The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Worker Cooperatives(pro) versus traditional, capitalist businesses(con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/8/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 99732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Rules of debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults
2) The number of total rounds minus 1 should be used for debate to keep the number of rounds even between us since I am not using round 1 for debate.
3) No new arguments in the last round used for debate, it should just be rebuttals. New statistics or facts can be brought up, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.
4) The first round used for debate should just be opening arguments: no rebuttal to your opponent's arguments are allowed: rebuttals are for the next rounds. Rebuttals to generic arguments are okay though, just don't directly rebut your opponent's arguments if you're the second person to post their first debate round.
5) Burden of proof is shared equally, so it is required we both provide reasons why one should support their position.

If any of the above rules are violated by either side, voters should award the point for conduct to the one who did not violate them, or who did so to a lesser degree.

A) Worker cooperative: a cooperative owned and self-managed by its workers.[1]
B) Cooperative: an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business.[2]
C) Traditional/capitalist business: A business that is privately owned by one or a few individuals who are considered to be higher up in business hierarchy than the workers/employees. [3]

If con has objection to any of my definitions or rules, say so in comments before accepting the debate, otherwise it will be assumed you accept these definitions and rules. If con does object, we will discuss in comments alternative definitions and I will edit this debate to include the definitions/rules we agree upon. Con should offer alternative rules/definitions in comments if they object.

To help con out, here is a previous debate I had on this topic. Feel free to look through it to see how I argue for cooperatives.
I will probably bring up quite a few of the same points I did there, but I will also present some new information as well.

[3] This is my own definition, based on what I know of traditional businesses, since I can't seem to find an exact definition for the traditional business model online.


I accept. I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, I wish you luck as well.

Productivity of worker cooperatives compared to conventional/traditional businesses.
It has been found in a study conducted by Ben Craig, of the federal reserve bank of Cleveland, and John Pencavel, of Standford University, that worker cooperatives within the plywood industry are more materially productive than traditional firms[4, pg 124]. The reasons they believe for this are because:

1) "A co-op mitigates he agency cost associated with a corporation's division between ownership and control". Since co-ops are owned by the workers, they are much more likely to be informed about the business decisions than if they weren't owners, thus there is no need to spend extra time from business owners to educate them on this matter.[4, pgs 124-125)

2) Worker co-ops eliminate "the separation of interests between workers and owners."[4 pg 125] As one can imagine, there are many instances in which a conventional firm would be presented with opportunities where they can make a decision that more benefits them and harms the workers. The workers would be opposed to this, and normally what happens in a conventional firm, is that bargaining goes on and this takes up precious time that could be devoted to work. In a co-op, this bargaining would not take place, since worker-owners would likely choose what benefits the majority of the workers, whereas in a traditional business, the owner would choose what only benefits themselves.

3) Workers are able to monitor each other better than in traditional businesses where the monitor is a single manager [4, pgs 125-126]. This makes sense as well, since in co-ops, the workers are the ones who make the decisions of the company, and would be involved in hiring and firing other workers. Co-workers are more often among their co-workers than a manager is, so they would be able to monitor their co-workers more effectively than a manager. This provides incentive for each worker to provide their best work and not laze around.

4) This fourth reason they give is only applicable in the case where both traditional businesses and workers co-ops exist in a society, so since I am arguing for worker-coops, it can be assumed I would argue for a society with mostly or only worker coops, I suppose this one wouldn't apply to help my case so I won't mention it, but you can look at it yourself, if you want, it's on page 126.

Now, to play part of my opponent, it could be argued that worker co-ops would take longer to make ordinary business decisions and this would negatively impact productivity. I would argue to the contrary, howeve. Since multiple people are involved in the decision process rather than just one, two, or a few business owners, it means the decision is more likely to be beneficial to the company as a whole, so while it may take longer, it will be a higher quality policy. The evidence I present later in this round will also support this idea, such as how coops are more likely to survive the first 5 years of being in business than traditional firms. Additionally, when a rich person is in charge of the decisions of a business, they are more likely to be dissociated with the majority of people(who are poor and middle class) and so they may make decisions for the business that would only help the minority of people(rich) when a good business would try to appeal to majority of people in order to survive.

It should be noted that in the study, it was found that labor productivity of traditional firms is higher than in coops, however material productivity is usually higher in coops.[4, pg 141] In other words, traditional firms produce more at a lower quality than coops. I would argue that quality should be preferred to quanitity. If you can buy a product that is of higher quality, it will last longer, and over all, you spend less because you don't have to spend on transportation to the stores as much as you would for a lower quality product.

