Many have argued that nations such as the USSR and China were not true communist states and that if a new nation were to try communism again, they would experience different positive results. For this debate we will apply the scientific method in seeing if this at all likely. Con will be arguing that if a new attempt at communism were to take place that it most likely be a success.
I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate possible and am looking forward to a good clean fight. The USSR and China were dictatorships and as such are not true to the ideals of a great workers paradise. If done correctly, I would wager, a communist nation could be not only a success but a utopia.
Lets start off by saying that every government in the history of mankind has been an experiment. The experiment was to try and create a working and stable form of government that would benefit the people. Now obviously this has not always been the case and many have failed. One such experiment was communism in Russia. The hypothesis was that if communist leaders were put into power with the intentions of creating a perfect communist society that it would be so. This is what communists predicted would happen. Communist leaders with the intentions of creating a perfect communist society were put into place in Russia and the beginning of the tests began. The Russian experiment lasted for 74 years and the results of the experiment were stark different to what the hypothesis predicted would happen. Instead of creating a communist utopia, as promised by the creators Marx and Engels, what was created was a totalitarian regime that killed millions. However, as with all proper experiments it must be tested numerous times to see if the results are consistent. Other tests were carried out in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and south America. In all, 26 nations have experimented into communism under the same hypothesis and all nations have received the same results. A totalitarian regime that has killed anywhere from thousands, to millions. Because the hypothesis is different to the results, does that mean that the results must be wrong? No, the hypothesis is often times different to the actual results because it was only a prediction. A conclusion of such an experiment is then drawn form the results of the experiment. However, some communists would argue that the reason why these nations all had the same results was because of the Soviet presence in the world. In order to see what a communist state would look like without the Soviet Union we must look at the very first communist state, the Paris Commune. This was the first attempt ever at a communist society in Paris. Not only did it lack the Soviet presence but it also had at the time a living Karl Marx and Engels. The Paris Commune lasted 72 days and managed to kill 12,000 people and destroy 1/3 of Paris. Every time communism has been experimented it has proven the exact same results. We can now draw the conclusion that communism when implemented by governments will prove only to create totalitarian murderous regime even when the leaders have the intentions and of creating a utopia.
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited R 2, 3, & 4. This is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting, because of this, Con loses conduct points. S & G - Tie. Neither made any major grammatical or spelling errors. Arguments - Pro. Con dropped the entire arguments. Pro had the burden of proof and upheld that burden by stating his case and having it remain unchallenged. For this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. Word of advice for Pro: If you ever find yourself in this situation again you can simply type in "extend all arguments" as they remain unchallenged by your opponent due to him forfeiting the response round. Best of luck to you both in future debates!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.