The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points


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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,349 times Debate No: 78993
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Arguments, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
I will be defending Capitalism, while Con negate Capitalism.
Debate Round No. 1


In this debate, I will be proving that capitalism is the most successful political model that we have seen.

Capitalism Definition- Capitalism is an economic system and a mode of production in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned. Such private firms and proprietorships are usually operated for profit, but may be operated as private nonprofit organizations. A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between venders and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. So, as you read, Capitalism implies that the power will usually go to the people. Capitalism has been very successful in America because it has allowed competition.

Competition- If my opponent believes in this ideal, and I am sure that every socialist does. But, during the ages in when humans were evolving. Competition was a necessity in aiding mankind's evolution. Capitalism has made this possible for humanity having the government being in charge of protecting its people, and Its people doing what they want to do. Now, I will give examples of things that capitalism has made possible for us.
Cars- Back in times before capitalism, people used to ride horses to get where they needed to go. Today, it is unimaginable that we would get on our horses and get to where we needed to go. But, in the 20th century during the industrial revolution, cars started booming. Henry Ford had the idea that people would drive cars if they were cheaper. Usually the rich would drive cars while the poor would get horses. But, Henry Ford made cars cheaper. He made it at the right price. American people started to buy cars, and the horsing industry quickly disappeared. This is an example of the Free Market. The people get whatever they need. And if a business is not doing well to serve its people, another business will take over.
Here is a list of the top ten best car companies
Bentley Motors
These businesses are competing for profit. Now, lets just say that everyone of these companies are selfish, and money driven. They are all competing to also provide the best services. They are all competing for our money.
In addition to the free market getting better everyday, Google is releasing their own car. They are trying to create a self-driving car. We all know this but Google is now worried that Apple is going to get involved. If Apple gets involved than that is going to force Google to make their car better.
These are all examples of the free market making life better.

Food- As we all know food is a necessity to human life. As the free market gradually progressed, Food became but better.
McDonalds- As we all know McDonalds is the world's largest hamburger chain. The business started in the 1940s, when White Castle was the burger joint everybody went to. The business started to grow in the 60s, because people started to realize that this food was good. Gradually more and more people went to McDonalds, and replaced White Castle. Another example of a small business replacing a large corporation.

Burger King- Burger King started out in 1954. After Insta-Burger King ran into financial difficulties in 1954, its two Miami-based franchisees, David Edgerton and James McLamore, purchased the company and renamed it Burger King. Over the next half century, the company would change hands four times, with its third set of owners, a partnership of TPG Capital, Bain Capital, and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, taking it public in 2002. In late 2010, 3G Capital of Brazil acquired a majority stake in BK in a deal valued at US$3.26 billion. The new owners promptly initiated a restructuring of the company to reverse its fortunes. 3G, along with partner Berkshire Hathaway, eventually merged the company with Canadian-based doughnut chain Tim Hortons under the auspices of a new Canadian-based parent company.

Wendy's- Wendy's is an American international fast food chain restaurant founded by Dave Thomas on November 15, 1969, in Columbus, Ohio, United States. The company moved its headquarters to Dublin, Ohio, on January 29, 2006. As of March 1999, Wendy's was the world's third largest hamburger fast food chain with approximately 6,650 locations, following Burger King's 12,000+ locations and McDonald's' 31,000+ locations.[3][4][5] On April 24, 2008, the company announced a merger with Triarc, the parent company of Arby's. Despite the new ownership, Wendy's headquarters remained in Dublin.[6] Previously, Wendy's had rejected more than two buyout offers from Triarc Companies Inc. Following the merger, Triarc became known as Wendy's/Arby's Group (now The Wendy's Company), a publicly traded company. Approximately 85% of Wendy's restaurants are franchised, all of which are located in North America. Wendy's and its affiliates employ more than 47,000 people in its global operations. In fiscal year 2006, the firm had $2.469 billion (USD) in total sales.
This is another example of where the free market makes life better.