How do co-ops and traditional businesses compare for success?
Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [5, pg 8] This makes sense for the same reasons I said in the previous topic in the second to last paragraph where I said "additionally, when a rich person..."

In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burdin and Andres Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that "average employment and wages in WCs[worker cooperatives] tend to be greater than in CFs[capitalist firms]." [6, pg. 522] The wage being higher definitely makes sense, since in a worker-cooperative, there is no person at the top taking a percentage of the business profits as their own, personal, income. Instead, this income is spread across the workers, which would mean their wages would be higher.

It is also the case that capitalist businesses do not have a monopoly on being the only business type that has multi-billion profit turnover. Mondragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country" where, in 2015, they had a revenue of 12.11 billion euros[7]

Now, there are many more capitalist firms which have more profit than the world's largest cooperative, this is true, but as I will point out later, there is reason why capitalist businesses are the majority in the world, and this would also mean they will likely have more businesses who are much more succesful than the best worker-coop.

Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businesses
Traditional businesses are immoral because they have an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. The business owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business. The fact that cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives above. Essentially, a cooperative gives a level of consent not seen in traditional businesses. A person has to work in order to survive, so the fact that business owners know this mean they can have outrageuous demands on the workers, since they may not have any other option. It often takes many applications to jobs to finally get one, so a person is desperate enough to make a living that they will be forced to put up with a tyrannical business owner. However, if all of the businesses were cooperatives, the worker would have a say in business rules, decisions, etc. Similar to how governments that don't give a consent to the governed are immoral, so are traditional businesses for the same reason.

Potential argument against cooperatives:
"If cooperatives were so much better than traditional businesses, then we should see cooperatives out-competing traditional businesses, but traditional businesses are still the vast majority"
While cooperatives are so few and far between, the primary reason is because the system is constructed in such a way that favors capitalist companies. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[8](despite the fact that the ones that do exist are generally more successful than their capitalist counterparts as established above), most governments only ever bail out traditional businesses and almost never cooperatives, cooperatives are not generally set-up to out-compete other companies either[8], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is[9], I personally didn't even know what a cooperative was until I was 20, but I could give you a basic idea of what a capitalist business was before I was 10. I think I can safely assume that a vast majority of people have heard of and can define what a traditional/capitalist business is like, so most people shop at those and people looking to create a business probably never thought about making it a cooperative instead of a traditional business since most don't even know what one is. I would also argue that, for those seeking to become business owners if they do know what a coop is, they don't want to make it a coop because they are selfish and don't want to share the business with the workers of that business.

[7] dragon_Corporation"> (I often have trouble posting this link on here, somehow it always gets broken up. "mondragon" in general gets broken up every time I type it. If it happens again, just search for "mondragon corporation" on wikipedia without anything in between the n and d in the word)


The goals of worker owned cooperatives are certainly righteous, and you wont hear me arguing against the social initiatives, and worker benefits they look to address when individuals voluntarily enter into those work environments. But the key word in that last sentence is "voluntarily". One problem that coops face in a capitalist system is a lack of competitive longevity. If coops were able to be competitive powerhouses like thier traditional corporate counterparts, then the worker cooperative business ideal would have consumed the economic system long ago, because these businesses would have grown larger and larger, eventually employing everyone within the economic system, and monopolizing every sector of production. Every product would be owned by one business which in turn is owned by its employees. The line of ownership of each business would eventually fade, making one giant cooperative business, owned and operated by the consumers/employees themselves. But the plain fact is, coops just cannot do that because they lack the competitiveness needed in a capitalist system. True, coops can be more succesful initially, and can be more sustainable in times of economic turbulence, however, in the long term they have trouble in competitive markets because thier major goal is not necessarily profit making. While some coops are hugely succesful, coops as a whole have only really been able to muster a few periods of notable success in the US (the depression, in the 60s and 70s, and now)before shifts in consumer spending habits, and competition from smaller businesses caused them to fade out. The longevity for coops is not too impressive in the past century. So, there is only one true way coops can replace traditional corporations. Government intervention. I feel that my opponent (this is not a rebuttal, just an opinion on the proposition of the argument at hand) does not truly recognize the adverse ramifications of such a sweeping government policy, which would effect not only consumer choice, and the price of ALL goods. It would effect our rights as workers and our individual freedom, not only in the workplace, but at home as well.

