The Instigator
DebateTime
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ClassicRobert
Con (against)
Winning
21 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 4 votes the winner is...
ClassicRobert
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,693 times Debate No: 36528
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (4)

 

DebateTime

Pro

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.

Please, don't be a sheep x.

I need to clear something up, Americans fear communism (though most Americans don't know what communism means) but they fear communism because it represents a person's inability to control their own life. I mean, the USA is all about rights--equal rights, progressive rights, new rights, old rights, too many rights, too few rights. Communism removes some of these rights as a sacrifice towards what is considered to be the "greater good." In all honesty, communism (theoretically) is all about true equality. Every person is (theoretically) equal, which is (supposedly) what the USA strives for. But Americans don't really want that. They want to be more equal than others. And communist that truly levels the playing field is not what Americans want. There have been no communist countries. The oppression is due to bad leaders - not communism. Most of the hate or misunderstanding, of communism and socialism, stems from the era of the Cold War when Americans were brainwashed against these ideas in all forms of media. Movies, newspapers, television shows(including children's shows) containing anti communist/socialist ideas, were all forced onto Americans. The nuclear arms race became really a two sided race between Russia and the United States. This and the blatantly bad leadership on the Russian's side, led to the fall of Russia which lead most of the "free world" to believe that the American way of government was correct(and America is a republic not a democracy, as outlined by our constitution). Then there was the Tienanmen Square Protests of 1989, in China, which were televised to the world, that showed communist China's government as an enforcer instead of an equal. From these things stemmed talk radio gurus such as Rush Limbaugh, that often times link Democrats with socialist views. Then these ideas are passed down from parents to children, which do not usually have access to information besides what their parents tell them. By the time most children reach high school their political views have been formed. People have trouble teaching an environmental science class because most of the kids(who sign up for this elective class) are always arguing about what the book talks about concerning global warming. To sum it up, really it is just passed down cultural norms in America, that have fueled the misunderstanding and sometimes hate towards these two ideas.
ClassicRobert

Con


Framework


In this debate, as Pro is making the affirmative statement and as he has taken the position of radical change, has taken on the full burden of proof. That is to say, my only responsibility is to negate his points so that his burden of proof is not fulfilled. Pro needs to successfully prove that A). Communism would be better for America than the current system, and B). America is a society of people currently ready for communistic ideals. Pro’s definition of communism as Marxism will be accepted.


Individual rights vs. the collective


Marxism is a form of extreme democracy, and without any government to guarantee individual rights, it is essentially a mob rule, with the collective recognized over the individual. Since everybody has equal say, what is deemed acceptable by society is what is socially enforced. As we all know, the majority view is not necessarily the superior view, so this is not a good thing. So essentially, you are not getting the same level of human rights, and you do not, by any means, get more free speech than you would in America, because without a government to enforce freedom of speech and protect the minority opinion, the minority views will simply be oppressed by the majority views, as the collective is prioritized over the individual.


“Communism has the least potential for corruption. Do some more research and take a few Economics classes.”


Pro has not justified this point. He just decides to insult our intelligence by telling us to take an economics class, which is bad conduct. I will also invoke Hitchen’s Razor, which says “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (1).” I will wait to refute this point until Pro makes his argument for it.


“But Americans don’t really want that. And communist that levels the playing field is not what Americans want.”


This statement is referring back to the framework of the debate. This shows, by my opponent’s own admission, that America is not ready for communism (which is an absolute requirement for a form of anarchy to work, as an immediate shift would practically destroy the country). Pro has essentially conceded here that he can’t fulfill his burden of proof.


“The USA is all about rights”


As I’ve shown, with communism, the collective is prioritized over individual rights, showing once again that the American people are not ready for something like communism, which removes rights. Please refer to the framework section here as to why Pro has not yet fulfilled his burden of proof.


Though I’m under no obligation to present a case of my own, I will anyway.


Less incentive towards productivity


When everybody receives the same wages and is equal financially, what incentive is there towards progress and productivity? Capitalism has the advantage of having general improvement in your quality of life as an incentive towards productivity and innovation. After all, if a person would receive equal reward for going to extended schooling to become a doctor as the person would receive from sitting around all day and playing video games, why should that person want to go through the extra effort to become a doctor? If a person would receive the same benefits from sitting around doing nothing as the person would get from doing menial but necessary labor, why should the person choose to do the labor? The only way that this could be handled would be to dictate to people the work that they will and won’t do. This is a freedom that should not be removed by a government.


