The Instigator
Amveller
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Socialism is better then Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,952 times Debate No: 16329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

Amveller

Pro

I would expect there would be many to challenge this argument. The reason for that is because of the carrot on the stick dangling in front of your faces. A Capitalist Society gives off the belief that we can "get a piece of the pie" This keeps us blinded on what is right for our people and our country.

The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.

Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man. Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being.

I will leave much out to give anyone a chance to respond...
socialpinko

Con

Before we begin this debate I feel we must define the term of the resolution. My opponent has neglected to so I will do so here.

Capitalism will simply be defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion.

Socialism will be defined as an economic system which consists of public or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion.

My opponent also somewhat described a primary goal of socialism being to "redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without." We will add this to the definition of socialism, seeing as it would not make sense for my opponent to say it had we not.

I will also ask my opponent what form of socialism he is defending. I will, depending on his answer, offer a full critique of it in the next round. Different forms of socialism would be state socialism, pure communism,and left libertarianism. For now I will simply focus on my opponent's specific points.

As for the definition of better, this seems tricky. Because the term 'better' can have so many different meanings, I will list a few so as to give my opponent and readers of this debate the best understanding of the term.

Better:
of superior quality or excellence[1]
Greater in excellence or higher in quality[2]
something superior in quality or condition or effect[3]

I, for the sake of this debate, will ask that my opponent not bring any semantical arguments to this debate. For this debate, arguments which attempt to negate or affirm the resolution on the basis of definitions alone should not be used. It is only because of the vague nature of the term 'better' that I ask this. I will ask that my opponent acts in good faith.

Now as for my opponent's arguments I will try to list them below and refute them if necessary. The BOP will necessarily be on my opponent as Pro and instigator of this debate.

(A)""The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none.""

Either-or fallacy. Why must all wealth belong to everyone or no one?

(B)Rich have no reason to work.

Here my opponent argues that because the rich are rich "they have no incentive to use their land productively." Ignoring the fact that my opponent here fallaciously assumes that all rich people were born rich and does not in any way account for people who personally made their own fortunes, this point of my opponent's completely contradicts another point which he brings up later in his case. I quote my opponent:

//"Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man"//

In this quote my opponent argues that people can be just as much motivated to work to help others than for profit. So I ask my opponent if people can work without a profit incentive, then why should it matter that rich people have not as much to gain y using their land productively?

Also, seeing as for this scenario, the rich are assumed to be using the system of capitalism as opposed to socialism. If we are to assume that they are in a capitalistic setting then they will always have the profit incentive. There is no point that one becomes so rich that it is not possible to be richer. In fact the "rich" would have more incentive to use their wealth to acquire more seeing as it would be easier for them to do so considering their access to more resources.

I would also like to use my opponent's own point as a critique of his own system of socialism. It is actually when a system of socialism is in place, that there is no profit incentive. My opponent admits this saying that people would "share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind". But I will ask the readers, what force is strongest in the world currently? Charity or selfishness.

Of course when I use the word 'selfishness' I do not mean it in the general negative connotation of one who only cares about one's self and will trample over anyone to get what he wants. I simply mean it in an egoistic sense of caring for one's survival.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialism is completely run on moral principles of egalitarianism and equality. However this is the very reason that it does not work. Because these qualities are not dominant in the human species. Humans are biologically programmed to care for themselves and their progeny. Capitalism utilizes this fact to provide services that others want and need.

Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's.

This is all I will write at the moment. I do not think I can write more without knowing what specific form of socialism my opponent is advocating.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Debate Round No. 1
Amveller

Pro

I thank my opponent for excepting this debate. I accept my opponents definitions on both Capitalism and Socialism.

To start things off I would like to answer my opponents question "what form of socialism is he defending" I will offer a definition for my answer.

STATE SOCIALISM:

An economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class.

"Growth and improvement within the capitalist system only leads to greater disparity and destruction." (Ellen Meiksins Wood, The Origin of Capitalism 1999 p.118):

My Argument:

The title of this debate is "Socialism is better than Capitalism" I say; Communism would be A far better world. The way the world is, is not the way it has to be.

There are people in this country hungering for an alternative to Capitalism. Who want to do something meaningful for humanity with their lives. Humanity can move beyond exploitation and social division. It can move towards a classless society and a world of freely associating human beings.

