The Instigator
DebateTime
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Should America become a communist country?

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 6 votes the winner is...
Ameliamk1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,575 times Debate No: 36512
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

DebateTime

Pro

Opponent: Ted Quick from http://www.politicalinsidersreport.com... sad: "There has not been a time in my life when colonies has been as divided as it is today. In fact, we are possibly more divided now than at any time in our history other than during Abraham Lincoln"s term. But Lincoln ended slavery whilst Obama is creating it. Yes, Obama is trying to enslave those of us who are working by taking even more of that which we produce to be redistributed to those who produce bleedin' little or nuffink. $10 trillion dollars has been spent on "the skint " in the last 50 years and to what avail? And the left screams about how unfair it is that those of us who graft hae so much more than those who don"t. Let"s stipulate that there are those, some estimates suggest around 10% of us, who actually really dae need our help and they should get it. But there is a vastly larger number who are dependent upon us makers and who are miffed that we hae so much more than their comparative little non-working selves. The difference is that we graft to create ours whilst they graft to take ours away. A few days ago I got a map showing that 11 states now hae more people on welfare than are actually working. In other words over 20% of our states hae more takers now than they hae makers. whilst those of us who are working are frustrating over more of our freedoms and assets being ripped away the left demands ever more for those who are undeserving. whilst many will deny this, there has been a concerted effort in this country, at least since 1919, to turn us into a communist nation. The left-leaning Snopes.com says the following is "false", whilst others hae pointed out that because it was "captured" nearly 100 years ago, absolute proof is difficult to obtain. I hae found that this piece was printed as recent or as tardy as 1946. So, whether it is an actual list or a made-up list of rules, I offer for yer consideration the following: this comes from an Iowa newspaper article printed sometime around the 1950s (which I"ve retyped for the sake of clarity); Communist Aims Communist rules for Revolution: Corrupt the young, get em away from religion. Get em interested in leg over. Make em superficial, destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get people"s minds orf their government by focusing their attention on athletics, switched on books and plays and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the people"s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce collywobbles of inflation with rising prices and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. By specious row cause the breakdown of the olde moral virtues honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged dickey bird, ruggedness. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscating em and leaving em helpless. (The above rules were captured in Dusseldorf May 1919 by the Allied Forces). "They were secured by the State Attorney"s Office from a known member of the Communist knees up, who acknowledged it to be still a part of the Communist programme for overthrowing our Government" "MRS. BERTHA S. KEMPF, 524 Summer. As a mint china plate of mine just commented: " bloody nora . . . . . . that is the democratic knees up ". And so it is. Again, whether it is a legitimate list or not, doesn"t it bleedin' clearly represent that which is happening today and doesn"t it logically spell the end to a free country? In any case, ye be the judge. We already live in an oligarchy, and unless quickly reversed, we will soon living under a dictatorship. Even though the roots of this started generations ago, I"m not sure in the history of the world that there has been a quicker end to a "free" nation than that which we are seeing being orchestrated against colonies right now and most particularly in the last four years."

Communism is wonderful in an ideal society. It's focused on the love and kindness in a persons heart (reason why it's incompatible with religion) and about how everyone will share and be good people. There would be NO government, whatsoever. Karl Marx is the "father of communism" if you will. Marxism is the same as communism, except more friendly towards technology and science. Unfortunately, what we see people defining communism as is the fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian governments of the world. In reality, these countries and their governments and leaders (like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.) are NOT communists. They are not even communistic. Our education system is failing in that it can't teach basic Economic theories. Capitalism is also wonderful in it's own way. It's focused on the greed and selfishness in a persons heart. Everyone will think for themselves, and act for themselves, which will lead to the betterment of society. It is followed by the "invisible hand" doctrine of Adam Smith who also states God is helping to guide things. Capitalism requires the presence of a government to ensure private property rights. Both systems have serious flaws. "Firstly, yes, communism is basically were an idealist/ leader dictates what a person's future job, is what they do etc in order to maintain a functional society where everyone- generally - is equal. You can look at it from a person who believes in human rights, free speech etc. You don't get the chance to choose your future." Wrong. This is a prime example of the lies and misconceptions about communism being fed to the public through the media and our schools. Communism is not where there's a leader/dictator. Communism is about ZERO government. The moment you add government, it's not longer communist. Countries such as North Korea are not even communistic. If you break down what they're doing piece by piece, they are NOT communist. You do get the chance to choose your future in a communist society. You do get human rights, way more than you would ever get in a capitalist society. You do get free speech, way more than you would ever get in a capitalist society. And... "I do sympathize with certain aspects of communism, but I think it has the most potential for corruption and power being unevenly divided" Communism has the least potential for corruption. Do some more research and take a few Economics classes. Read this website: http://www.cpusa.org...
Also, about LGBT, all I can say is, read my website! www.thegaytruth.weebly.com
http://ireport.cnn.com...
Ameliamk1

Con

Did you just say communism has the least potential for corruption?