As a result of this lowered incentive towards productivity, a lower standard of living logically follows. After all, with less produced than would be produced in a capitalistic society, and with what is produced being evenly distributed, everybody will be living at a lower standard of living than the average person in a capitalistic society (like America as it is now) would be experiencing. So not only does communism trample on individual freedoms, but it also does not improve the standard of living for society. No real benefit is served from making America communist.


Conclusion


If my refutations seemed short, it was because a.) Pro spent the majority of his time clarifying the definition of communism as Marxism, or b.) Pro didn’t properly provide evidence for his points. Essentially, Pro has the burden of proof to show that communism would be better for America than the current system and that America is ready for the transition, and I have refuted all points regarding that. Pro insults not only my intelligence but the intelligence of the American people by suggesting that we just need to “do some more research and take a few Economics classes” and then we’ll suddenly realize how amazing communism is.


I thank Pro for this debate topic, and I look forward to his response.


Sources:


1. http://www.slate.com...


Debate Round No. 1
DebateTime

Pro

Hello, thanks for taking the time to debate this with me... I understand what you may think, but I agree that America isn't ready to be the full proud just yet, considering that I can't go over 10,000 characters, I kindly point for you to go read my PDF before saying anything else that would make yourself sound stupid, I'm not trying to insult, but I think you should get your facts straight before talking about something of which you truly don't know of, here's the PDF file: http://goo.gl... I ask for you to read everything before your next agreement, but hey! You may just be surprised, I understand that being open-minded can be hard, specially when you have been brainwashed to fear something so harmless... Our views on the environment: One of our main slogans is "People and Nature Before Profits." We are for developing policy that provides for a sustainable economy and a sustainable ecology. Where possible, we participate in environmental movements, and recognize and work on the environmental aspects of struggles on the shop floor and in unions. We oppose drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we oppose the use of nuclear power until there is a safe way to dispose of waste (and if there is no safe way, don't use nuclear power at all). We fight against subjecting workers to untested new chemical compounds with unknown health consequences, currently being introduced at the rate of 3,000 or 4,000 new compounds each year. We support the use of sustainable forest practices, which also are more labor intensive, creating new jobs and job retraining for laid-off lumber workers. We seek to build unity between the environmental movement and other important movements: the labor, civil rights, women's, youth, peace, and immigrant rights movements, to name a few. To build a better world, we must have a world to build on. The greatest environmental threat is that of nuclear war. We are for complete disarmament and for the destruction of all nuclear weapons. There was environmental damage in the former socialist countries. Some of that was due to their efforts at forced industrialization, which put the environmental dangers of such development low on their list of priorities. A related problem was that in adopting machinery and industrial processes from advanced capitalist countries, they unintentionally adopted the capitalist economic realities embedded in the machinery and processes. In other words, capitalist industrial development is based on not having to pay the costs for most of the waste products it generates. When socialist countries used that as a model to develop their own industry, they ended up with the same skewed industrial waste model. They did this for several good reasons"to short cut the process of technological change, to quickly provide more goods for their citizens, to be able to compete with capitalist countries. However, unintentionally, adopting technological processes designed to function in capitalist reality, they brought in environmental problems that relied on the ability of industries to dump waste without paying the social and environmental costs. To adapt, rather than just adopt, major industrial processes will take more time. How does the communist party work? Members of the Communist Party belong to clubs in their communities or workplaces. Some clubs are citywide or regional. In the club, members work together to support and initiate struggles for workers rights, peace, equality and justice. We give special emphasis to coalition building and working to strengthen our unions. Most clubs meet monthly. Meetings include study and discussion of both current developments and long term strategy and tactics. Some members participate in discussions and activities through on-line clubs. In states where there are clusters of clubs they work cooperatively as a district. Every four years, the party holds a national convention. Delegates elected from the clubs assess the current political situation, set policy and elect a national committee. The Young Communist League, an independent organization, works alongside the Party at the local and national level. The national headquarters of the party is located in New York City. What do we stand for? The Communist Party stands for the interests of the American working class and