The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

This picture is valid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,631 times Debate No: 10839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

wjmelements

Pro

Resolved: The picture linked to below is valid:
http://www.debate.org...
In case it is taken down or replaced, here is a copy on tinypic.com:
http://i49.tinypic.com...

Definitions:
Capitalism-an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth http://dictionary.reference.com...
Parasite-a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others http://dictionary.reference.com...
****************
Contentions:
1. Capitalist transactions are mutually beneficial.
2. Countries with more capitalist activity have higher standards of living.
3. The problems in Africa can be attributed to geography and government.
****************
1. Capitalist transactions are mutually beneficial.
In capitalism, transactions are not arranged through violence or coercion, but mutual consent. An individual, firm, or corporation will not consent to a transaction if they are not better off making the transaction than any feasible alternative. Therefore, both parties in a trade benefit. [1]

2. When comparing the economic freedom scale [2] and the GDP per capita values [3], the correlation is obvious:
*Of the fifteen countries with an economic freedom rating above 75%, eight are in the top fifteen in per capita GDP
*Of the fifteen countries with an economic freedom rating between 70 and 75%, five are in the top fifteen in per capita GDP
*Of the remaining one-hundred sixty-five countries, only two (U.A.E. and Qatar) are in the top fifteen in per capita GDP, and they were not included in the economic survey.
So, the highest wealth-per-person countries are also the most capitalist.

3. The starvation problems in Africa, described in the picture as a result of capitalism, is actually a result of government corruption, government handouts, and government oppression.
A. Government Corruption
The most desolate African countries, such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Congo are also the most politically corrupt countries [4].
B. Government Handouts
-The AIDS virus that has so destroyed the lives of sub-Saharan African peoples was the result of the free smallpox vaccination [5] [6].
-Foreign aid has allowed corrupt regimes in Africa to buy the military equipment needed to further control and oppress their people [7].
**********
Sources:
[1] Thomas Sowell: Economic Facts and Fallacies
[2] http://www.heritage.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita <---Broken link
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.associatedcontent.com...
[6] Stephen Weir: Encyclopedia Idiotica
[7] http://www.capmag.com...
brian_eggleston

Con

I would like to thank wjelements for proposing this debate. I believe he is arguing the image he posted was "morally valid". If not, he will no doubt correct me. In the meantime I will argue that it is not morally valid.

However, before I reply to the points he raised in turn I would like to put matters into perspective. The Boston Consulting Group released a report last month, which read:

"Less than 1 percent of all households were millionaires, but they owned about 38 percent of the world's wealth, up from about 36 percent in 2008. Households with more than $5 million in wealth represented 0.1 percent of households but owned about 21 percent, or $23 trillion, of the world's wealth, up from 19 percent in 2008." [1]

This is profoundly unjust because it is the workers that create all the wealth under capitalism. A truly fair society can only be constructed when the citizens collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need rather than ability to pay. This is known as socialism, but the vested interests of the rich will prevent any such system being introduced on a global scale, at least in the foreseeable future.

Now, to address the points in question:

1. Capitalist transactions are mutually beneficial.

They may be mutually beneficial to the parties involved but can often be harmful to third parties.

For example, fish is the most traded food commodity in the world and the European Union is its biggest buyer. A major source of freshwater fish is Lake Victoria in sub-Saharan Africa. Because all fish stocks are finite, buyers from supermarket chains in Europe bid against each other for each catch landed at the fish markets. The prices the fish reach are so high that they exclude the possibility of local buyers making any purchases. The problem is so acute that even fish heads are unaffordable to the local population. [2,3]

This means that while the Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ugandan fishing companies and the European supermarket chains benefit from these transactions, the already impoverished locals are deprived of a valuable source of protein.

2. Countries with more capitalist activity have higher standards of living.

The statistics my opponent provided are very convincing when taken at face value and if all citizens within those countries with the highest economic freedom were equally wealthy they would have some validity.

Unfortunately, though, the distribution of wealth in the richest countries is extremely uneven.

