Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Capitalism is obsolete

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Economics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 21
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
CAPITALISM IS EXPLOITATION
Capitalism is by definition an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Although the state part is questionable since a state can operate like a corporation and capitalism requires the state to protect private property and spread propaganda to convince people they aren't living in an absolute societal screw-job. The fundamental problem with capitalism is that there always must be an ownership class who control the means of production and a working class who's entire role in society revolves around making profit for the ownership class or trying to become an owner themselves. without any special jargon or fluff, capitalism by definition boils down to "most people have to work for private owners and produce things to make a living, and get very little of what is produced compared to people who produce nothing who's job it is to use other people to make themselves rich by controlling the means of production."

CAPITALISM IS UNSUSTAINABLE
In capitalism, profit is the goal which all production revolves around, therefor the environment, human health, or anything else that is actually real, actually matters, and is not a social construct takes a back seat. In capitalism, the big fat oil barons get their way over the up and coming clean energy producers, and can pay people to say that climate change is a hoax so that they can sell more fossil fuels. In capitalism, Nicola Tesla can be told to take his free energy and jump off a bridge, and then have his inventions stolen by a financially and legally savvy Sith Lord like patent fraud Edison. In capitalism, people can starve and die in the streets despite the actual real resources still being there because we can't sort out our conceptual made up social constructs. If there is a financial incentive for it or lack thereof, capitalists are happy to hold back the technological and infrastructural development of our civilisation, wreck the environment, and let the food rot on the shelves as people starve.
(Jacque Fresco on the great depression) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XnTJmUz4GY

CAPITALISM IS UNSCIENTIFIC
The monetary system itself is literally not real, it is a social construct. Managing real resources using a social construct, guided by nothing but a desire to accumulate as much social construct points as possible, is self-explanatory in the nature of it's retardedness. What works in a capitalist economy has no connection to what works for the human condition, human progress, or the ecosystem.


Published:
Let's say that capitalism is exploitative and that it is lacking in being scientific in nature. Let's say both of these are true, does that have any bearing on whether or not it is obsolete? I am going to go ahead and say no. If you read the paragraphs under the said titles, the side of Proposition (Prop) fails to explain how this would lead you to conclude that Capitalism is obsolete. So I am going simply to concede both and then say that Capitalism is still not obsolete.

I would like to say, however, that if Pro cannot explain how the science of psychology and the ability to motivate people to work (as their brains are) is not scientific then Pro is the one who has to concede that Capitalism is actually scientific. I am not going to go into this because it's unrelated to the resolution since this is a debate about the obsolete state of Capitalism and not over the scientific nature of it.

What is it to be obsolete?
Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable.

What is Capitalism?
an economic, political, and social system in which property, business, and industry are privately owned, directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people.

Is Capitalism obsolete? The answer is no. Other than North Korea and perhaps even modern day Cuba (although I disagree that it isn't including capitalism in its current political system) other nations all incorporate Capitalism in their nation and only oppose it with socialist policy in a few ways like public healthcare, education and perhaps transport. It is actually a wrong idea that 'left wing' is directly socialist because student loans and other things like minimum wage are not socialist concepts but are actually ways of making Capitalism less brutal on the poor is all.

Let me begin with the most crucial concept ever regarding this topic; charities require capitalist policy and mentality in order to effectively help who they want to help.

Charity alone will not solve the world’s problems. Capitalism can help and at the same time put people back to work. There has always been a gap between what the government can provide and what the private sector can produce, a gap charities have long helped to fill. But as our world and economies evolve, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to reconsider how to fill this gap – to rethink the relationship between economic and social challenges, so that benefits and opportunities are available to more people.

First, this rethinking is necessary because people are demanding it. From Zuccotti Park to Tahrir Square, people are standing up and saying that for too many citizens the current systems are not working.

Second, the financial crisis has made plain that the path we were on was unstable and unsustainable. While our global economic system has brought benefits to many, it has also exacerbated inequalities, both within and among countries. Too much inequality not only hurts the poor and stifles the dreams of the middle class, it also hinders productivity and growth.

Finally, our increasing interdependence strengthens the link between our prosperity at home and prosperity abroad. It is hard to sell things people cannot afford to buy. Also, economic privation breeds political resentment with all its costly consequences. We therefore have a vital stake in the fates of others – a stake that extends beyond compassion to political stability and economic security.