Video Games- I love vide games. The video game industry started to boom in the early 80s. In the 60s, the arcade carried games like space invaders, and pac man. The free market made it possible for all places that wanted a play room for kids could purchase one from the arcade businesses. Atari came and introduced the idea of home consoles. They brought classical games such as space invaders and pac man to the home screen. Nintendo came and replaced Atari with its classical Mario games. Sega came and also tried to cash in on the video game market with its sonic the hedgehog. Gradually in the early 2000s Xbox and Sony came and released 3Dimentional games to home consoles. Xbox gave its visionary online service which transformed games forever. If you are a true gamer you know that you cannot live without the online service. Thank capitalism for this.

Tech Industries- Technology has also progressed thanks to Capitalism. While video games were progressing, computers were also progressing.
Apple-Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers. Its best-known hardware products are the Mac line of computers, the iPod media player, the iPhone smartphone, the iPad tablet computer, and the Apple Watch smartwatch. Its online services include iCloud, the iTunes Store, and the App Store. Apple's consumer software includes the OS X and iOS operating systems, the iTunes media browser, the Safari web browser, and the iLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites. Apple had the visionary idea in the 80s that they could put a graphical user interface on a computer. The theory was successful. Apple had a visionary idea about putting music in a little device. That was called the IPod. Apple had another idea of making the phone multitouch. That theory was transformed the world with the IPhone.

The Free Market has transformed a lot of things and has made life better. Regulation of free enterprise will not solve anything.


Good luck to my opponent and I hope we have a good debate. Now let's get started.

I will be arguing that a system of true capitalism would be a very bad thing for this world.

Contention 1: Capitalism is unsustainable

Capitalism is growth based. "It has to run to stand" "It has to grow bigger" says David Kitching, renewable energy consultant at the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. Kitching highlights many different reasons as to why Capitalism is unsustainable in his article is 'sustainable capitalism' an oxymoron.

It's like building a house of cards. It's gonna get bigger and bigger until it all comes crashing down. In growth based Capitalism there is an everincreasing supply and production. This is done because as corporations and companies make more money they increase production and grow their business in order to increase profits. This causes competitors to need to grow in order to keep up.

Growth is also simply what the investors want. They want the company to grow so their stocks become worth more and they make more money as well.

With everincreasing production that means everincreasing resource consumption. When these corporations are so caught up consuming resources they lose sight of the very source of how many resources there actually are. They forget how available said resources really are. Eventually the resources will either be ran dry, or they will be inaccessible for extraction in a profitable manner. When that point is reached it will result in economic collapse, the very foundation of what the economy is built on will disapear.

And, I'm not the only one who sees this. Writer Minqi Li writes about this in his book Minqi The End of the “End of History”: The Structural Crisis of Capitalism and the Fate of Humanity. Li is a proffessor of economics at the University of Utah, so he is clearly a fairly reliable source.

Li states that soon "its massive demand for energy and materials can no longer be sustained." Energy is a more specific example of how Capitalism is unsustainable, but it will happen much sooner than many of the other causes.

Contention 2: Unregulated Capitalism is a one way ticket to serious harm or destruction of the planet.

Resource depletion isn't the only harm of increased consumption of resources. A big issue is how we get the resources and how our methods and actions impact the world around us. Capitalism will often ignore this issue in the name of profit.

Let's take author Ted Trainer's writing "Towards a sustainable economy". To quote the man

"Our resource-affluent way of life also causes many serious environmental problems. We are destroying vital ecological systems. Consider, for example, the greenhouse problem, acid rain, the destruction of forests, the spread of deserts and the loss of plant and animal species. At the present rate, more than a million species will disappear in the next 25 years, because the expansion of human economic activity is destroying habitats"

One of the most serious problems that we have capitalist expansion to thank is our farming methods depleting soil of nutrients and just moving on. To quote Trainer

"One of the most unsustainable aspects of our society is the way we continually take large quantities of nutrients from the soil, eat them and then throw them away. We are depleting our soils at a rapid rate."