For example, in terms of economic freedom, the UK ranks 11th in the world, yet in that country the most wealthy 10% of the population own over half the wealth. [4]

To compound matters, the UK is a very expensive place to live but the wages are not that high.

As it happens, I live in the London Borough of Southwark, which does have "posh" parts but is mainly deprived. Even after the recent crash in property values, the average property in the Southwark costs �725,562 (US$1,073,094). This is actually one of the cheaper boroughs: in Kensington and Chelsea the average property price is �2,606,354 ($3,857,665) [5].

The reason that property prices are so high is that the UK is a capitalist country and the prices are driven by demand. There is a limited stock of housing and the UK is home to a large number of high net worth individuals, from both home and abroad.

Meanwhile, the median weekly full-time wage in the UK is just �489 ($724) or �25,428 ($37,636) p.a. [6], so you can see that it is impossible for ordinary people to afford anything more than the smallest and most basic of properties.

The huge cost of accommodation in the UK means that the majority of people have very little disposable income and thus have lower standards of living than citizens of less "economically free" countries much further down the list.

3. The starvation problems in Africa, described in the picture as a result of capitalism, is actually a result of government corruption, government handouts, and government oppression.

There is no doubt that corruption in Africa is rife and that poor governance is the main obstacle to the economic development of the continent.

However, corruption and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. There are no communist countries in Africa and the four countries my opponent mentioned: Sudan, which has an interim government pending free elections [7]; Ethiopia, which is a federal republic [8]; Somalia, which has an interim government pending free elections [9] and The Republic of the Congo, which is a republic [10], all operate on the basis of capitalist principles.

In conclusion, the millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa who live in poverty are dispossessed and disenfranchised through no fault of their own. They continue to live in poverty because of a combination of poor governance and their exploitation by capitalist corporations.

Finally, the picture my opponent posted recognises that capitalism has led to the position we now find ourselves in: where the children of the privileged few are able to conspicuously over-consume; while the developing world supplies the natural resources to enable them to do so.

I don't think the concept that one child should be allowed to endulge its greed at the expense of another child's health and well-being is a morally valid one, and I don't think you do either.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.bcg.com...
[2] http://www.oecd.org...
[3] http://ipsnews.net...
[4} http://www.statistics.gov.uk...
[5] http://www.primelocation.com...
[6] http://www.statistics.gov.uk...
[7] http://www.state.gov...
[8] http://www.state.gov...
[9] http://www.state.gov...
[10] http://www.state.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

I would like to thank Brian for taking this debate and clarify that we are debating that the picture is valid in that it properly represents capitalism either literally or metaphorically.

==SOCIALISM==
One must take a more practical approach to the problem of income inequality. Because the collectivization of property leads to a tragedy of the commons [1][2], as demonstrated with the collectivization of water [3] and land [1][2], the means of production cannot be effectively publicly owned. Under collectivism, there is no incentive for the individual to maintain the land, machines, or other means of production, and so it deteriorates. There is then no incentive for one to create replacement capital either, for it will end up common and therefore exploited. So, the means of production must be owned privately.

In addition, whilst my opponent asserts that production only originates from labor, it actually results from the combination of private capital and purchased labor. Following my opponent's perspective, the capital, and therefore the employer, is deserving of a share.

==AFRICAN FISH==
According to my opponent's source [my 4, his 3], the reason that fish protein has become so expensive is that the fish are depleted due to overfishing. My opponent may not realize that Lake Victoria is a collectivist system, and that his solution of giving it to the people that use it, the fishers, makes no sense, because that's what we have right now. Lake Victoria is a victim of the Tragedy of the Commons, discussed above, and if parts of it were privately owned and fenced off, there would be incentive to maintain the supply of fish. Instead, there is overfishing, which has reduced the supply and therefore increased the price. If the supply returned to its former levels, the price would fall.