the American people. It stands for our interests in both the present and the future. Solidarity with workers of other countries is also part of our work. We work in coalition with the labor movement, the peace movement, the student movement, organizations fighting for equality and social justice, the environmental movement, immigrants rights groups and the health care for all campaign. But to win a better life for working families, we believe that we must go further. We believe that the American people can replace capitalism with a system that puts people before profit - socialism. We are rooted in our country's revolutionary history and its struggles for democracy. We call for "Bill of Rights" socialism, guaranteeing full individual freedoms. Until we win enough support to change the system, communists call for radical reforms under capitalism. We call for nationalization of the banks, railroads, and industries like steel and auto. Everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job or get unemployment payments until she/he can find a job. We say put the unemployed to work at union wages on massive public works programs to rebuild our cities, provide affordable housing for the homeless, build mass transit, and clean up the environment! Our outlook is based on the social science of Marxism-Leninism. We study history, politics and economics in order to change the world. Are we legal? Yes. The right to belong to the Communist Party is protected by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But vigilance to protect these fundamental democratic rights of the American people has been needed throughout our nation's history as corporate interests have repeatedly attempted to outlaw the Communist Party (along with other progressive groups such as trade unions, civil rights groups, etc.) From the Palmer raids of the 1920s through the McCarthy witchhunts of the 40s and 50s, to today's rabid radio talk show hosts, right wing politicians and corporate interests have never stopped trying to intimidate workers by making it seem that being a communist or favoring socialism and workers rights is illegal. Nevertheless, in recent years many states, counties, unions and other organizations continue to replace outdated anti-Communist clauses with more democratic and inclusive policies. What have we accomplished? Founded in 1919, the Communist Party has helped win important changes in our country. Communists helped organize the great industrial unions including steel, meatpacking and auto. Communists were pioneers in the 1930s in the fight for Social Security, unemployment compensation, the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week. They took a lead in the fight against lynching and to save the Scottsboro Nine. Communists were among those who developed militant direct action tactics - such as the sit-down strikes that helped win unionization of the auto industry. At the height of the Great Depression communist neighborhood clubs organized mass unemployed councils that put back the furniture of evicted neighbors. In rural areas, communists organized to block bank auction of foreclosed farms. Fighting Jim Crow, communists helped lay the groundwork for the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. During the Spanish Civil War and in World War II, Communists volunteered to fight fascism. Many died in battle. In the Korean War and early days of the war in Vietnam, Communists were among the few who openly opposed the war. Their pioneering work helped build a huge peace movement. In the labor movement of the 1970s , 80s and 90s communist workers along with other progressive rank and filers helped build caucuses to fight for more democracy, diversity and affirmative action and against "business unionism." In the 1970's Communists led the movement to free Angela Davis continuing the party's commitment to defend victims of political repression. We worked for peace and nuclear disarmament. Communists always focus on opposing the U.S. government's role in supporting dictatorial regimes abroad, from apartheid in South Africa to the fascist dictator Pinochet in Chile. Why do we oppose violence? Communists believe that social change can only be accomplished through the united action of mass movements which express the majority will of the people. Peaceful methods of change are not only the right thing to do, they are the most effective way to unite and mobilize the greatest majorities. Violence, on the other hand, is a tool of the big corporations and the governments they control. To preserve their power, they use violence against workers' and people's movements. In contrast, Communists seek to change society peacefully. We work to expand every democratic and electoral avenue as part of our fight for working class political and economic power. Our party believes that it is possible to make fundamental transformations using the electoral process, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. Why is the fight against racism, sexism and oppression so important to the communists? We make the fight for equality an important part of every struggle we fight. The Communist Party fights for full equality for people of all races, for women and men, straight people and LGBT, for speakers of all languages, for young people and older people, and for people of all religious beliefs or none. The U.S. working class includes millions of immigrant workers. We stand for full rights for these workers, regardless of their documentation status. We believe in equality because it is just and right. Even more, the fight for equality. We aren't so bad, the media, schools, etc, harms us though
ClassicRobert

