Socialism VS Capitalism
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 9 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
I am just going to cut to the chase. Con offers a line-by-line refutation of literally every single part of Pro’s arguments with some faults and seemingly non-topical arguments.
For example, Con never really explains why the people taking the means of production equates to having no more private property. Moreover, he never really offers a case to prove why socialism is better.
However, Pro never responds so I am forced to buy that all of Con’s arguments are true. Ergo, Con wins purely by mitigation and refutation.
Conduct is also awarded to Con for the forfeiture of rounds.
Ignore the fact that the criticism is not underlines. I copied and pasted my rfd from Google Docs because apparently people could edit it.
Hello! If there is any question, feel free to PM me. I can’t promise to get to you immediately, but I will be as quick as possible if my rfd needs to be explained. Underlined text will be general comments, recommendations for debaters etc.
Pro forfeits round 1, failing to create a constructive case.
Con then uses this opportunity to define integral terms in the resolution.
Pro immediately contests the definition and attempts to clarify his stance.
I have 2 problems with this:
A. This should have been clarified in the 1st round. Imagine someone trying to change their advocacy in the middle of the debate. This is abusive as you could fend off any offense by simply “fixing” your original plan.
B. The fact that you have yet to offer any constructive arguments is problematic. Tell me why I should value your economic system over the capitalist system or I can’t vote for you.
Con then posts his case
He first focuses on the definition of socialism which pro contests by claiming that Pro’s definition actually does coincide with Con’s definition because there were technically 2 he used:
“a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
Part a, Con explains, coincides with pro’s definition of socialism.
You don’t really explain how the definition that Pro champions directly relates to your “part a” definition. I can infer what you mean, but try to draw a clearer link. Considering the lack of response from Pro, I am forced to buy this definition.
Con continues with his analysis, stating that if we were to exclude all examples of socialism involving a state government, we would have no successful cases of socialism.
You could have worded this a bit better, it took me a second to understand what you were saying.
Shame about the forfeit.
Okay I'll shoot you a message, let's figure something out with our schedules.
Yes, I'm 100% Socialist. Ultimately the closest description of my ideal society would be the Resource Based Economy, which is essentially "Technocratic Socialism".
Awesome! Also just confirming that you're for 100% socialist, correct? Not just universal health care and education but a capitalist job market?
Excellent. I am looking forward to the debate.
If nobody has taken up by Monday I probably could. Got a busy weekend ahead of me, but I'd love to debate this.
Yes, I am pro/socialism. Would you like to take on this debate?
Hey I'm new to this site and have no idea who pro/con is... I'm going to assume that because you're on the left and socialism is on the left, you're arguing in favour of socialism?