If my opponent is going to argue for replacing our entire economic system, then I will make it my job to expose the true effects of such a drastic measure. I will make it my goal to force my opponent to prove that becoming a caste society instead of an economically free society would benefit us. Can my opponent prove that in this caste society, will we acheive true equality, or will the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor? I will make him/her show us how giving our place of work more power to ethically prod us on our personal lives for the sake of production, could benefit us. I will question my opponent on ethical issues. Are we truly bad people if we want to climb the economic ladder, and create more wealth for ourselves? Will strict guidlines imposed on production and freedom of privacy, and lack of competition, be inducive of social and economic progress, or stiffle it? I look foward to an interesting disscussion!
Debate Round No. 2


Now, I have one more main argument I wish to make before I offer rebuttals.

Worker Cooperatives could help end poverty
As established above, worke cooperatives generally have higher wages for their workers. If more businesses were worker cooperatives, this would help end the poverty rate for full-time and part-time workers since their wages would be higher. Sadly, 3% of Americans who work full time are in poverty[10] and 16% of Americans working part-time are in poverty[10]. Those who work full-time should never be in poverty, it's sad that there are even any full-time workers who are. If majority or all businesses were cooperatives, this would likely reduce these rates of poverty.

Now, I will move onto my rebuttals:
Re: Cooperatives lack competitiveness
I agree with this notion, as I stated in my main argument, cooperatives are not set up to out-compete other businesses. However, we need to take into account other reasons why cooperatives are so rare. I would argue if the government stopped bailing out traditional businesses, and let them fail, we would likely see people searching for an alternative to the traditional business model. Since this doesn't happen though, I feel people are content with how things are. Bottom line: we need to get the government out of businesses. I would even argue we should end all regulations on business, that way we will see what happens when traditional businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, and we will seek an alternative, such as cooperatives. These things would likely give cooperatives a competitive edge. I also mentioned other reasons why coops are so rare, the other reason being that 89% of Americans haven't heard of them. I would argue that it should be required in all economics classes that students be taught about cooperatives.

Can my opponent prove that in this caste society, will we acheive true equality, or will the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor?
I don't see how this is a caste society, but moving on... There wouldn't be complete equality of income. I would be opposed to such an idea. It doesn't make sense for someone who works harder, who needed more education for their job than someone else, who has more skills and/or who works longer to be paid the same amount as someone who doesn't do those things. I would say that because private business owners wouldn't exist in this society, and each worker would be earning more income, as shown above how average wage is higher among cooperatives, this would narrow the wealth inequality gap. It wouldn't get rid of it, nor do I consider it a good thing to completely get rid of wealth inequality, as I stated before, but it would be a good thing to narrow it.

Are we truly bad people if we want to climb the economic ladder, and create more wealth for ourselves?
That in itself isn't wrong, but if you're climbing the economic ladder by piggybacking off of the work of people who work under you, which business owners do, I would say this is wrong. As I stated in my main argument discussing the morality of traditional businesses and cooperatives, the business owner is a tyrant in my opinion. They get to make decisions without regard for their workers. Their workers don't get any say in the matter, and the consent of the governed is lacking under this system. While, yes, you could argue that unions and government regulation would help these issues, why should we waste money, time, and labor on those things when we could just have worker cooperatives replace the traditional businesses and this would solve that issue?

Will strict guidlines imposed on production and freedom of privacy, and lack of competition, be inducive of social and economic progress, or stiffle it?
I think this got a little off-topic, as I don't see what this has to do with traditional businesses or cooperatives. I don't advocate for strict guidelines

I think my opponent might be thinking I would advocate for government intervention to make cooperatives the only legal business form? Is that why you called this a caste system and made it opposed to "economic freedom"? If that is what you think, I don't think the government should do this. Instead, I would advocate that the government require schools to teach about cooperatives in economics classes, perhaps that banks can't be allowed to discriminate against cooperatives, that the government end many of its regulations, and that the government can't bail out traditional businesses anymore, and just let them fail. I believe with each of these things in place, people would naturally choose to go to cooperatives. If they see how much traditional businesses actually fail, they would seek an alternative that is more reliable(which coops are definitely more reliable as I established before with how their survival rate is much higher). And with people being taught about coops, this would decrease the percenatage(89%) of Americans who don't even know what a coop is.