Yes, what I am saying is controversial. We live in a time when the permanence of capitalism is ear marked as the only way. My opponent would have you believe that the verdict on the 20th century has been delivered and the socialist experiment has failed and can only fail. He will bombard you with the idea that there is no alternative, that capitalism is the natural order of things. He will argue that as much as capitalism has problems, any attempts to get rid of it will make things far worse.

My opponent argues "Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's." So it is more humanitarian that 1% of our countries population owns 96% of its wealth, while the rest of us survive off of buying their products and services handing them over even more wealth, while children go hungry, people die because they cant afford healthcare, hard working blue collar Americans loose their homes, Jobs get sold off to the lowest bidder over seas, unemployment percentages skyrocket. Friends, these are the facts, and this is NOT humanitarian.

My opponent asks.."what force is strongest in the world currently? Charity or selfishness" We all know the answer to this question. Capitalism creates selfishness. I ask you which is BETTER (something superior in condition or effect) My answer is charity.

Readers do not let my opponent scare you into thinking anything that fundamentally challenges capitalism is at best a pipe dream and at worst an unworkable utopia, or the project of making revolution and building an economy and society that promote and serve the common good violates human nature, economic logic, and the very flow of history.

Capitalism today is not working, we need a change.



socialpinko

Con

My opponent does not actually bring any arguments for why state incorporated socialism would make things better. He begins by describing capitalism as coercive and immoral and ends by simply asserting without proof that state socialism would lead to an egalitarian society. I will wait until the next round for my opponent to bring reason for this statement.

My opponent did not provide specific points, however he laid out a very sprawled case for egalitarianism and a critique of capitalism. I will address his specific points below.

//"There are people in this country hungering for an alternative to Capitalism. Who want to do something meaningful for humanity with their lives."//

First, I would like to apologize to readers if my response does not seem to be very organized but my opponent did not provide a very structured argument, but more of a call to action for people who are already socialists. Second, even if we admit that there are people who want a different system than capitalism, why should we believe that A.-They want socialism and B.-Socialism would work better? Also, a capitalistic society does not prohibit people from doing meaningful things with their lives. By meaningful though I assume my opponent means something like altruistic charity work. Where in a capitalistic society is this prohibited?

My opponent then brings a perceived problem to the system of capitalism later on in his case. He writes:

//"So it is more humanitarian that 1% of our countries population owns 96% of its wealth"//

I would like my opponent to bring some warrant for this assertion before I touch it. If it is actually true then I will deal with it but I'm not up for wasting time and energy arguing over a point that may not even be true. Next my opponent argues that even if selfishness if a more common force in the world, that charity is better. First, I will ask my opponent what specifically makes it better? And second, regardless of the specific motivations for one's actions(selfishness in a capitalistic society, charity in a socialist society), one can see from the evidence that capitalistic societies(United States) typically have higher standards of living then socialist societies(China). If socialism is more humanitarian than capitalism, where is the evidence?

My opponent does not really argue for the system of state socialism, but argues against the system of capitalism specifically. I however have shown that at least compared to socialism, capitalism is a more humanitarian system. I say that it is more humanitarian on account that that is what my opponent seems to equate with the term 'better'. My opponent has not upheld his BOP, nor has he affirmed the resolution. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
Amveller

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his timely response. I can offer you a reason for my short unorganized response. I am very passionate about the change that is coming and the change that is needed. I think I let my emotional side take over my finger tips instead of my intellectual side. I do apologize for this and in this round I will attempt to make my argument more structured.

My opponent asks “Why should we believe that (A).-They want socialism and (B).-Socialism would work better?”

To answer my opponents first question (A) According to Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. That leaves 47% or, 144,293,078 Americans, in which 20% of them agreeing socialism is better than capitalism. Another poll taken in February of 2011 said that about 36 percent of all Americans viewed Socialism positively. This is an indication that the American people are starting to see Socialism from a positive perspective.

=sources=

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

http://www.deborahcorey.com...

