Instigator / Pro
Points: 3

Socialism

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Trent0405
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
100
Required rating
5
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
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
Round 1
Published:
The planet is going to hell in  a hat basket in our to save it we must radically change 
Published:
Well capitalism has lifted many people out of poverty, I believe capitalism is better and what we should strive toward.
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
Socialism has killed 100 million people depending on your classifications.

Note the poor conduct on my opponent.
Round 3
Published:
the black book of communism has been debunked
Published:
Socialism is what we're talking about. My points have been dropped, my opponents rebuttal is unclear/unsourced.

Round 4
Published:
WEll its simple, Capitalism is better now, in the same way a horse and buggy was before cars
Published:
So we haven't discovered/invented socialism? Yes we have, a long time ago.

Socialism has basically never worked.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Note my opponents poor conduct, I fell I've given good reasons why Socialism is bad
Added:
--> @Club
As RM said, 2/5 isn't half and thus your vote cannot stand. It is removed
#6
Added:
Note for my RFD I said R3 meaning R4
#5
Added:
--> @Club
2/5 isn't half.
#4
Added:
--> @billbatard
oops missed your sources, can you clarify what you mean
Contender
#3
Added:
First of all that figure 100 million totally made up https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7n6ql2/is_the_black_book_of_communism_an_accurate_source/ 
Instigator
#2
Added:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/podcast-economic-growth-environment/  in our efforts to save the earth we must radically change our conduct and values
Instigator
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.