I agree with my opponent that government bailouts are shameful, and those companies should be allowed to fail. I also agree that we need to get the government out of business. However, there is one thing that has me perplexed about my opponents argument. He claims not to be advocating for government intervention to make coops the only legal business form, yet he argues that it should be required in all economics classes that students be taught about cooperatives. Who do we suppose would implement said requirment? It would have to be the government. He argues that banks shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against coops, another way of saying that is, banks should be FORCED to do business with coops. There is only one player that could implement these requirments, the government! My opponent argues that if the government were to drop all regulations on businesses, that would leave us seeking an alternative, such as cooperatives, but that is simply conjecture, it is only an opinion on what could possibally happen. In my opinion, if all regulations were scrapped, such as minimum wage requirements, then businesses could produce at a lower cost, which would bring down prices. Lower prices means higher buying power for consumers, including lower income consumers, and the cost of living would go down for all. People would have more money to save, or even start a small business themselves. It would be very difficult for coops to be competative in that economic environment and still stay commited to their social and communal standards. Not to say they would disapear all together, but they wouldn't cause all of society to ditch their capitalist system, and emrace a cooperative system as a whole. Another alternative would be small local startups. The biggest threat to coops and conventional corporations alike, is small businesses. They could infuse competative wages into the system which can be troublesome to coops, and they often offer a higher quality product as opposed to corporations. Small businesses were the reason the coop wave of the seventees died out, because they could cater to the specialized needs of costumers of the coops.

Even the largest corporations started small. Even the evil ones (wal-mart) started as a local department store. When people start a small business, there probably not thinking, someday I want a multi trillion dollar corporation whose employees will treat me thier messiah, and will do my bidding, then they and my army of lawyer will buy, sell and trade the world. Mwa ha ha!! Small businesses start with small ambitions, and much blood sweat and tears. Most will fail, because business is a risk, but some will fall into meager success, and hopefully will be able to grow. When you start a business, is it wrong for you to want it to become successful enough to support your family? Even further, is it wrong if it is successful enough for your family to be well off, or your childrens children to be well off? Perhaps you become so successful that your family may not have to worry about finances for many generations to come. But where do we draw the moral line in the sand? At what point is it that this entrepenuar has turned from being concerned for his/her family, to an evil maniacal, machine bent on global domination? Perhaps the shocking answer is never. We all want it to be that they're evil, and not concerned for anyone but themselves, but sometimes it's just not that easy. We all want societies monsters to be monsters, and that's it. But those monsters have fears, and passions, and love too. Perhaps the monsters aren't real. Who's to say the owners of these large, multi-national conglomerates don't care about their workers, and that the painful decisions they make that effect the lives of so many, aren't painful to them? At one time, Sam Walton was just the owner of a local department store. (not to say I like wal-mart, just trying to make a point).

Again, you wont hear me arguing against the social and communial initiatives that coops address, but the higher wages, and social initiatives come at a cost. Lets say for the sake of argument, that somehow coops entirely replaced the capitalist system, and became the only form of business in our economy. Because of the social needs and higher wages that coops aim to accommodate, the cost of thier products are higher. Without competition, prices are set (like, set in stone), and with higher prices comes a higher cost of living. A higher cost of living leaves us further entrenched into our respective earning brackets. The higher the cost, the harder it becomes to rise up the economic ladder, until eventually we are stuck. Totally unable to advance into a higher economic level. That is a caste society. Competition is what keeps costs lower, and it's what drives progress. Without the need to compete with other businesses, we negate the need to find new ways to beat the competition. When someone creates a new technology, they don't do it for "the good of mankind", they do it for self recognistion, they do it for the money. It's all about the benjamins baby! Think about it, if you made an awesome invention that you know will bennefit society, you're probably not gonna run out and tell everyone how to build one for themselves, you're probably gonna wanna visit the nearest patent office, and maybe email your uncle Ed, who's a lawyer. Competition is the fulcrum that moves our economic freedom, and drives our progress. Long live competition!!!!!!

Debate Round No. 3


I'll respond to quotes from my opponent, which will be in italics

He claims not to be advocating for government intervention to make coops the only legal business form, yet he argues that it should be required in all economics classes that students be taught about cooperatives.

Yes, this makes sense seeing as majority of schools are public schools owned by the government. The government gets to set the standards of education for their schools.

He argues that banks shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against coops, another way of saying that is, banks should be FORCED to do business with coops.

Hmm, or perhaps what would be better is that the federal reserve won't replenish the bank's supply of cash unless they do business with coops. There are other ways to incentivize banks to do business with coops. Maybe there is some legitimate reason why banks don't usually do business with coops, but I don't know of it. If there is one, then nothing should be done about it. I just don't think there is one since coops are generally more successful than traditional businesses anyways.