I am aware that what Prop will say back to this is 'if it wasn't for Capitalism we wouldn't need charities' but I have noticed something about Socialism that is strange. According to Socialist theory a disabled person (or lazy person) who in no way at all contributes to society is given free housing and everything else but a non-human animal who maybe even brings more joy and is more useful as its flesh is eaten or eggs are used for consumption by the working population, ends up having no rights or protection. In Capitalism this is justified because a Capitalist can say that if Charities feel enough need to help the disabled and/or 'enslaved non-human animals' then they are welcome to buy their freedom and well-being but a Socialist can only justify this by irrationally saying that being human alone entitles us to something which would then imply that being human makes us entitled to our own income in its entirety and defeats itself.

Let's just get on with the proof against the resolution.

Well what may surprise you is that despite these nations all having minimum wages and good living conditions for the poor relative to the rest of the world (I'll happily prove that in Round 2 if called out on it) These five nations are argued to be the most capitalist:
1. Germany
Germany tops our list of one of the most capitalist countries in the world. Capitalism in Germany is found in its institutions such as banking and educational systems. German industries have prospered because the country has made it a priority to train its labor force to succeed in various industries. These various systems have worked together to make a robust capitalistic market for the country. The German model of prosperity supports allowing local entrepreneurs to develop and initiate new industries which help the people to communicate better with the world and to meet their needs in becoming current world players in the technology industries. The flow of goods exported from Germany are grouped into sectors, and Germany has the dominant role in exporting for markets which specialize in goods which are the result of patents, niche markets and new innovations and inventions within the country. For example, in the media industry, prosperous subsectors would be: film, radio, television, teleservices, advertisement, printing and publishing houses, and data processing software.

2. United States
Americans are known to be risk takers and capital makers. In the US it is possible to begin a business of humble means and expand it to grow into a conglomerate business model for people wanting to start a new business. Imagine a tiny dry cleaner who adds space in strip malls and soon owns over twenty businesses. This is the epitome of wealth and capitalism in the US. Capitalism in the US has no color and welcomes anyone willing to work hard, market a product and to bring it to fruition. Americans are said to be moved by their fear of failure and their greed for monetary success. Capitalism allows private ownership to spur production of goods and allows the private owner to keep and track profits for what sells. This allows exclusive rights and patents to the production of modern technology and boosts the social economy. Groups within industries shape the model for success in agriculture, commerce, service industries, technology and other industries. There are allowances for monopolies in financing, international trade, commodities, banking, insurance and commerce. Some of these monopolies are family run companies which are leaders in their industries and who have good will in the community which breeds loyalty for their products and services among competitive markets and the masses.
3. China
China has focused in the last fifty years on educating the masses and the effort has paid off. Adult literacy in China has risen to almost 95% and is steadily rising. China is placing a priority on the development of its human capital and offers it workers more on the dollar to produce goods for export. China reformed its economy and began to see economic growth as a result the GDP doubled and the government allowed a pro-business and market attitude to rule in the country as a whole. China focused on exporting goods and developed a new economy as a result. Its new focus on manufactured products created over a hundred million jobs for the Chinese which supported capitalism in the country and offered a higher quality of life for the residents. China is also a large global exporter, along with Germany and the United States. But is China really a capitalistic country? In a way, yes. The Chinese government allows entrepreneurship as long as it is done with the permission of the government.

4. India
India is beginning to realize its potential economically as it encourages capitalism throughout the country. The infrastructure is limited by the human capital available to take jobs offered by the companies poised to hire qualified candidates as corporations globally look to India for offshore needs (call center and telemarketing, etc.). Between India and China, they both account for the world’s population at almost 40% all tolled. The Indian government realizes the potential of capitalistic growth as it struggles to overcome an outdated caste system. India has a problem with its distribution of income and access to free markets, since many of its residents are poor and have no way out of poverty. Most residents of India are Hindus, and although they either worship Shiva or Vishnu, India still struggles with the caste system ranking humans in inherited socioeconomic classes. For this reason, a person is either born rich or born poor and has no way to reverse that status going forward. With the idea that much of its population is considered “untouchable,” dalit or unclean, it should be difficult for the country as a whole to prosper. But in fact, the rich get richer despite these internal issues. In the early part of the century, the caste system hampered India’s development, but today, lower castes are demanding to be reclassified and given full paying jobs which allow them to qualify for benefits, privileges and the chance at a higher quality life which was not possible in years past. Although many Indian residents are still illiterate (though Indian literacy rates are improving), they are realizing that it is possible to pull themselves out of poverty by any means possible. At the upper levels of education, India excels and produces very highly qualified graduates who go on to study and work in other countries around the world.