To take another quote: "Most of these ecological problems are direct consequences of the sheer amount of producing and consuming going on" As I proved in my last contention that this is because of growth based Capitalism.

So then there's the important question of why this happens and if Capitalism can be blamed. Well let me tell you why Capitalism can be blamed for this and true Capitalism would only make the situation worse.

The methods that cause the most issues are usually the cheapest methods. Capitalists will almost always work for short term profit instead of focusing on the future. Why? Because, they are so distracted and caught up in the never ending journey to make more and more money they become blind to the effects of their own actions. In a system of true capitalism no one will be able to change this. No one will be able to stop corporations from only using the cheapest and most destructive methods. The only change will come once their methods no longer work and by then the damage done will be beyond irreversible. So then there's the question. What's the alternative? Government intervention. Governement control and regulation. The government needs to force corporations to use methods that are not the most profitable, but instead the most sustainable and the least invasive to the planet.

Contention 3: War

Capitalism is a driving force for war.
Under Capitalism a nation will be willing to go to a war or escalate a conflict for the simple purpose of attemptng to maintain corporations' resource supply. This can be seen with intervention in the Iran-Iraq war.

To quote Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of naval staff of India "corporate driven military might unleashes pre-emptive wars, invasions and occupations "corporate driven military might unleashes pre-emptive wars, invasions and occupations".

"The unlimited quest for establishing monopoly over the planet earth’s resources and markets , has led the world to witness unending wars"

Bhagwat claims that Capitalism is "accelerating the death and destruction that we have witnessed , all across the globe be it in Angola , Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan , Iraq , Palestine , Central and Latin America , Yugoslavia , Lebanon , Gaza and earlier in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia"

Contention 4: Capitalism is immoral

For Capitalism to exist and function there has to be a division of people by classes. With globalizations this function has done a good job to expand across the world. The lowest class in the American system of Capitalism is insanely different from the lowest class in the global system of Capitalism.

Under the system of true Capitalism the low classes are not helped. They are exploited and trapped in place, because they are needed to do the systems manual labor. They are needed to produce resources and manufacture them in sweatshops. Because Capitalism makes this process as cheap as humanly possible these jobs are dangerous, ridiculously low wage, and mindnumbing long hours of work.

The richest corporations are raking in billions off the backs of the starving and the desperate. Sure it's easy to just pretend this issue is'nt there for us in the 1st world countries and just reap the benefits of the labour, but it's just not moral. Something needs to be done and first things first the problem and the reason for this injustice is Capitalism.

You know what one of the worst things about it is? Most of them aren't out there making MRIs or vaccines or medication. No, they're out there making Iphones
. Their out there working for Niki making the next coolest shoes, or they're out their mining blood diamonds for our Capitalist society because we tell ourselves that for a man to tell a woman he wants to spend his life with her he has to spend thousands on a diamond mined by starving African child. These waged slaves and sometimes legitimate slaves are out there giving their lives and getting worked to death to make corporations money and make our lives slightly more convenient.

We can not morally sit here and do nothing about this.

Next to quote the author Laura Kerr "during the best of times capitalism’s dependency on social hierarchies — coupled with its unpredictable cycles of growth and retraction raises anxiety, sometimes to the level of traumatic stress"

"capitalism creates a state similar to the psychological domination when people are held in captivity"

Capitalism works workers so hard and throws them into a cycle of constant anxiety and soulcrushing work their condition is so bad it's similar to those held in captivity.

sources in comments
Debate Round No. 2


Ariesx forfeited this round.


My opponent has failed to post his argument for round 3, therefore according to the rules he is not allowed to rebut my claims against Capitalism.