Con

Pro doesn't even appear to be attempting to argue. She completely dropped all of my points, and in an attempt to bypass the character limit, linked us to a 49-page argument she wrote and told us to read it and assume it was a part of her argument. This is obviously bad conduct, and in doing so, she has misused sources, as sources are not here to make an argument for you, but rather to support an argument you are making within round.

After linking us to this 49-page argument, she plagiarized the rest of her ten thousand characters directly from the communist party FAQs (1)(2). As you will find, she copied and pasted the entire argument after her link to her PDF file.

So let's recount this debate so far.

Conduct:
Pro has plagiarized the bulk of her round two argument and insulted the readers and I. I request that, in light of this, I receive the conduct point.

Convincing Arguments:
Pro has so far not fulfilled her burden of proof (refer to framework) and she has plagiarized an entire argument. She has not refuted any of my arguments, and she has not made her own arguments. I also request the arguments points.

Sources:
Pro failed to source the majority of her round two arguments, which was copy/pasted from the communist party FAQs. She also used a source as a reading assignment to us rather than as support for her own arguments, so I also would like to request the source points.

It is unfortunate that Pro decided against proper debate. I was looking forward to this debate.

Vote Con.

1. http://www.communistpartyhouston.org...
2. http://www.cpusa.org...
Debate Round No. 2
DebateTime

Pro

I understand that you think communism is bad, but let's fase it, your full of sh*t, if your going to be closed-minded you will never understand what I'm telling you... People are to f*cked up so that's why society isn't yet ready for communism, for communism to work we must all be on the same page, though we both cannot say that communism will never happen as we both don't know what the future holds, so let's not act ignorant or anything... Many people talk of how communism is a "noble concept" but that it can't work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao's cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone's lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly. Many of the positive things about communism as it has been practiced and realised in actuality are not known to the general public. For example, that a policy of full employment was accompanied by free housing. The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong. If communism "did not work" it is nevertheless true that what it was replaced with is little better, and in a number of ways worse. Communism does work as practiced today in various nations around the world. these now are all non-white nations, non-western nations. Because they reject the western capitalist way of life they are demonised. But the people living in these countries do benefit from communism - and the communism is special there in that it is no longer internationalist and has taken on a nationalist flavour. Even Soviet Russia had to resort to rousing feelings of nationalistic pride in ww2. So these communist regimes are nationalistic and also socialistic, and yet they are undoubtedly fascist as well in that the state requires that the people obey its laws and serve the state's existence. The communism practiced in various countries now is different in each one. To some extent capitalism has been allowed, including allowing western capitalists to relocate factories to China, for example, and exploit the Chinese people. not good. but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography. These communist countries have to be heavily ruled by a totalitarian state (and are thus basically fascist ) because the people living in them lack the altruism that would be necessary for the state to ease off and allow a natural socialistic consensus to emerge. China is a vast and over populated nation, but there is a fairly high level of homogeneity, especially in localised areas. true socialism could work if the separate areas would work as autonomous regions. National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp. National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as "fascists" in order to avoid the use of the term "socialism" to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity. Yes true communism, true socialism, depends upon human nature being altruistic, and looking around us at the world it seems that such a society would be impossible. But it is not. Altruism has been scientifically proven to be a genetic trait that is lost unless it is practiced very discriminatingly. Animals have evolved to be altruistic - but only towards others who are closely related to them. William Hamilton's equation demonstrates the mathematical formula for this kin selection. Altruism and socialism are almost homonyms. Socialism requires altruism and this is why, when you bear in mind the facts regarding the necessity of close relation, the most potential for a socialist society exists amongst people who are of one ethnicity and one nation. The biggest mistake of communists is to forget this rule. there cannot be a global village that is socialist - in which every ethnicity and creed cooperates in a spirit of harmony and love. We can imagine such a world perhaps, but the reality is that it can never happen and that attempts to make this happen not only fail but in fact ruin the only real chance of socialism, which is ethnic based. Those who favour capitalism like to point to the failings of communism and say that human nature is egoistic and selfish and that people never really work for the common good. Since the most successful capitalists and politicians today are clinically psychopaths, it is not possible for these people to empathise with altruistic urges anyway. These people could never feel loyalty to blood, only to their own bank accounts. It is horrific that such people have so much power over all our lives. Capitalists suggest that people live only for shallow material reward and they have no conscience about exploiting workers. Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft" is most accurate when referring to the ill-gotten gains of capitalists. Capitalists point to the Darwinist fact that animals are genetically programmed to desire to prosper, reproduce and expand. They ignore the fact that this is achieved as a group - and thus socialistically - even if the animal is not gregarious. Success in nature is about spreading ones genes and these genes succeeding within a gene pool. The capitalists abuse and twist Darwinism and that is how the abomination which is called "social Darwinism" came into the language. To capitalists, "survival of the fittest", is about selfish exploitation by an individual and about the individual getting as good a material existence for himself, even without having any offspring at all in many cases, as possible. When we have these people in our midst it is only bad for our gene pool and the anti-nature world view that capitalists spread is killing us and raping the planet. It is a big factor behind the plummeting birth rate in the west. The capitalists have not only twisted Darwinism but they have twisted socialism too. Many associate socialism now with a policy of supporting the least deserving and most useless people in our society. Many associate socialism with being pro immigrant - when as i have explained immigration wrecks the basis of socialism and merely strengthens the position of capitalists. Not only those who dislike socialism have these misconceptions, but the multi-racialists who claim to be socialist or communist also have these ideas. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin - none have ever advocated that third worlders should immigrate to the west and mix with whites. Trotsky made clear that he advocated black nationalism/separatism in the united states, even while the ku klux klan at the time did not, preferring the capitalist/masonic stance that blacks be kept as slaves. (thankfully today's kkk does appreciate the principle of ethno nationalism and has an ironically similar view to that of trotsky in this regard) When it comes to a debate over which is the better, communism or capitalism, the argument always fails to realise the true biological basis for socialism and how it really could work to bring a utopia, if only the capitalist exploiters of the labour of the people would be stopped, and ethnic cohesion taken as the foundation for harmony and cooperation. I'm gnoring your views and what you claim to be "points" because I feel that you have no clue what communism and socialism is actually about.
ClassicRobert

