endorsed by the modern left, but much more by anarchists than communists. However, once institutions of worship were created, the need for private property grew. Churches soon grew by the need to expand and be bigger and better than many other churches. Soon, the Papacy arose: from taking things at the pool table to an enormous theological organization that claims to be the messengers and the direct sons of god shows the path of all communist society: private property is human nature. The opponent claims that communists do not care about our property, but yet Marxist doctrines show that they do: they care about the land we own, they care about our children, they care about where we live, and they care about how we live. Under communism, all land and property is held in common. Is that not theft to a point? That only propels my point: private property is human nature. In all attempted communist societies, there have been inequalities. People taking more than what they need is the exact reason for the rise of more powerful institutions, such as the case of the Papacy, and in other institutions too: the rise of the government itself can be seen as a development of primitive communism, where everything was held in common. In both Christian and Primitive communism, we can see one prime way: years of practicing mutual aid and/or communism cannot lead to a classless moneyless stateless community that Marx and Engels are advocating for. Years of practicing mutual aid and communism can only lead to the establishment of a government, of a state, and of a institution that could claim legitimacy over ruling. This makes communism totally obsolete in this world (it also makes it unsustainable), as it is a primitive way of organizing the society, and it lead to the governing systems that we have now. This makes in inapplicable to current human society, because through communism, we have led the world into the path of what it is now: governments and capitalism. We cannot reverse that trend. Humanity will never advance backwards, but would only advance forwards, forwards to the path of being more complex, not simpler. To the path of being more human, and less animal. To the path of being more civilized, and less barbaric. Is it not clear that communism was built for those who do not understand human society thoroughly, whose human nature aren't fully developed yet? Communism will only destroy humanity and it's innovation.

I support reformation within the capitalist system. I hope you all do to.

Workers, unite for the fatherland against communism!


In this round of the debate, I will rebut some of the points that Pro has made.

I would like to note that my opponent defined Communism as "A classless, stateless, moneyless self-administering society". However, in his Round 2 argument, he argued that the problem with Communism was that it was secretly helping entrench the bourgeois class. In essence, he is arguing in favor of a classless society, or at least one in which class plays a reduced role. On the other hand, I support the free markets in their entirety, something that a Communist government, that wants private property not to exist, would hate.

One key thing for this debate is to look at both of our stances on issues. Kc1999 self-identifies as a member of the National Socialist Movement (as of this posting). While National Socialism is not Socialism in its true sense (nor is Socialism quite the same as Communism), he does exemplify many anti-Capitalist sentiments. He lists himself as Con with respect to free trade and Pro to social programs, welfare, and minimum wage, all of which add to the government's control of the economy and bring us slightly closer to Communism. He also says that, in a Capitalist society, "workers are treated as resources, not their true potential".

On the other hand, I believe that the government should allow free market Capitalism to prosper, maximizing economic growth. In a classless society, there would be no incentive to work. A true Communist society does not allow for individual ownership of things; instead, the government owns everything. On my profile, it says, as to why I support Capitalism, " Capitalism is one of the core values on which America was founded. It allows for maximum economic efficiency and is fair in that people get what they earn". That is a core anti-Communist position, as it does not allow for any government control in the economy or redistribution of wealth.

To finish my argument, I want to say that I am a true anti-Communist, as evidenced by my stances on issues, while my opponent is not satisfied with Communism in practice, but he, as evidenced by his profile and by his Round 3 argument, supports the Communist ideal of a classless society.

Debate Round No. 3


Firstly, I would like to start by addressing saying that we, in our fight against the reds, are in the same boat. Therefore, it would be unwise to cause a rift which would ultimately lead to the end of our movement, and to the domination of those who do not deserve to live because of their political persuasion.

Secondly, no I do NOT support the creation of a classless stateless moneyless society so called communism. My last argument was supposed to prove that the ideal communist society is obsolete and therefore, communism is a backward way of organizing society.

Responding to the opponent's statement on my views, I would like to state the following: I am a nationalist to the core, and perhaps much further right than the opponent's description of "Extreme Right". Yes I do support social programs and welfare, because the government's ultimate aim is to serve the people and the nation: having large social programs and welfare will help the citizens of one's nation to depend on the government and create a stronger bond between the government and the people. I also say that I do not support free trade because workers are not resources to be toyed with, but human beings, and are citizens of the same fatherland. I would also like to state the following: just because someone supports a certain aspect of an ideology, doesn't mean he is of that political persuasion. I would like to link this misunderstanding to the Tea Party's accusation of being anarchist. The Tea Party Patriots was responsible for the Government Shutdown of last year, and we have seen that they do not want the Democrat-led government to run these United States. However, they were attacked of being anarchists. Are they? Probably not,

Just because I do not support capitalism does not mean I am not a true anti-communist. In fact,a describe myself as a market syndicalist, and the reds will burn in hell.