I will answer my opponents 2nd question (B) in my BOP (1,& 2)

BOP(1)

Let us begin by looking at something absolutely basic: feeding people. The world is currently richer and more productive than it has ever been in history, yet, according to the United Nations, 963 million people live in hunger and fear of starvation, and about 25,000 people, mostly children, actually die of hunger, or causes related to hunger, every day. This includes 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. In America these numbers increased 46 percent from 2006 to 2010.

I quote my opponent “one can see from the evidence that capitalistic societies (United States) typically have higher standards of living” 14 million children going hungry, Thousands dying every day is a better standard of living?

=sources=

http://www.fao.org...

http://feedingamerica.org...

Socialism would deal with this seemingly intractable problem of hunger in the easiest and most obvious way, by not treating food as a commodity and simply distributing enough of it to people to ensure that everyone has enough for a healthy diet.

This is the only one remedy but governments cannot contemplate it because, as the executive of capitalism, it runs counter to the real interests they serve. The remedy involves abolishing the money system, freeing production from the artificial constraints of profit and establishing a world of free access to the benefits of civilization.

Just think about what this would mean: no more starving children, no more distended bellies and vacant, staring eyes, no need for kids to work 12 hours a day in sweatshops or for old people to die in the gutter or beggars to crawl in the dirt; so much human suffering ended. Even if it achieved nothing else, this alone would be enough to justify socialism a thousand times over.

BOP(2)

Shelter is one of the basic requirements of human life. Yet even in the richest cities in the richest country in the world, the US, there are homeless people sleeping on the streets. In the mega-cities of the world's poorer countries, with their shanty towns, the problem is horrendous.

Socialist planning would solve this problem very simply. Dealing with the immediate problem of homelessness would just involve requisitioning the empty properties, the mansions and second and third homes of the rich. But a permanent solution is easy to envision. Use the census to estimate the housing needs of the population and establish a public house building program, employing thousands of bricklayers, carpenters and other building workers to build slightly more houses than are needed. Then make the provision of a modest but decent residence for every family or individual citizen a basic right, in the same way that every child has a right to attend school, In other words, stop treating houses as a commodity and distribute them on the basis of need.

My opponent asks “If socialism is more humanitarian than capitalism, where is the evidence?”

Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, ending inequality and class divisions, democratic planning of the economy, establishing international peace and unity, and all the changes that socialism would bring describes the word humanitarian, [definition] /committed to improving the lives of other people./

My opponent asked “what makes charity better then selfishness” I will respond to this question with a few questions of my own.

Let us look at this from a different perspective. Let’s say you graduate college with a 4.0 GPA, you acquire employment in your field, fall in love, get married, and have 2.5 children. You have purchased a beautiful home and you go on lavish vacations every year. Life is good! Then the corporate company you work for decides to send your job overseas to make their bottom line bigger. You in turn loose your job, it is selfish for your company to throw you away for more profits right? So you tell the wife, no worries, I am educated and have experience, I will find something new. Then 2 months goes by, nothing, 6 more months go by, still nothing, the economy is lacking and jobs are scarce. Your savings begins to shrink, your unemployment runs out, the foreclosure letter arrives in the mail. You now have 30 days to move out of your home. You see, the bank you borrowed money to purchase your home does not care about you, they only care about that $2,200 you used to send them every month. This is selfish right? Now you have no choice but to ask your parents if you, the wife and kids can stay with them until you can find some work and get back on your feet. Your parents are understanding and allow you to move back home no charge, this is charitable right? This scenario is happening all across our country right now and it is a direct result of our capitalist society. Big corporate banks screw up and get bail out money from the government to save them from bankruptcy. In this scenario you have done nothing wrong, yet there is no one to bail you out. I would think if you were ever in this position, you too would agree charity is batter then selfishness.

Pro

"So it is more humanitarian that 1% of our countries population owns 96% of its wealth"

Con

“I would like my opponent to bring some warrant for this assertion before I touch it.”

I will leave you some sources on this to view. I will touch on it more in the next round.

=sources=

http://sociology.ucsc.edu...

http://www.mybudget360.com...


socialpinko

Con

I will now list my opponent's arguments and show where they fall short either logically or empirically.

20% of Americans believe Socialism is better than Capitalism.

