The Instigator
really12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sidewinder
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The entire world is bound to become communist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 78227
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

really12

Pro

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately and have decided to turn it into a debate. I will be taking pro and therefore will be arguing that the entire world will, one day, more than likely become communist. This is not based on the NWO conspiracy, rather, it is based on the notion of the US founding fathers as stated "a democracy can and will not last".

First round is acceptance, then following two are rebuttals with the fourth being the conclusion. Good luck to my future contender.
sidewinder

Con

I will be arguing that a world wide communist government is not inevitable
Debate Round No. 1
really12

Pro

Thank you for accepting. While the topic has somewhat been compromised, I will settle for arguing the possibility and not inevitability of every nation becoming a second world (communist regime).

With the notion that I have already entertained about the US founding fathers stating "A democracy can and will not last", which is the primary reason why they devised the US Constitution and ultimately transformed what was a non-independent nation at first, into the independent United States federation that it is today. In short, they made the US a federation and a republic with the freedom of democracy, and not a non-federation democracy. However, a constitution is not infallible, if the president wanted, especially after the singing of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and the uprising ISIS situation, if America were to be attacked by yet another terrorist bombing then the president would have the option of suspending the US Constitution with martial law. While that was a hypothetical situation at most, if such a predicament can be hypothetically devised then what would heavily prevent it from becoming a reality. Given how many countries are federations and therefore have written constitutions, this same hypothetical scenario is not impossible to happen to those countries.

Another hypothetical scenario that is possible, is if a already second world country were to invade a democratic federation, let's say if China were to invade Australia, in that scenario the US would not want to trigger a nuclear war which would be very likely if two nuclear-armed countries were to militarily engage in battle. If the UN were to advise the US to assist Australia as a nuclear-armed nation had just invaded a non-nuclear armed nation which would a violation of one of the many UN treaties, but really in this hypothetical predicament, the UN would literally have zero power.

Also, when you review the history of virtually every country, there has always been an event of communism or capitalism, if not that, just a synonymous term like Dynasty or Tyrannical Reign. To elaborate this, I will list the as many countries as I can and stipulate their communist reign:

Russia - Communist from 1917 - 18.
Cuba - Currently communist.
China - Communist and Capitalist since 1949, Dynasty before.
Vietnam - Currently Second World
Laos - Currently Second
Britain - Tyrannical Reign during King Henry VII
Italy - Tyrannical Reign with Nero, and Caesar
Greece - Tyrannical Reign with Draco
Argentina - Currently under Martial Law
Pakistan - Currently under Martial Law
North Korea - Currently Second World
Uganda - Endured reign of Idi Amin
Zimbabwe - Currently under dictatorship
US - Civilians were imprisoned in FEMA camps in 1942.
Australia - Came close to being overrun by Japanese subjugation in WWII
Germany - Nazi Germany.
Thailand - Currently Under Martial Law.
Yugoslavia - Under dictatorship during civil war.
Romania - Endured Reign of Vlad the Impaler.

While some of these are not communist by definition such as tyrannical reign, they do nonetheless compromise the freedom of democracy and written constitution as well as treaties and petitions regarding human and civil rights.

If any of these need to cited I will do so in the conclusion.
sidewinder

Con

sidewinder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
really12

Pro

My opponent has failed to counter my rebuttal. Please refer to my previous argument.
sidewinder

Con

sidewinder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
really12

Pro

My opponent has once again failed to counter my rebuttal with any response whatsoever.

My definition of communist is the dictionary's definition.

I would include an extract but I'm on my phone and currently can't copy and paste so I'll just include a URL.

https://www.google.com.au......

That link leads to a Google search page with a direct definition.

While that link does not support my defense with the correlation between communism and dictatorship, I have provided a link that will further explain the mutual relativity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org......

While yes it is Wikipedia, I will not currently argue the credibility of it as I personally do not see it as an entirely inefficient or even inefficient source at all.

If the extract is too hard to find, I have it here:

https://www.google.com.au......+

Now let's forget about the Chinese dynasty and the current capitalist movement as I do in fact still have the defense of Mao's communist reign.

As for tyrannical reign, this is my source:

https://www.google.com.au......+

It is another Google definition search, if you ignore the definition for now and focus on the synonyms you will see "dictatorship" which I have correlated to communism.