==HOUSING==
My opponent's standard of living is evident by what he considers to be an injustice. This property [5], for example, goes for what is less than the average, and is a "stunning two bedroomed duplex flat offers ample living space with modern fixtures and fittings and luxurious bathroom suites." Another [6], "located in a charming residential square, (a local conservation area), close to local shops & excellent bus routes for the West End & City," is a "4 bedroom house" that is "arranged over 4 floors n excellent condition throughout" and a "charming home of character & quality." If this is still below average, then my opponent lives in quite the prosperous area.

Still, that is only the average, and plenty make less because their labor is less desired and/or specialized, but they don't live homeless; they buy cheaper property or rent a flat. This is no calamity.

==CAPITALIST AFRICA==
While my opponent can source that they are currently in the people's control (at least in theory), this does not make them capitalist, and it especially doesn't make them poor because of their capitalism. For example, Ethiopia is poor because a Socialist government decided to kill its political opponents, causing the "Red Terror" which lead to a Civil War, all of which destabilized the country and its economy [7][8]. Similarly, Somalia is poor because of its constant civil war [9], not because it has a market economy (but remember that it doesn't have one in the first place). Sudan has a military government [10] and suffers from anti-capitalist sanctions and civil war. Congo has also been in a long civil war [11] that only recently ended. In short, the countries listed are poor because of constant violence, not by capitalism. My opponent has also failed to demonstrate that corporations are somehow to blame for these wars.

==THE PICTURE==
The picture is invalid because the poverty in Africa is not due to capitalism, but to war. The fat kid did not benefit at the expense of the impoverished child, but at the benefit of some Latin American farmer.
The picture is invalid as a metaphor as well because private property leads to greater prosperity.
Therefore, the resolution is negated.

Thank you.

==SOURCES==
[1] http://www.econlib.org...
[2] http://www.chattoogariver.org...
[3] http://oceanworld.tamu.edu...
[4] http://ipsnews.net...
[5] http://www.homes24.co.uk...
[6] http://www.houseladder.co.uk...
[7] http://www.infoplease.com...
[8] http://www.infoplease.com...
[9] http://www.infoplease.com...
[10] http://www.infoplease.com...
[11] http://www.infoplease.com...
brian_eggleston

Con

Many thanks to wjmelements for continuing this excellent debate - I must say I am enjoying it. Now to rebut the points he made as follows:

SOCIALISM

Collectivism allows the provision of vital resources such as food, water and electricity according to need and is thus beneficial to society as a whole, not just to those who can afford to pay the market rate under capitalism.

The most common criticism of collectivism, as my opponent pointed out, is that it does not financially incentivise individuals to work harder and invest in research and development.

However, this is not true. There are indirect rewards of hard work and creating new technologies under socialism. For example, individuals whose endeavour benefits the state will be rewarded with superior housing, better cars, luxury vacations, etc. Meanwhile, those who fail to discharge their responsibilities to the state by refusing to work diligently will have their benefits reduced or withdrawn.

FISHING

My opponent is right to say that the fish stocks of Lake Victoria are depleted. Indeed, as the result of over-fishing by the trawlers supplying mass producers of frozen fish products, seas and oceans around the world are running dangerously low on stocks.

That's why most countries, including those surrounding Lake Victoria, operate fishing quotas in order to protect fish stocks. However, the permitted fish catches are allocated to the large-scale producers, which is different from collectivism as my opponent suggested it represents, and these quotas have the net effect of depriving subsistence fishermen of the fish that have traditionally sustained their families.

HOUSE PRICES

Okay, my opponent has questioned the validity of my source, so here's another one – Rightmove.co.uk: the British equivalent of Realtor.com

Here's a search of 3 bedroom homes in my area:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk...

You'll see the very cheapest property sold for �300,000 / $444,000.

I also did a search on Relator.com of my opponent's home town of Spring, TX.

http://www.realtor.com...

Here you can see that the cheapest 3 bedroom home is �30,000 / $44,000. What's more, it is much nicer than the one in London and, furthermore, it is detached rather than terraced and has more land. Even so, it is ten times cheaper.