My opponent claims that based on this marginal statistic, the majority of Americans want a change to Capitalism. However my opponent's other statistic which says that 53% of Americans favor Capitalism over Socialism leads us to the exact opposite conclusion that my opponent makes. If we are to believe that we should make changes to the American economic system based on majority opinion(which I definitely do not support) the least my opponent could do is to bring some statistics that would uphold that point. Instead, if we are to follow my opponent's reasoning, capitalism should stay the economic system of the United States.

36% of Americans view Socialism positively.

I would like for my opponent to elucidate on this point a little more. Namely what they mean by positively. In any case, even if this is true, this is not much of a reason to change economic systems, seeing as even if my opponent is to argue from the majority, it would still support my case and negate my opponent's.

My opponent then shows statistics on world hunger and starving and shows how many people die every year of hunger in the United States. I truly do feel empathy for these unfortunate souls, though my opponent then goes on to take a quote of mine completely out of context. He writes:

//"I quote my opponent "one can see from the evidence that capitalistic societies (United States) typically have higher standards of living" 14 million children going hungry, Thousands dying every day is a better standard of living?"//

Here my opponent cuts out the part of the quote that would actually make it make sense. I actually wrote:

//"Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's."//

I wrote that the consequences of capitalistic systems are generally more humanitarian than the consequences of socialist systems that have been put into place(i.e.-Soviet Style Communism in which 20-66 million people died[1]) I was not saying that it is humanitarian for 14 million children to go hungry, I was saying that capitalism is more humanitarian when compared to historical examples of socialism.

I then asked my opponent for evidence that socialism would be more humanitarian than capitalism. He replied with little more theoretical visions of a utopian and completely egalitarian society. Anyone can argue that establishing X as a system of economics would necessarily lead to Y, but that does not count as evidence for that claim. This is my opponent's reply to my question in full:

//"Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, ending inequality and class divisions, democratic planning of the economy, establishing international peace and unity, and all the changes that socialism would bring describes the word humanitarian, [definition] /committed to improving the lives of other people."//

I ask again, where is the evidence that socialism would do what my opponent claims it would, when all historical examples of socialism in practice point to the opposite conclusion? I then asked my opponent how charity as the building block of an economic system would be better than selfishness as the building block of an economic system. He responded, not with an answer, but with a made up scenario about how bad capitalism is. Again though, he did not show how socialism was any better. I will give him the last round to bring up some evidence.

My opponent has certainly not upheld his BOP in this debate, I would go further into his arguments but I only have about 15 minutes before my time runs out. All my opponent has done so far in this debate is talk about how bad capitalism is, without showing in any way why socialism is better. Vote Con.

[1]http://necrometrics.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Amveller

Pro


For those of you that read this debate carefully you will notice my opponent insist I have not met my BOP over and over again. This debate is called "Socialism is better then Capitalism" My opponent, not once explains the opposite. His only statement about Capitalism was....

"Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's."

Yet he has wrote nothing to prove this. I am not trying tell anyone Socialism has worked in any countries past, I am saying if it was done correctly it would be better than Capitalism! In place of back and forth banter with my opponent, I will once again attempt to prove my point.

In socialism, you will help make the decisions now made by the president and board of trustees of your university, by the boss on your job, by your landlord, by the owners of newspapers, TV stations, movie studios, and sports franchises, and by government officials at all levels. Extending democracy—the rule of the people—into all areas of society is the key difference. It is the socialist alternative to the dictatorship of money, and of those who have it, that dominates life in capitalist society. And everywhere, the aim of maximizing profit for the few will be replaced by the human aim of serving social needs.

In the economy, this means making more of the things people really need—which in our wealthy country could eliminate poverty in a few years—but also making them better and distributing them more fairly, while showing an equal concern for preserving the environment, protecting workers' health, and reducing work hours (all important "social needs"). This can occur because all the factors of production available to society would be put to full use. There would be no idle machines, wasted raw materials, and, above all, no unemployed workers. Recall the $13 trillion spent on arms since World War II, the waste in what gets made and in what doesn't, the conspicuous baubles of the rich, and all the money spent on repression and on brainwashing to keep people from asking just these kinds of questions. View all this in light of the rapid advances being made in automation, computerization, and robotizing, and then tell me it can't be done.