For my first point I will kritik his arguments

Kritik: My opponents arguments are all centered on the 1st world

All he talks about is how Capitalim benefits those in the 1st world. They are a small percent of the worlds population relative to the rest. To put it simply my opponent isn't looking at the big picture. By only focusing on a small part of the real process you become blind to what your actions really do. We need to look at the whole picture to determine what is the best thing to do. My opponent simply fails to do this.

Let me give you a scenario.

Result: Money

Well we don't really know what happened here, but by my opponents logic what was done must be good because the end result was good. Right? So, by my opponent's logic it would make sense to have this process repeated despite not really knowing what it is and not knowing if it is moral or if it is harmful.

Now let's reveal the truth about what happens.

Process: Mugging innocent people.
Result: Money

Aren't we glad we did not follow the logic of my opponent so we did not continue having something immoral as that despite it benefiting us.

Now you may be asking, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Well let me tell you. Pro's logic and arguments about Capitalism is similar. He is presented with the end result and likes it without taking into account the proccess of getting to that end result. That is a logic that needs to be rejected. So based on this K you should reject Pro's arguments on the basis they do not take the whole picture into account.

Now I will rebut his points about why Capitalism is good.

Rebuttal 1: Competition

Point 1: Monopolies
Under the system of capitalism the top corporations tend to engage in monopolistic practices despite laws prohibiting them from doing so. Giving little government regulation which is critical in true Capitalism allows corporations to get away with monopolistic practices. This can be seen with the richest corporations buying out their competition so they go uncontested at the top. Governemnt regulation is key to prevent this. Monolopolies are absolutely detrimental to competition and innovation in every sense.

Point 2: Competition is possible without true Capitalism.

While it may be obstucted and hindered it is still possible and effective. The big difference is it's governement regulated which allows governemnt guidance for which technology is developed.
Basically the only time competition is possible is in strict totalitarian communism.

Rebuttal 2:Food

Ok before I get into the more serious points transition to fast food is nowhere near improvment of food. It's spreading rapidly, it's obesity on a plate, and most of it tastes pretty awful. Have you had McDonalds 1$ for two burgers thing? Terrible. Just terrible.

Point 1: Globalized free trade and privatized control of food and water lead to food insecurity

One of Pro's biggest overlooked factors in this argument is overproduction which the nature of Capitalism has caused and is still causing today. This is particularly present in agriculture where desertification and soil depletion are growing issues that Capitalism caused. There is also the topic of overfishing which Capitalism also caused are causing food scarsities in areas heavily dependant on fishing. To conclude Capitalism causes food insecurity and famine due to the lack of sustainable practices, because Capitalism seeks to make the most profit in the shortest time which leads to overproduction.
To quote "

In the South, the different elements of trade liberalisation often translate directly into food insecurity. Among these elements the following have the most severe impacts on peoples livelihood. In addition they easily result in internal migration, urban growth and environmental destruction:

* undoing land reform and allowing concentration of land ownership

* privatising water

* introducing monopoly control on seeds through IPRs

* diverting land from food to cash crops for exports

* diverting food from local to global markets

Volatile prices and globalisation are creating an unstable, insecure and costly food system and undermine the ecological security of agriculture"

Rebuttal 3: Video games

Most people who play video games, specificly on PC, should be able to see how Capitalism hurts the integrity and quality of the gaming industry.

For those who don't I'll give you a simple walkthrough of what goes on and how Capitalism hurts the gaming industry

1. A developper team is hired to make a video game for a corporations.

2. They ask for a reasonable amount of time in which they can produce a quality game, and instead are given a ridiculously short time frame. This is done, because the corporations can make the most money this way. People will buy the games anyways so they rush them out of the market.

3. The developer team has two main options at this point. They can either rush the game out of the market and give a broken game that is not ready and disapoint thousands of fans. Or, they can stand up to the corporations and push back the deadline with or without the corporations approval. Risking their jobs and their ability to make the game.

4. Two things can happen. 1. The game is rushed out and meets the deadline. Consumers are pissed because they get a broken game. Or, the game is done right. The game will be released much later than the consumers wanted it to be released. Consumers are, once again pissed.