5. Japan
The Japanese economy has rebounded from it’s near collapse in the 1990s and has prospered with Keiretsu networks. Japan has a state-led economic machine, which keeps the country in healthy economic shape. Japan has been interested in reform in a few major areas such as: labor relations, bank relations, corporate governance and supplier relations. Reform in Japan has included the country allowing more of the US management style of capitalism with restructuring to lay off workers when production is a the lowest cycles. Japanese companies also have learned to focus on specialization instead of going into too many business areas which are diversified. By focusing on a few key industries they are able to capitalize on gains and become industry leaders in many fields such as in high technology for mobile telephones and other communications components. Japan has continued with a hierarchy system which rewards loyalty and long-term employment with the same organization by the employees. By stressing a seniority-based pay system, the Japanese have encouraged employees to stay at one company for their entire lives.

Now for some more reliable input from a scholarly Harvard-sponsored article.
By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the modern world economy looked strikingly similar to the classical order of the beginning of the twentieth century. International trade, investment, and finance were generally free from government restrictions. Most governments limited their intervention in markets and in international economic transactions. Migration was less free than it had been, and there was no overarching monetary standard, but otherwise there were many similarities to conditions a century earlier. Capitalism was global, and the globe was capitalist.

Global capitalism had, however, changed profoundly in the intervening years. Today, there is substantial government involvement in the economy, both in macroeconomic demand management and in the provision of a wide array of social insurance and other social programs. This is true of all developed countries and of many developing countries as well. The social democratic welfare state is now the OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 12/21/11, NEWGEN 02_Mueller_Chap1.indd 34 2_Mueller_Chap1.indd 34 12/21/2011 9:13:12 PM 2/21/2011 9:13:12 PM the modern capitalist world economy: a historical overview 35 norm rather than a novelty, and despite periodic objections it seems unchallenged as the standard organizational form of a modern capitalist political economy.

Just as contemporary capitalism incorporates substantial government supervision of national economic activities, it is also characterized by a dense network of international institutions. Some are regional, such as the European Union. Many are global, such as the IMF and the WTO. The informal cooperative arrangements of the gold standard era have given way to a much more complex array of formal international organizations.

However successful the contemporary economic order may be, it has not eliminated problems that have plagued capitalism since its beginnings. Foremost among these is the recurrence of periodic crises. A deep recession that began late in 2007 served as a reminder that financial and commercial ties among countries can transmit crises—even panics—from market to market with lightning speed. The crisis of 2007–10 also highlights the role of international financial flows, as it was in large part the result of a decade of very substantial cross-border lending and borrowing (Chinn and Frieden 2011). Financial and currency crises, it seems, are the price of open financial markets.

Although contemporary capitalism has been associated with rapid economic growth in many parts of the world—most strikingly, in communist-ruled China— there are still many parts of the developing world that remain mired in poverty. Whether this is due to excessive or insufficient reliance on markets or excessive or insufficient integration into the world economy remains a topic of hot debate. This is not surprising. It is almost certainly in the nature of capitalist political economies that there will be enduring conflicts over how and how much government should intervene in markets and how tightly and on what terms national economies should be tied to the world economy.

Over the past five centuries, capitalism has gone from being a novel economic system in a small region in Western Europe to being the prevailing form of economic organization in the whole world. The rise and eventual triumph of capitalism on a global scale has been associated with the most rapid economic growth in world history. It has also been associated with spectacular crises, wrenching conflicts, and a great and growing gap between the world’s rich and the world’s poor. Global capitalism holds out the hope of extraordinary social and economic advances, but it must address its weaknesses to realize these advances.

Round 2
Published:
"Let's say that capitalism is exploitative and that it is lacking in being scientific in nature. Let's say both of these are true, does that have any bearing on whether or not it is obsolete?"


Yes, it does.

A) A system which encourages and even necessitates exploitation will always lead to social unrest and stifle the development of civilisation because a system which breeds exploitation also breeds revolution. And a system which forces a large percentage of the population to work to generate profit for a small percentage of the population is not one that is designed to advance the human species, and is in fact based on a willingness to flush the entire human species and the entire ecosystem down the toilet if that is what generates the most revenue. (Which it effectively does, capitalism demonstrably has no respect for the environment, human life, or the future of civilisation).