I am not saying that just because you do not support Capitalism, you are not truly against Communism. All that I am saying is that it brings your ideology slightly closer to Communism than mine is. The object of this debate is to prove that you are a better anti-Communist (meaning more anti-Communist) than your opponent. You argue that your Nationalism is a far right and anti-Communistic characteristic. In many ways, you are right, but Nationalism is not necessarily something that Communist governments disdain. Perhaps the ultimate exhibition of Nationalism is in North Korea. An average person in North Korea has very little contact with the rest of the world. Furthermore, the government has held mass sessions of mourning when one of its leaders dies. That sounds Nationalistic to me, but we all know that North Korea is an extremely Communist country. Therefore, Communism and Nationalism

While you still are opposed to Communism, you support things, such as governmental control of the economy, that pave the way for Communism to exist. You say that you are not in favor of a classless society (i.e. Communism), but you then mention that you are in favor of programs such as welfare, social security, and a progressive tax, which all reduce class disparity and lead a country towards a classless society. I support Capitalism, free trade, and a flat tax, which reward hard work with a higher socioeconomic status. To conclude, neither of us wants Communism, but you support programs that bring a nation towards a classless society, a key characteristic of Communism.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to inform the opponent that if the opponent attempts to compare nationalism and communism, he would have to go through many difficulties. Engels, the founder of modern communism along with Marx, said in a letter to "Renegade" Kautsky, that he does not want to restore "Chauvinism". I can be most describe as a Chauvinist, and oppose internationalism as it is another form of Communist-Bourgeoisie attack on the culture and identity of one people. The opponent must also relize that the DPRK is not a communist state, but it follows the idea of Juche, which is a lose combination of Socialist Patriotism and Stalinist Coercion, which I do not support indeed. Communism is a society without a government, but there is still a government in the DPRK. Also, mass mourning in one's leader's death is by no means nationalistic; it only means that the people were subjugated to the propaganda that government introduced.

I support certain things that reduces class inequality on others justification; I support welfare because I believe that the government must provide essential services for the people; it should also be noted that I do not oppose private hospitals, and I also believe the people have the rights and liberty to choose whatever their treatment may be. This is the same for public transportation. I support government regulation, not government control; I support the government regulating the minimum wages and maximum working hours, but I do believe that if we are not to transition completely, then companies should be able to work on their own. I believe that this thing called class is useless and hopeless, and as long as any citizen is part of a country, he is entitled to his rights to be treated equally, and to not be emphasized to those richer. I do not support progressive taxes; a man is rich because of his achievements.

Because Communism is a traitorous to the foundations of humankind and will betray the workers who carried out the revolution, communism will be opposed. I would like to inform the opponent that we are on the same ship, our guns fired for the same purpose, to protect humanity from this obsolete and backwards system called communism.

It is of our best interest to fight communism and it's proxy Social Democrat form.



TeaPartyAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Ya please don't judge him because he forfeit. He is ma comrade.
Posted by TeaPartyAtheist 2 years ago
If anyone sees, I had extenuating circumstances last night. My power is out, which messed up pretty much our whole day yesterday. Aldo, it is hard to type a long and coherent argument on a phone. Please do not penalize me for the forefit.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Posted by TeaPartyAtheist 2 years ago
I will have my argument tomorrow afternoon
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the debate since he showed that he supports free markets while Pro supports elements of a Communist society. Con also showed that Communism and Nationalism are not mutually exclusive. Conduct goes to no one for a variety of reasons. Pro consistently used vulgar language throughout the debate to refer to those whom he detests, such as "the Commie swines and scums." Con however forfeited a round. Sources go to no one. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost conduct points as a result of a round 5 forfeit, but at the same time, Pro lost conduct point for strong language such as 'swine' and could be considered as appealing to emotions. Spelling and Grammar: both exhibited good syntax and diction, but Pro displayed a greater use of it. Pro's arguments were self-supporting while Con's arguments chiefly consists of ad hominem arguments.