While yes my defense is somewhat abstract, it is still in fact there as I have provided multiple sources, and sporadic justification.

my definition of communist is the dictionary's definition.

I would include an extract but I'm on my phone and currently can't copy and paste so I'll just include a URL.

https://www.google.com.au......

That link leads to a Google search page with a direct definition.

While that link does not support my defense with the correlation between communism and dictatorship, I have provided a link that will further explain the mutual relativity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org......

While yes it is Wikipedia, I will not currently argue the credibility of it as I personally do not see it as an entirely inefficient or even inefficient source at all.

If the extract is too hard to find, I have it here:

https://www.google.com.au......+

Now let's forget about the Chinese dynasty and the current capitalist movement as I do in fact still have the defense of Mao's communist reign.

As for tyrannical reign, this is my source:

https://www.google.com.au......+

It is another Google definition search, if you ignore the definition for now and focus on the synonyms you will see "dictatorship" which I have correlated to communism.

While yes my defense is somewhat abstract, it is still in fact there as I have provided multiple sources, and sporadic justification.

My notion on Australia's close subjugation by Japan in WWII would fall under the category of tyrannical. As for American civilians being incarcerated in FEMA camps in 1942, I would place that under Marxism, maybe even Leninism or even Stalinism.

These are my words from the comments message board clarifying my definition on communism, well more of my interpretation of it.

Since I have provided clarification for my initial rebuttal, I will conclude my agenda with cordial apologies to my opponent after this debate, just a polite gesture.
sidewinder

Con

sidewinder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
@Ferare,

Sorry for yet another subsequent response, my notion on Australia's close subjugation by Japan in WWII would fall under the category of tyrannical. As for American civilians being incarcerated in FEMA camps in 1942, I would place that under Marxism, maybe even Leninism or even Stalinism.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
@Ferare,

As for my notion on martial law and communism/dictatorship, martial law is a suspension of any federal constitution and all law is suspended with everything enforced by the military plus civil/human rights are suspended. This is in fact how communist Russia began, therefore, under Marxist, Leninism, and Stalinism theory, martial law is relevant.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
@Ferare,

Sorry for this third response, I ran out of space on the previous comment.

If you are willing to contend with me in another debate on the same topic, I will more than gladly accept as my current opponent doesn't seem too committed.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
@Ferare,

I'm sorry to post a second comment in response but you requested my definition of communist. Well, my definition of communist is the dictionary's definition.

I would include an extract but I'm on my phone and currently can't copy and paste so I'll just include a URL.

https://www.google.com.au...

That link leads to a Google search page with a direct definition.

While that link does not support my defense with the correlation between communism and dictatorship, I have provided a link that will further explain the mutual relativity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

While yes it is Wikipedia, I will not currently argue the credibility of it as I personally do not see it as an entirely inefficient or even inefficient source at all.

If the extract is too hard to find, I have it here:

https://www.google.com.au...+

Now let's forget about the Chinese dynasty and the current capitalist movement as I do in fact still have the defense of Mao's communist reign.

As for tyrannical reign, this is my source:

https://www.google.com.au...+

It is another Google definition search, if you ignore the definition for now and focus on the synonyms you will see "dictatorship" which I have correlated to communism.

While yes my defense is somewhat abstract, it is still in fact there as I have provided multiple sources, and sporadic justification.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
@Ferare,

Like I stated in my rebuttal after listing the many nations that were not all communist by definition but rather had a compromise if democratic freedom and absence of civil rights treaties.

Also, while some of the nations were not communist by definition, they were in fact synonymous to communism. Therefore, yes, I see communism as an antithesis or full contrary to democracy whether it be directly by definition or synonym.

"Do you mean communism in action or as official ideology?"

While I do not fully understand this question, my interpretation of it is that "communism in action" refers to the actual imposition of communism, whereas, "as official ideology" refers to the advocating of it. Well, both are bad, so I would argue both.
Posted by Ferare 1 year ago
Ferare
I'm kind of new here, but I would like to debate this issue. I think you need to define a few things better first. It seems you view communism as an antithesis to democracy, is that correct? Do you mean communism in action or as official ideology? What is your definition of communist? Looking forward to hearing back from you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.