B) Unless our socioeconomic system is based on scientific methodology and reason, it will always be detached from technical and physical reality to at least some degree. This means that we will inevitably create conceptual problems within our collective social consciousness that end up effecting our real-world situation in remarkably idiotic and destructive ways. All because we rely on social constructs such as the monetary system. I have already provided an example of this with the great depression.

Let it also be noted that Con did not even attempt to address the fact that capitalism is unsustainable. To do so would be intellectual suicide.

 "would like to say, however, that if Pro cannot explain how the science of psychology and the ability to motivate people to work (as their brains are) is not scientific then Pro is the one who has to concede that Capitalism is actually scientific."

Firstly, even if capitalism was the only way to effectively and efficiently motivate humans to work (which is a ridiculous claim) that would not make it scientific. Capitalism is absolutely based on social constructs, it is by it's very nature unscientific because it is an entirely conceptual system. Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as monetary value or ownership. These things were literally made up by humans.
Second, humans have been motivated for thousands of years before capital was invented. In fact, before we where even self aware organisms we where motivated to work in order to survive. Capitalism is no different than any other system in this regard, people generally work to survive and prosper no matter what system they live under. The difference lies with the following:

1) If the system you live under forces you to work directly for someone else in order to survive ( systematic exploitation)

2) If the system you live under encourages you to destroy others and take from them to survive ("the law of the jungle")

3) If the system you live under conditions you to work with the community to create the maximum amount of abundance and mutual benefit (socialism)

4) If you don't need to work because you are simply handed everything (still systematic exploitation because this only happens for people who are born into wealth or social status in a stratified society)

Humans are unlike other animals in their capacity to be conditioned and programmed and take on certain beliefs, behaviours and attitudes. This is evidenced in the vast amount of variance in the values and beliefs of different human cultures and how the majority of humans willingly adhere to those values and beliefs and even claim they are "personal" to the individual. If humans where conditioned in the very same way that they are conditioned to be superstitious and submit to authority, to instead use rationality and scientific methodology and to understand that what is best for their own selfish interests is what is best for society (because a co-operative and productive community objectively creates the more abundance for all members of that community including one's self than social darwinism does) then the majority of humans would adhere to logic, remain productive and be able to handle an anarchic level of freedom without harming others.

"Is Capitalism obsolete?"

The answer is yes. Regardless of whether or not capitalism is nearly universal in current human societies, it has still been thoroughly proven to be heavily flawed and framework for far better systems has already been established, despite not having been put into practice.  Our situation is similar to having the blueprints to advanced quantum super computers sitting in some dust-ridden file cabinet while everyone continues to use standard computers from the 70s. Socialism in it's originally intended form (not state run socialism, which is not socialism) has never been properly implemented on any significant level. 

"Let me begin with the most crucial concept ever regarding this topic; charities require capitalist policy and mentality in order to effectively help who they want to help."

Yes, instead of seeking to eliminate poverty entirely by changing society, let's just continue to rely on hand outs.
In capitalist societies, Kim Kardashian gets to be given things all her life that she doesn't need and hasn't earned, yet for every Kim Kardashian there are thousands of children born into poverty who can't even afford to eat properly. Charity is insufficient in addressing this problem, only PROPER socialism can provide every child with equal access to nutrition and education etc. When a large portion of society is not uneducated and malnourished, productivity will go up (for obvious reasons) and crime will go down.


My opponent cites alleged serial rapist, womanizer and deep-state puppet Bill Clinton on the subject of charity. In response, I will link to a video of someone who is not a scumbag comparing capitalist democracy to socialist democracy: 

"I have noticed something about Socialism that is strange. According to Socialist theory a disabled person (or lazy person) who in no way at all contributes to society is given free housing and everything else but a non-human animal who maybe even brings more joy and is more useful as its flesh is eaten or eggs are used for consumption by the working population, ends up having no rights or protection."

This is simply conjecture. Animals should be treated well because they are sentient beings and because a healthy animal yields the healthiest products. Factory farms are the result of capitalism as they are about maximizing output as cheaply and efficiently as possible regardless of the animal's well-being or health and thus maximizing profit. Animal cruelty in general is simply due to being a dick and if humans have inherent rights or protection then so should other sentient beings. In my view, a person who contributes nothing due to laziness should not be given things simply for existing and nothing about socialism implies that this would be the case. Socialism is about the producers controlling the means of production and sharing the product of their production. Disabled people should be given a little more slack but they should also be worked on to try and make them fully functioning humans. 