However, people in Texas don't earn ten times less than people in London. Here's a wage comparison:

Administration Assistant:
Texas - $32k (�22k) p.a.
London - �20k ($30k) p.a.

Software Engineer:
Texas - $88k (�60k) p.a.
London - �42k ($63k) p.a.

http://www.payscale.com...
http://www.payscale.com...

So, you can see that the rates of pay in Texas and London are almost identical, yet the cost of houses in London are many multiples that of those in Texas. That means, that after the mortgage or rent has been paid, people in London have far less to spend than their cousins in the Lone Star State.

CAPITALIST AFRICA.

I think my opponent both agree that poverty in Africa is associated with war, famine and political corruption. Not all of these are the fault of capitalism, of course, but there are many examples of corporations exploiting the vulnerability of the African people.

For example, in Nigeria western companies drill for oil off the coast of Nigeria yet the locals receive very little or no financial benefit from these operations. Indeed, corruption and misuse actually fuels violence in the Delta.

http://www.hrw.org...

Similarly, in Angola and Botswana the mining of minerals such as diamonds by Western companies leads the further armed conflicts.

http://www.nytimes.com...

The point is, under capitalism, a corporation's primary responsibility is to their shareholders – their priority is to make as much money as legally possible, without consideration for the consequences their business activities may have on impoverished people in Africa.

THE PICTURE

There are a finite amount of food resources in the world. Instead of gorging himself, the fat kid in the picture could have just eaten his recommended daily intake of food. This would have kept him healthier and also allowed less land to be used to grow the crops that fed the cattle that were minced to make his hamburgers, thus freeing the land to grow crops for impoverished locals.

The fact that the fat kid has more prosperous parents than the kid in Africa doesn't mean they are morally entitled to indulge his every greedy whim; indeed rather the opposite is true from a health point of view.

In a meritocracy, all children would have the same opportunity to succeed in life. As it is, under capitalism, whereas a white kid with wealthy parents may prosper in the West, many children in Africa will be lucky if they even make it to adulthood.

If this is capitalism in action, I don't think it should be celebrated.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

I must thank Brain_eggleston for this engaging debate. Looking up realty was perhaps the most interesting part.

SOCIALISM
My opponent has addressed incentives to work or innovate, while my arguments concerned the means of production. Common capital is accessed by multiple independently acting individuals, each of whom has no interest in maintaining the productivity of the capital, so the capital deteriorates in its usefulness. This has been demonstrated in collectivized grazing land and public lakes. My opponent has not refuted this. ([1])

Still, because my opponent has brought up the incentive to work hard, I will address them. There is the loophole that because anyone can get their needs fulfilled regardless of hard work, there is no need for the worker to do anything at all. A leisurely life without luxuries will be preferable to a hard-working life with them for the multitude, and gradually, the wealth will decline. Why work when you don't have to? The apparent solution is to coerce the workers by threatening to remove their food or by threatening with violence, neither of which are particularly socialist. Such a system would be considered a violent slavery, in which the worker seeks every day the approval of his master so that he might end up with the necessities to make it to the next day. ([2])

FISHING

My opponent has not contended my proposition for Lake Victoria to be divided into private fisheries. The current state is effectively a collectivist system, again, because the lake is public, and the capital is managed by a governing body that rations its resources. My opponent concedes it is this way, he merely claims that this isn't collectivist because the receiving parties aren't under the direct control of the state, although this is entirely irrelevant to the scenario, because the lake is not privatized, and so it has experienced the tragedy of the commons.

HOUSE PRICES

(At first I'd misread and thought my opponent had found my house. That was creepy for a moment.)