My opponent argues that if the government were to drop all regulations on businesses, that would leave us seeking an alternative, such as cooperatives, but that is simply conjecture, it is only an opinion on what could possibally happen. In my opinion, if all regulations were scrapped, such as minimum wage requirements, then businesses could produce at a lower cost, which would bring down prices. Lower prices means higher buying power for consumers, including lower income consumers, and the cost of living would go down for all. People would have more money to save, or even start a small business themselves.

This is also conjecture by my opponent, but to disprove your conjecture one only needs to look at history. In the 1800s we didn't have these regulations as we do now. What happened? People were paid terribly, had to work terrible conditions, etc. What my opponent suggested is not what happened in the 1800s.[11] [12] Employers would charge as much as they can get away with in order to maximize their own profits. And if you look here, cost of living simply wasn’t better[13].

There's a reason why the regulations happened to begin with, it's because conditions were terrible in the 1800s back when we didn't have regulations. I would argue the people went in the wrong direction, and instead we should have sought after worker cooperatives. They would have easily solved the issue since then it would give the workers a voice over the business, which affects them, their wages, etc

They could infuse competative wages into the system which can be troublesome to coops, and they often offer a higher quality product as opposed to corporations. Small businesses were the reason the coop wave of the seventees died out, because they could cater to the specialized needs of costumers of the coops.

This seems to be referring to food consumer co-ops, or at least what my opponent linked to here does. This debate is about worker co-ops, and not consumer co-ops. They are different. At any rate, this can’t be used as a reason against worker co-ops since consumer co-ops are very different.

Re: point where we draw the line for a business owner being evil

I would draw the line at being if they knowingly decide to make other people(their workers) subservient to them, without any representation given to those workers, they are tyrannical. Every worker is subservient to the employer, and those workers have no representation. I just noticed that my opponent made no rebuttal to when I brought this up previously, in the second round under when I discussed the morality of traditional businesses versus worker co-ops. I already mentioned how there is no representation of the governed when a business owner makes a specific decision that governs over them.

Re: cost of living would go up in a worker co-op economy

Actually, I don’t follow my opponent’s argument here. A worker co-op would have higher wages for the workers without having to raise prices. Again, you’re getting rid of a single business owner. In a worker-co-op, there is no single business owner. This means that the profit that the business owner would take, can be split among the workers, and that raises the wage of the workers without having to raise the price of the goods. Could my opponent explain to me how what I said would result in a higher cost of living because the price of goods would go up?


Note: if you don’t trust these sources, you should be able to look it up anywhere. I just used the first sources I found for this, since what I claimed was something that should have been taught in history books in schools.






*Can coops make competitively priced products?
*Can the capitalist system be dismantled without government intervention?
*Can an economic system without competition be inducive to progress?
*Can a cooperative economy be harmful to our civil liberties?
*Would a cooperative system cause our society to become a caste society?

*Can coops make competativaly priced products?
The basic aims of coops do not include making competativaly priced products. The social initiatives, and higher wages to employees, drive up the cost of coop products. Not to say they lack quality, but the plain fact is, Americans don't buy quality, they buy cheap! Coops are more geared toward conscience minded consumers. Health conscience and socially minded consumers who are not as concerned about prices, but these type of consumers make up a minuscule percentage of the population. Most Americans do not engage in that type of specialized consumerism. Changing the entire economic system, would infringe on the freedom of choice for American consumers!

*Can our capitalist system be dismantled without government intervention?
I think my opponent may not have a totally saturated idea of who, or what the federal reserve is. (my oppologies if I'm wrong about my essesment) He suggested that the fed should not replenish the supply of cash to banks who don't lend to coops. There are a couple issues with that statement. My opponents was somehow using that statement to prove that he was arguing against government intervention, but if the fed could do such a thing (withhold cash from banks), that would be government intervention, you can't force banks to do business with people they don't want to lend to without goverment intervention. The wiki link I provided shows how the fed is both publically and privately owned. The fed is partially made up of some of the largest privately owned banks in the country, and every legitimate bank must hold stock in the federal reserve. To suggest that the fed could somehow punish the banks for not doing business with coops, is like suggesting that the banks would punish themselves. The fed IS the banks, and since the fed has privately owned entities within it, the government is not allowed to impose to heavily on the internal decisions of the fed. The only real power the government has over the fed is it chooses the chairman(who's a woman) of the board. Banks don't loan to coops becuase the amount of money invested in them, wouldn't justify the amount of time to make profit for the bank, and the profit margin might be to low to justify investing in coops. (from the banks standpoint). Furthermore, my opponent suggests that all economics classes be required to teach cooperative bussiness practices. Then he goes on to say that all public schools are owned by the government, and they dictate the ciriculum of these schools. I think this statement gives us a peek into the mind of my opponent, who feels that our government should tell us how, and what we teach. I think we all know (barring my opponent) that public schools a PUBLICALLY owned. The American public has the power (for now) to dictate how and what our schools teach. Maybe my opponent thinks we should "rely" on the government to control our education (a Pink Floyd song just came to mind), but I think we the public realize that education is not owned. I think my opponents argument is, if coops are taught in schools, and banks have "incentive" to loan to coops, then the public will realize the bennefits to coops and choose to dissolve our capitalist system. I think that can't be done without government initiatives that would harm our civil liberties.