It's a lose lose situation. All because of Capitalist practices to generate the most possible profit.

Rebutal 4: Technology

Sure, Capitalism helps produce new and cool technology, but at what cost.
In order for us to live on top of the global society someone has to be below us. It's how Capitalism functions. It is reliant on a class system. A little ironic that those who it treats the absolute worst are those who it needs more than anyone. For example, you bring up Apple and how it brings us new technology like Iphones. Those Iphones are made in sweatshops by starving and desperate living in inhuman working condition. Some of them children. But don't worry! It's all worth it for our cool new Iphone right? Is that really your line of thinking. These corporations like Apple are raking in billions off the backs of the starving and the desperate. These children are giving their lives so we can have our lives a little bit easier and the corporations can make a little more money.

I rest my case.

Debate Round No. 3


Ariesx forfeited this round.


I have nothing to defend my arguments against. Please vote con :)
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
So we can know *which* assertion has what as its source.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago

Please number your sources, like this [1].

Posted by roguetech 3 years ago
There is no self-refulated healthy capitalist country. However, capitalism with healthy regulation works well. Just as we should not blame communism for the failures of corrupt autocracies, we should assign blame for deregulation on the lack of controls. Specifically, the failure to systematically control wealth inequality, and limit the conflicts of interests with democracy.
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago

Just out of curiosity, how much harm was done by communism, the lack of democracy, corruption and/or autocratic rule? How did you determine what harm was caused by which? The world has never seen a democratic communist state, but there is no fundamental reason that I know of why its not perfectly reasonable. Be careful not to assign blame to the wrong pieces.
Posted by Greg4586 3 years ago
Oh yeah and Somalia's a big one.
Posted by Greg4586 3 years ago
Thailand, South Africa, El Salvador, many Middle Eastern countries whose conflict escalated because of western intervention, African countries who got everything messed up by colonial capitalism, the list goes on. Countries that Capitalism exploits for the sake of resources get devastated and the civilians get forced into an oppressive system. A lot of it consists of 3rd world countries whom the west exploits for resources.
Posted by Josh_debate 3 years ago
@greg4586 Name one country that has been destroyed by capitalism.
Posted by Greg4586 3 years ago
Yet how many countries have been utterly destroyed by Capitalism? Too many to count. My point is no system whether it be capitalism, communism or socialism is automatically going to work for country. In this debate I will be arguing that Capitalism is a bad system for countries and the world to have.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Yes capitalism combined with globalization will destroy any civilisation.........There will be no other way then to "kill or be killed"..Not this year. Not in 10 years. But sooner or later. The only way out is to "civilice" capitalism through backroll of globalization. Meaning every country/goverment must again have the tools to govern. Ex if a big Company does not want to pay the given tax. They can of course move to a nother country. But goverment can then tax there products as high as they want. and so on. There are many minus if you roll back globalization. But no alternative.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 3 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: First, the arguments. Pro made many grand claims, but did not address in any way how they are a product of capitalism, or why no other system could produce equivalants. Con addressed a smattering of the more glaring problems with capitalism. There are couple major points I didn't notice Con addressing. First, the conflict of interest between capitalism and democracy. Second, wealth inequality. Still, solid arguments by Con. There were spelling mistakes on both sides, but I'd like to note that I found the bolding of entire sentences by Con to be annoying. Both offered consistent enough spelling and grammar to not vote against either, even had they not been balanced. I found that Con gave more and better sources (albeit with a glaring appeal to authority). Pro also spammed some weird car website. So sources to Con. Finally, Pro committed an ad hominem, but not egregious enough to award conduct.
Vote Placed by AtheistPerson 3 years ago
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not sure why Pro had forfeited his rounds. Hopefully he didn't give up after one short simple argument. Con provided his resources that were more than Wikipedia, Pro forfeited most of his/her rounds. Pro did seem to have better grammar.