I will disagree with my opponent on the quality of the housing he is presenting. The cheapest property sold [3] includes the following: "porch, hallway, three bedrooms, reception room, kitchen/breakfast room, bathroom suite, guest cloakroom, good decorative order, gas central heating, fitted carpets, integral garage and south-facing rear garden," and is clearly of acceptable luxury, while the cheapest house in my opponent's Spring, TX link [4] goes for $33,000, not $30,000, and is described as "NEEDS WORK" and is offered " 'AS-IS' ", reiterating that the seller will make "no repairs" and that the buyer should be some sort of "handyman." In other words, the house from Texas sourced by my opponent is not "much nicer than the one in London" as my opponent may argue, but a piece of crap. This negates the point he was trying to make about the difference in weight of the mortgage/rent burden.

Still, the reason UK's property values are so high are likely governmental (the UK is less capitalist than the US, by objective standards [4]). Economist Thomas Sowell attributes construction restrictions [6] with many high-property-value areas:
"In places where the cost of the land exceeds the cost of constructing housing, height restrictions can mean that much higher rents or condominium prices must be charged." [6]
He goes on:
"Where builders are allowed to construct homes and apartments without severe government restrictions, even growing populations and rising incomes do not cause housing prices to shoot up, because the supply of newly constructed housing keeps up with the growing demand, as in Las Vegas or Houston.... There is little opportunity for housing prices to continue to greatly exceed construction and land costs in communities without severe restrictions on building or a monopolistic collusion among builders." [7]
Clearly, capitalism is not to blame, but government intervention.

CAPITALIST AFRICA

My opponent's sources all contradict his case. The locals in Nigeria receive no benefit from their government (not from the corporation) because of government corruption. [8] From my opponent's source:
"Many state and local officials in Rivers have squandered or stolen public money that could have gone toward providing vital health and education services." [8]
This reiterates that government, not capitalism is responsible for the plethora of problems in Africa.

I can go on. The blood diamond mining in Angola and was not done by western companies, but by political groups such as UNITA [9]. In Botswana, the country's economic and social growth has been significantly helped by De Beers, a diamond selling corporation [10].

In conclusion, my opponent has been incapable of linking the poverty in Africa to capitalism and has had to twist his own sources to contradict my case.

THE PICTURE

Capitalism cannot be held responsible for the disease in Africa. This was conceded in the first round.
Capitalism cannot be held responsible for the civil wars in Africa. This was proven despite my opponent's misrepresentations.
Capitalism cannot be held responsible for the poverty in Africa. This was attributed to the aforementioned wars and diseases, despite my opponent's attempts to pin it elsewhere.
Therefore, the picture is invalid, and misrepresents the realities of capitalism.

Thank you.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...
[3] http://www.rightmove.co.uk...
[4] http://www.realtor.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Sowell, Thomas. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Page 28.
[7] Sowell, Thomas. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Page 30-31.
[8] http://www.hrw.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://www.nytimes.com...
brian_eggleston

Con

With thanks once again to wjelements for his contribution, I don't think the voters would thank me for getting bogged down in any more in-depth analysis of the commercial aquaculture of Lake Victoria or the relative value of houses in London and Texas, so I will cut to the chase and address the real issue of the moral value capitalism.

It think my opponent and I both agree that corruption in Africa is the root cause of many of their problems. However, this corruption, both state and private, is a product of the capitalist system.

At the end of the day, private companies do not provide schools, hospitals, roads, sanitation, police, libraries, museums, national parks, social services, welfare payments and all the other public services that benefit society as a whole: that is the job of the government.

It may well be that countries of the West are generally more prosperous than African countries because their governments tend to be less corrupt – although, as we have seen there are many poor people in the West and many rich people in Africa – but the common denominator is that they all operate under capitalist systems.

That's why we should not "Enjoy Capitalism" as the picture suggests. Capitalism promotes injustice and inequality, both nationally and internationally, and permits the scandalous situation whereby one child can stuff his face full of junk food until he's fit to burst whilst another child has to scratch around in the dust looking for grains of rice in a desperate attempt to keep himself alive.

In conclusion, if you are rich, capitalism will seem like the most liberating and fairest socio-economic system ever devised, but if you are poor it will seem like the most oppressive and unjust system this side of feudalism.