*Can an economic system without competition be inducive to progress?
My opponent neglected to make any rebuttal about the argument I made that lack of competition will stiffle technological progress. I feel he was unable to disprove my argument, and it is a point that should be considered by any potential judge of this debate.

*Can a cooperative economic system be harmful to our civil liberties?
I'm not sure why my opponent didn't spend more time addressing this, since he's a libertarian. In my oppinion, if a cooperative economic ideal were implemented, then businesses would require more power to encroach on our personal lives, for the sake of production. They may want to be able to see your search history on your home computer, who your friends are and what your posting on social media. They may want to better know your medical history, and require regular checkups, and frequent drug testing. I think my opponent barely addressed this issue, and it leaves us with some question marks about his thoughts on the issue. (I understand that some of this may be considered new arguments in the final round, I did mention this in my first argument, but I may have expounded on it a little to much in this round, if my opponent objects, I invite him to say so in the comment section, and all judges should consider his objection if he indeed has one.)

*Can a cooperative system cause our society to become a caste society?
Surprisingly, again my opponent neglects another facet of my argument that he should have been all over since he's a libertarian. I don't think my opponent properly addressed the argument that I made about my fears that a collectivist infused economic ideal would make it difficult or impossible for us to climb the economic ladder. It's unfortunate he didn't speak of this, I would have liked to hear his thoughts on it. From one libertarian to another. (albeit, different kinds of libertarians).

In my oppinion, this debate would have been far more difficult for me if it was just, coops verses traditional businesses. However, my opponent decided to make the debate about a cooperative economic system as apposed to a capitalist system. A worker owned cooperative business can be a successful business plan, but disregarding our entire economic system for a collectivist system could prove to be invasive on our freedom of choice, privacy, and private property.

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate, and I wish him good luck!!!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Freedom of choice.
Freedom of privacy.
Freedom of private property .
Technological progress.
I did make arguments for traditional business, but they might be hard to spot because we take these luxuries for granted every day. We would certainly notice if those luxuries were to dissappear.
Good job making your case, I wish this one had more rounds, twas a very interesting topic. Perhaps, we could have a more abstract debate sometime , like collectivist society vs individualism. It was nice debating you.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
I'd like to remind voters that my opponent didn't offer any arguments in favor of traditional businesses, and only provided arguments against cooperatives. Keep that in mind when voting. We each had a burden of proof for each of our positions, and as you can see, they only offered arguments against my arguments rather than arguing in favor of their position, and thus didn't meet their burden of proof.
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 years ago
Smoosh: Either one of us can do the final argument. I'm okay with, for example, you starting your arguments in round 1, but if you do you should waive the last round and allow me to have the last argument. If you waive round 1, then you get the last argument. This is just to make sure the number of rounds used for argument is equal between us, since I am not using round 1 for argument.
Posted by Smooosh 2 years ago
Sorry, that should say argument, not arrangements. Damm autocorrect.
Posted by Smooosh 2 years ago
I wanna accept, but I don't understand how the rounds are set up. Who will make the final arrangements?
Posted by BrendanD19 2 years ago
You always have great topics but we are always on the same side of the issue!
Posted by Bi0Hazard 2 years ago
I agree with Pro on this (I just so happen to advocate for worker self-directed enterprises as opposed to capitalism), but maybe I should try debating as Con for my first debate...
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 years ago
We're just arguing which business type is better for society and which is more successful. It can be arguments about morally which is better, which would benefit society better by enriching people, etc.
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 2 years ago
I would participate, but I feel that the question is too vague in what we're arguing over. In what sense are we talking?
No votes have been placed for this debate.