On the job, wage differentials, though greatly reduced, will exist as long as there are some people who require this kind of incentive to do their best. Over time, as other incentives, such as pride in a job well done, the praise of one's co-workers, and the satisfaction in serving the community, replace the desire to get rich and the fear of being poor (since there will no longer be rich or poor), wages will be about the same for everyone who works the same number of hours. These wages will be more than enough to buy what people want, since many of the things that cost so much today will be free—such as education, including college and other kinds of special training, health care, and probably very quickly, transportation, communication, and entertainment. Other costs will be heavily subsidized—such as housing and basic items of food and clothing. Also, with production planned to serve social good rather than private profit, and with most things we use apportioned by need rather than by cost, money's role in society will gradually diminish, and with it the grip money now exercises on our psyches.

Throughout socialist society, in education but also at work and at play, efforts will be made to counter selfishness and the fear of what is different, and to promote the values of cooperation and mutual concern. With collective control over our activities, their products, and social relations, alienation—and its feeling of disconnectedness and powerlessness—would give way to feelings of empowerment, and a sense of belonging to the human community. In the process, freedom, equality, and democracy—all the noble ideals that capitalism (to its credit) first set out, and then (to its shame) undermined and distorted—will finally begin to describe our actual life together.

Imagine walking down a clean street, encountering friendly people, and knowing that everyone you see has enough to eat and a decent place to live. You do not fear being robbed or otherwise abused, and the only police you see are directing traffic. Imagine that you are going to a job you enjoy, where you are respected, not overworked, and where all your suggestions are taken seriously; and that afterwards you meet with friends to pursue common interests with no worry about educational or medical bills that spoil most of our good times. Is this heaven? No, it's socialism, and it is better than Capitalism!

I believe I have proven my BOP. My opponent although silver tongued, has not made any argument "for Capitalism"

I would like to again, thank my opponent for this debate, I have enjoyed it very much, and look forward to more like it. I urge the readers and voters to vote PRO!
socialpinko

Con

Unfortunately this debate has turned into a BOP argument. I claim my opponent has not upheld his BOP(he hasn't) and my opponent says that I have not upheld my BOP. However upon looking at my opponent's profile I see that he only joined 2 weeks ago. So, I will take a moment to explain the nature of BOP in debates on this site in particular. From what I have seen in my time on this site, when someone initiates a debate where they are affirming the resolution(unless otherwise specified), they retain the BOP. It is their responsibility to affirm the resolution. It is then whoever is taking the Con position to the resolution's responsibility to negate Pro's arguments. In this case however it has proven difficult for me to refute my opponent's arguments, seeing as he has argued as if they are trying to refute someone else's argument, rather than bring up their own. So far in this debate all my opponent has done is talk about the evils and inefficiencies of capitalism while not doing anything to affirm the resolution by showing that "Socialism is better". Now that that is out of the way I can move on to my opponent's closing arguments.

Now in place of arguments, my opponent has decided to forgo empirical evidence and historical examples to write about how socialism would work in some sort of utopian future. He maintains that if implemented correctly, socialism can work better than capitalism. However my opponent is employing a clear double standard. His critique of capitalism is based on examples of it being put into place. He claims that the inequality among social classes is due to capitalism. However cannot I just simply apply my opponent's exact refutation of my argument to his? Just like he brushes off the historical examples of socialism being implemented as not 'true' versions of socialism, I can say that a society of inequality and poverty is not the 'correct' implementation of capitalism. Any problem that my opponent brings against capitalism I can simply brush aside as not 'real' capitalism. My opponent employs a clear cut No True Scottsman Fallacy and since my opponent retains the primary BOP as instigator and Pro of this debate, one should vote Con automatically. My opponent's next argument is what I would call the argument from democracy. He writes:

//"In socialism, you will help make the decisions now made by the president and board of trustees of your university, by the boss on your job, by your landlord, by the owners of newspapers, TV stations, movie studios, and sports franchises, and by government officials at all levels."//

His argument could be summed up as 'Socialism means democracy and democracy is good.' However what warrant does my opponent bring to show that democracy is A.-An efficient system in general and B.-An efficient system when applied to economics. My opponent assumes too much in this argument. He does not back it up with any rational arguments. Honestly, I would rather have some CEO with a profit incentive and experience in business making high up economic decisions than a career politician who is supposedly acting for the "common good".