Sadly, since there are so many more poor people in the world than there are rich, the impartial voter must vote Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
@Phil "...it is the workers that create all the wealth under capitalism" ~ brian_eggleston

Phil: Huh? If it was the workers that created the wealth under capitalism, then wouldn't that wealth belong to them? Are the workers not paid an hour's wage for an hour's work? Only a lazy socialist/union thug would claim to have been responsible for creating the wealth, when they actually contributed no financial risk or innovation, and instead demand more benefits for less work.

Me: "Surely the slaves would own what the wealth if they created it," said the master. The workers receive the sliver owners choose to give them, rather than directly providing the bare minimum of food, shelter and (possibly) medicine. For the farmer of human cattle has discovered in time that free range does better (to a certain extent: the free range cattle must still compete with the fenced in). The worker, naturally, wishes to minimize work and maximum reward. The owner wishes the opposite. The competition mentioned above helps put them in a more vulnerable position, as they are competing with even more exploited people working in prison-like factories, or actual prisons, as the case may be. There is a great deal of financial risk on their part. Why should workers innovate when they lack control over how much (or if) they are rewarded?

If people are rewarded according to contribution (socialism) or need (communism) there are still incentives to produce. Many can accomplish what the few have, in terms of innovation, planning, etc.
Your example is exactly what our entire economic system has been based on for a very long time, except in fact its the producers who are taken from, via rights of property which regardless of justification have never arisen without force, i.e. government.

Socialism/communism have been tried in history, very successfully, but always crushed by force. I am not referring to "socialist" or "communist" states: those are just one owner, or state capitalism.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Phil makes an appearance!
Posted by Phil 7 years ago
Phil
"...it is the workers that create all the wealth under capitalism" ~ brian_eggleston

Huh? If it was the workers that created the wealth under capitalism, then wouldn't that wealth belong to them? Are the workers not paid an hour's wage for an hour's work? Only a lazy socialist/union thug would claim to have been responsible for creating the wealth, when they actually contributed no financial risk or innovation, and instead demand more benefits for less work. Gotta love the ignorant, scratch that, arrogant socialist (redundant, I know).

Out of curiosity, what happens in your socialistic utopia when the risk takers and innovators take no more risk, and innovate no more because their rightly earned wealth is unjustly stripped from them? Doesn't that lower everybody's standard of living? Is that your goal? After all, you can only take their money once...then there's no more to take.

Seems like you haven't learned any lessons from history. Socialism/communism has been tried for thousands of years, always with failure, and mostly ending in mass murder. It is Capitalism that is new, and allows workers to decide if they would like to try and become wealthy through risk and innovation.

It is the wealthy who historically use socialism as a tool to keep people out of their country club. In socialism, only bureaucrats have wealth.

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not take from someone else. When half of the people get the idea they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get's the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is surely the end of the nation's future." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
What a gentleman! Thank you.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
We need to round up a few socialists to read and vote on this debate. Only onservative and libertarian voting isn't fair to Brian.

I forgot that Brian can't vote, so I'm canceling mine.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It should be obvious to the voters that I was supposed to be CON.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Much of my family live in San Antonio - if I went to live there I could live like a king instead of a pauper!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Yeah, our property values are one third of theirs, for the same size house.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
It seems clear: Texas > London.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
I just figured out a working definition for Communism Capitalism and Socialism

Capitalism: Where there are 100 trillion goods produced and 5% of the people control 90% of the goods and the other 95% of people own the other 10%

Communism: Where there is a crap load of nothing produced and everyone has an equal amount

Socialism: Where everything produced goes toward "bureaucratic overhead" in order to keep people in work that if we lived by survival of the fittest would've been eaten by Dingo dogs a long time ago
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by evilconservative 7 years ago
evilconservative
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 7 years ago
Anacharsis
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 7 years ago
ArtTheWino
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Adamant1 7 years ago
Adamant1
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 7 years ago
Pyromaniac
wjmelementsbrian_egglestonTied
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:70