Con

Once again, Pro has decided to plagiarize, this time going from the OP of this forum (1). It starts when she begins to say "Many people talk of how communism..." and it is a direct copy/paste from the user Markus. So I'm pretty much just going to repeat my previous round breakdown, but with some additions.

Conduct:
Pro has plagiarized the bulk of her round two and three arguments and insulted the readers and I. I quote, "but let's fase (sic) it, your (sic) full of sh*t." I request that, in light of this, I receive the conduct point.

Convincing Arguments:
Pro has so far not fulfilled her burden of proof (refer to framework) and she has plagiarized two entire rounds. She has not refuted any of my arguments, and she has not made her own arguments. She even said "I'm gnoring (sic) your views and what you claim to be 'points' because I feel that you have no clue what communism and socialism is (sic) actually about." However, all of my refutations were valid concerns for the feasibilty of communism (particularly communism in America) which were purposefully dropped, so I also request the arguments points.

Sources:
Pro failed to source the majority of her round two and round three arguments, which were copy/pasted from the communist party FAQs and from a forum. She also used a source as a reading assignment to us rather than as support for her own arguments, so I also would like to request the source points.

Once again, I'm terribly sorry that Pro has decided against actually debating with any of her own arguments.

Vote Con.

Sources:
1. http://mises.org...
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PeriodicPatriot 2 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
It feels boring to read a lot of information.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
I apologies for the insults, however I still agree with communism. I ask for everyone who still disagrees with me to leave as your lack of knowledge doesn't belong here. Thanks!
Posted by Flipbook 3 years ago
Flipbook
For your information (DebateTime) Communism is a horrible way to run a government.
If everyone has the same amount of everything then there is no way to get ahead, and if people are required to work (against the freedoms of America) and get as many profits as the government allows (also against the freedoms of America) then no one will work hard because they want to do the least work possible that they can get away with, right? If it doesn't matter to them the won't care, will they, so communism is bad economically and against the constitution. Tea Party Live On!
Posted by DetectableNinja 3 years ago
DetectableNinja
So in other words, I asked you to be respectful toward others, and you responded by just straight-up insulting me?
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Freedom of speech is a freedom from government. It only applies in the sense that government can't infringe on you're speech. However, you're posting on DDO, which is privately owned, so you have to follow DDO's Rules.

Also, where do you get off saying that I know nothing about what I'm talking about? It seems that you can't even refute my refutations. If I'm ignorant on the matter, shouldn't you be able to refute my arguments?
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
DetectableNinja, if that's what you think, shall be it... Goodbye!x
Posted by DetectableNinja 3 years ago
DetectableNinja
Free speech is only protected when it comes to public institutions and public areas (ie, the government and government-owned grounds).
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
if you have a problem? Feel free to report you.. but i already reported both of you as insulting because i find both your stupidty insulting thanks.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
but quite franky these comments have nothing to do with you so please leave as I'm quite busy... thanks.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
DebateTimeClassicRobertTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Blatant abuse of conduct with language, and plagiarism. Lack of arguing means con gets arguments. His source was viable. Spelling and grammar was horrible on pros side. Sorry CR, that you wasted your time.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
DebateTimeClassicRobertTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagerism is not cool.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
DebateTimeClassicRobertTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out all of pro's BS. 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
DebateTimeClassicRobertTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument can be summarized as this one line from it: "I think you should get your facts straight before talking about something of which you truly don't know of, here's the PDF file: http://goo.gl... I ask for you to read everything before your next agreement, but hey! You may just be surprised, I understand that being open-minded can be hard, specially when you have been brainwashed to fear something so harmless..." CONDUCT: First of all this is a debate site, not a site to advertise (and badly at that) your social media; second the plagiarized rounds; thirdly the insults against anyone that doesn't start off in agreement. ARGUMENT: Conduct disqualifies the plagiarized rounds, continuing to plagiarize more after con caught you makes it not a mistake but malice. SOURCES: Demanding anyone read that many pages as a link, makes the source an attempt to bypass the character limit, thus bad conduct poisons sources; that source was more than flipped, it started out degrading.