My opponent then argues that socialism would do a few things. Specifically he argues that it would:

//"showing an equal concern for preserving the environment, protecting workers' health, and reducing work hours"//

My opponent again does not show specifically how socialism would achieve these ends. I would also like to say that all three of these things can be done in a purely capitalistic society with no need for government interference. I'll just throw up some very brief descriptions on how this could be done. I will not go into too much detail though seeing as I'm already halfway through my character limit. I will say though that these solutions are speculative seeing as there does not exist any pure capitalist society.

Preserving the environment.- Corporations that do work that may involve harming the environment have a financial incentive not to do this. Unlike governments, corporations have a reputation to keep up and can lose money when their reputation goes down the drain.(e.g.- Chick-Fil-A taking a position against homosexuality). A government obtains it's revenue coercively through taxes while corporations rely on voluntary associations. It is in a corporation's best interest not to completely rape the environment for the world to see.

Protecting worker's health.- Basically the same concept as for preserving the environment. Because people who work for corporations do so in a voluntary manner, if a company gets a reputation for poor working conditions, that corporation will necessarily suffer a shortage of applicants. Also, a company's reputation for quality products will suffer seeing as workers in terrible working conditions will consequently produce inferior products compared to if there were better working conditions.

Reducing work hours.- Here, my opponent seemed to be too vague. However, the same principle applied to a corporation having a financial incentive to protect their worker's health, a company of course has a financial incentive to not work their employees to death. Of course I will again tell readers that these three scenarios were speculative. However I showed how a capitalistic society would be able to deal with these three issues in a more rational manner and in more detail than my opponent did.(He simply claimed that socialism would fix these problems)

My opponent throughout the rest of the last round simply described a utopian socialist society where everyone selflessly works together for the good of society. Again, my opponent in no way showed why this was a plausible scenario and not simply a made up scenario. My opponent most certainly did not uphold his burden in this debate and so I urge a Con vote by default.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheGreatDebator23 1 year ago
TheGreatDebator23
THAN* GOD there is even a spellchecker right next to where it says: "Post Comments"!!!!!
Posted by Noradrenergic 4 years ago
Noradrenergic
It is interesting the huge advantage that children born into rich western families have in life, compared with starving African families for example. Those wealth enough to inherit land are also at a significant advantage due to nothing more than luck on their part.

It's only fair to redistribution everything, even if that is impossible to do, isn't it?
Posted by i8JoMomma 5 years ago
i8JoMomma
anarchy is better than both of them
Posted by Amveller 6 years ago
Amveller
sorry for my small font in the last round :(
Posted by Amveller 6 years ago
Amveller
Now I have little time challenge you at a later time, thanks
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
I thought I would have time over the weekend to do this, but I guess not. If you re-issue the challenge after it expires, I'll definitely have time for it.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Also, Welcome To DDO!
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"You got me scared now...but bring it"
Rejoice! One debate with someone like J will teach you more than a thousand debates with noobs. I know from experience :(
Posted by Amveller 6 years ago
Amveller
You got me scared now...but bring it
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Too bad for Amveller. I wouldn't want J.Kenyon to accept one of my debates. It would be a sure loss.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
AmvellersocialpinkoTied
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 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: more humanitarian does not mean better automatically
Vote Placed by potatolover 6 years ago
potatolover
AmvellersocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Personally I think Capitalism is better, but Amveller did give interesting sources.
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 6 years ago
mrsmooth27
AmvellersocialpinkoTied
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: I agree with you, Pro, but you didn't defend it well... Agree with Pro Conduct to Con Arguments to Con Sources to Con Grammer is neutral.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
AmvellersocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 pt to socialpinko for his OP which basically framed and set the tone for the debate. Amveller did not succumb to the BoP demands of socialpinko and demanded that he argue equally for capitalism, 1 pt to Pro. From that point forth Amveller made a lot of assertions without much warrant and socialpinko demanded it only. With an equal BoP which Amveller did demand decently, it has to be a tie at that point.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
AmvellersocialpinkoTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is quite right; I lol'd at quite a few of Amveller's premises and conclusions. He didn't prove his point sufficiently. However, I hate these BOP debates and Con focused a little bit too much on it for my liking, so I gave Pro conduct.