Let's get started.

A HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF COMMUNISM
While the origin of this polemical economic and social theory is often credited to Karl Marx, many historians agree that the origins actually begin in Czarist Russia, where a social revolution (somewhat physical as well) in the transition between Czarcism and the enlightenment had many Communistic qualities of design. (1) Communists deny this, preferring to defer credit to the "Father of Communism", Karl Marx. Born in 1818 (2), Marx, while exiled in France, developed his theory, eventually adopted by Lenin in the formation of the Soviet Union. This theory, while inviting in it's fantasized tolerance, is the worst bane of modern society, and has caused more death and suffering than any of history's fascism. I will show the farce that is communism, and reveal why it has failed and caused infinite pain, both of it's people and of others.

THE FALLACY OF COMMUNISM
The driving point of the Communist theory is based upon the falsehood that consumerism is evil, and that is causes inequality of pay. This is simply an untruth when it is considered that consumerism is entirely voluntary;people buy things because they want that article more than they want what it cost them, whether it be money or other property. A clear case of this point is the Wilt chamberlain example. (3) Picture a Communist town of about 100 people, where property and pay is shared. Everyone has 20 dollars. A legendary basketball player named Wilt Chamberlain comes into town, offering to let people watch him play basketball for a dollar each. Everyone in the town comes, paying a dollar. At the end of the night, Chamberlain has 100 dollars, and the town has 19 dollars each. Now, if consumerism and property are evil, what is wrong with that? The entire town decided that they desired watching Chamberlain play more than they wanted their dollar, and no issue presents itself with that system. Reality of consumerism is the same on a larger scale; millions of people would rather have an iphone than 400 dollars, bring great wealth to the creator of the iphone, and that is fair and just, and must seem so, even to one who declares it evil.

THE POORLY DISGUISED SLAVERY OF COMMUNISM
While those who support the Communist theory declare Capitalist societies those of slaves, bondage of those who live in a Communist society is greater and presents itself in two forms.

Firstly, while Capitalism is often accused of causing wage slavery, the Communist plan is the exact interpretation of what a wage slave is. You are given a job, and that remains your post for life, with no opportunity of raises or promotions. Your masters do not even grant you personal rewards for your labor. Your freedom to leave or stop working is also restricted, if not non-existent. It is slavery in its purest form.

The second form is slavery is that of will. The destruction of Communism involves someone who does not wish to conform to the system, when someone decides they'd like to open their own business, to decide their own fate. In a Communist society, this type of thinking and of action may not be tolerated. Those who attempt to be the master of their own future are silenced, and dissent is illegal, because if consumerism takes hold, Communism collapses. And so your thoughts and words are enslaved.

EQUALITY AND THE LACK OF INCENTIVE
Equality is preached as the justification and basis of Communism, but they have one thing incorrect. Equality is in phenotype, not characteristic. Success is not equal, because people are not equal in characteristic. Let me use another example. (4) Students get grades based mostly on how hard they work. If a student were told that the new educational system required that every student get a C for equality, no matter how hard they worked, everyone would say how ridiculous that was, but that is the basis of Communism. No matter how hard you work, you get the same poor payout as those who do not work. There is no incentive to work, and laborings would grant more success in a Capitalist society, but of course such treacherous thinking will not be permitted, and so the Government cracks down, leading to disasters like Tiananmen Square.

THE AMERICAN AND SOVIET DREAM
The primary national difference between Capitalist and Communist society is that Capitalism works of, by, and for the people, while Communism works off the back of the people. Do you really believe that the people of the Soviet Union wanted to construct Lenin's Mausoleum? Was refusing to build it an option? Of course not. The Government of Communist societies are intended to be the people, but history shows that they are not. Capitalisms yield representatives far more true, because of the people's power to remove their fiduciaries, and the fact that Capitalist societies are not forced by necessity to release propaganda to keep their citizens in line.

