All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
Karl Marx was wrong about more stuff than he got right, I never liked him he looked smelly and dirty and he was a lazy malcontent.Do you know who I did like his successor Eduard Bernstein who saw a peaceful evolutionary democratic path through gradual reform . But Socialism is inevitable for reasons they ignored , we simply cant survive unless we heavily regulate our conduct, greed and inequality are killing the planet. And if we have to slow economic growth to the pace of a snail , so what? all the better, rapid growth is reckless
Pro says change is needed. That is his entire case. One that does not favor any course of action over any other. (showing why socialism would improve things was basically required for BoP and was not done). Con introduces a competing system which lifts people out of poverty (capitalism), and explains that socialism both never works and has killed millions.
Sources for the integrated sources from con, such as WSJ debunking the concept of socialism as having never worked, thus being wholly unable to fix the planet. Whereas pro had none, nor did he offer any real challenge to cons (since con did not cite the black book, I am unsure what pro was even talking about in the attempted refutation).
Conduct for multiple forfeitures.
Con is the only one to use sources, backing up statistics like 100 million being killed and such, to show evils and/or inefficiencies of the Socialist regimes. Thus, I give 'sources' to Con as Pro didn't do anything of the sort.
Pro also loses the arguments point because the entire case of Pro is thrown out when, in Round 3, Pro suddenly admits that at present Capitalism thwarts Communism and/or Socialism, then stating that Socialism is to be equated to having horse and carts that later became cars. Pro may have meant that somehow Capitalism is meant to be the horse and carts that later evolves into Socialism but if that's true, then Pro still loses the debate because Pro never ever explains how this is guaranteed or desirable in the entire debate. The following Round was forfeited by Pro... This is, to me, Pro failing to meet their burden of proof.
Meanwhile, Con gives both moral reasons (killing people, ensuring everyone stays in poverty etc) and logical reasons (Socialism has never worked the way it was supposed to and is more likely to be the horse and carts in the analogy, than Capitalism being it) for one to conclude that Socialism is flawed.