COMMUNISM AND THE FAILING OF ANARCHY
My opponent claims that accusations of fascism is the Communist theory is false, and that Communism is about no Government. This concept is easily defeated. Who controls nuclear weapons? Who trades with foreign nations? Who distributes the property between the people? Obviously the people themselves cannot all participate. They are required to delegate these positions, and trust everything to a small group of people. Anarchism isn't viable because tasks must be completed that all cannot assist with. Who goes on diplomatic missions? The flaw of Communism on this topic is that while trying to minimize Government, the society trusts all the power to very few.

CAPITALISM AND FREE SPEECH
My opponent claims that Communism offers more free speech than Capitalism, not realizing the irony of the fact that he is exercising this right on an American website. If you are not of the opinion that Capitalist society offers free speech, come to America and start chanting obscenities. Protest against the President, against Capitalism, or even promote Neo-Nazism, and you will not face penalty. Then travel to North Korea or Cuba, and attempt the same thing. I know that I have a right to free speech in my homeland, because I am capable of testing my freedom at any time, and may I assure you, Sir, I do have it in its entirety.

THE DISASTROUS HISTORY OF COMMUNISM
The history of Communism is truly horrible, making Communists go to great lengths to deny its veracity as Communism. The worst figures in History come from Communist societies: Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, the Kim Dynasty, and figures like Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler was only slightly farther right. However, in this section, I will focus on why the disastrous failings of the countries under these hated figures is the fault of the Communist theory. All Communists, including my opponent, deny that the Soviet Union or Cuba or Red China was real Communism, but that is the problem. What is real Communism? Do you not think Lenin really wanted a Communist Society? Castro? With the possible exception of Kim Il Sung, all of these "leaders" desired proper Communism, but the flaws turned good intentions into disaster.

My opponent is happy to blame the unintended flaws of Capitalism on its theory. Why can't he accept his?

Ignoring my opening terseness, thank you for starting this debate, and I look forward to your next entry. Good luck.

(1) (2) http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...
(3) http://marginalrevolution.com...
(4) http://answers.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
Let the record show that this debate is quite embarrassing. So I do apologies to everyone for this epic fail lol x.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
I'm laughing as we speak because he couldn't even accept or decline lol x. Anyway, I've made it an open debate x.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
Yeah, it does look better... This was my first time here on debate.org so please do forgive me on this one x.
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
It looks a lot more promising. I shall be reading if he accepts.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
it's ok, I forgive you on that, but I guess you can say that I did lose this debate, but as I said, I've started a new debate to clear things up x.
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
What exactly am I being close minded to? You lost this debate. And sorry I assumed you advertised, but it really looked like it.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
Not con, sorry, I meant The Contender. Lol :) x.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
Not, sorry, I meant The Contender. Lol :) x.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
PS: I'm debating the con.
http://www.debate.org...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
DebateTimeAmeliamk1Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was very hard to follow. There were long seemingly pointless quotations, and only one paragraph separation in the whole thing. He needs to have heading and paragraphs. Pro's arguments lacked supporting evidence. Why isn't North Korea a good example of Communist state? It has all the features, except it's not wonderful as the theory predicts. Con's arguments were on target. In a one round debate, Pro did not give himself an opportunity to reply to Con, so all of Con's arguments go unanswered.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
DebateTimeAmeliamk1Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO has no clue what he is saying and what arguments he stating. CON swept this and made PRO looked uneducated. CON made great convincing arguments on what communism can do to such a society. PRO'S argument was weak and CON'S was pretty solid. PRO ignored the facts and CON just kept using them. I grant this to CON.
Vote Placed by DudeWithoutTheE 3 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
DebateTimeAmeliamk1Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro gives me a few reasons that the current system is flawed, given that he describes it as a system of zero government, I am not told how this society would work or be better than the current one. Con gives me reason to believe that not having a government would be bad, and that all actual attempts to produce 'Communism' have ended up in disaster. S&G to con as was far more readable, conduct's a wash as is sources.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
DebateTimeAmeliamk1Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Communism is not based off of the love in man's heart. It's based off of the spite from the poor when they look at normal successful people.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
DebateTimeAmeliamk1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro copy-and-pasted a quote from someone without connecting it to his argument in any way, so this was simply a misused excerpt. And then he pushes forward a chain of generalizations. Honestly, if you think Pro won this debate, then you shouldn't be voting anymore.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
DebateTimeAmeliamk1Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.