"In Capitalism this is justified because a Capitalist can say that if Charities feel enough need to help the disabled and/or 'enslaved non-human animals' then they are welcome to buy their freedom and well-being"

Capitalism provides absolutely no incentive to help animals or disabled people. Capitalism only encourages you to care about profit. From a Capitalist perspective, you would actually want to set up a fraud charity and take most of the money for yourself if you set up any charity at all. In socialism, the family of a disabled person will be able to help them more often than not without having to worry about being too poor because money wouldn't exist. Also medical practitioners would want to help them become "abled" because that would add another productive member to society.

In capitalism, the goal is to make profit and thus greed is rewarded.
In socialism, the goal is to create an abundant and prosperous civilisation for yourself and others and thus true merit and empathy are rewarded.

"Well what may surprise you is that despite these nations all having minimum wages and good living conditions for the poor relative to the rest of the world (I'll happily prove that in Round 2 if called out on it) These five nations are argued to be the most capitalist"

Germany

USA

"In the land of plenty, millions of boys and girls are going to bed hungry. More than 17 million households face not having enough food for everyone in the family."

China (really nigga?)

India and Japan also have their problems but I think this will suffice for now.
Let it also be noted that in the richest and most capitalistic countries, there is also the highest degree of inequality in regards to wealth.

I will leave you with this, and call it a night.

"A Look Inside The Freest Markets In The World."













Published:
 A system which encourages and even necessitates exploitation will always lead to social unrest and stifle the development of civilisation because a system which breeds exploitation also breeds revolution. 
- Side of Proposition (Prop)

This would be why we have seen that in the more developed nations 'taming of capitalism' has occurred.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law which establishes minimum wage, overtime pay eligibility, record-keeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments.
Contract terms

The legal parts of a contract are known as ‘terms’. An employer should make clear which parts of a contract are legally binding.

Contract terms could be:

  • in a written contract, or similar document like a written statement of employment
  • verbally agreed
  • in an employee handbook or on a company notice board
  • in an offer letter from the employer
  • required by law (eg an employer must pay employees at least the National Minimum Wage)in collective agreements - negotiated agreements between employers and trade unions or staff associations
  • implied terms - automatically part of a contract even if they’re not written down

Implied terms

If there’s nothing clearly agreed between you and your employer about a particular issue, it may be covered by an implied term - for example:
  • employees not stealing from their employer
  • your employer providing a safe and secure working environment legal requirement like the right to a minimum of 5.6 weeks’ paid holidays
  • something necessary to do the job like a driver having a valid licence
  • something that’s been done regularly in a company over a long time like paying a Christmas bonus

So, you see, the exploitation is being combated while capitalism is anything but obsolete since every single nation except North Korea and Cuba incorporate it into their nation in some form that Opp [Opp=me=side of Opposition] indisputably proved in Round 1 and Prop has yet to even address the entire ending article of my Round 1.

Let me just quote it again.
By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the modern world economy looked strikingly similar to the classical order of the beginning of the twentieth century. International trade, investment, and finance were generally free from government restrictions. Most governments limited their intervention in markets and in international economic transactions. Migration was less free than it had been, and there was no overarching monetary standard, but otherwise there were many similarities to conditions a century earlier. Capitalism was global, and the globe was capitalist.

Global capitalism had, however, changed profoundly in the intervening years. Today, there is substantial government involvement in the economy, both in macroeconomic demand management and in the provision of a wide array of social insurance and other social programs. This is true of all developed countries and of many developing countries as well. The social democratic welfare state is now the modern capitalist world economy: a historical overview 35 norm rather than a novelty, and despite periodic objections it seems unchallenged as the standard organizational form of a modern capitalist political economy.

Just as contemporary capitalism incorporates substantial government supervision of national economic activities, it is also characterized by a dense network of international institutions. Some are regional, such as the European Union. Many are global, such as the IMF and the WTO. The informal cooperative arrangements of the gold standard era have given way to a much more complex array of formal international organizations.

However successful the contemporary economic order may be, it has not eliminated problems that have plagued capitalism since its beginnings. Foremost among these is the recurrence of periodic crises. A deep recession that began late in 2007 served as a reminder that financial and commercial ties among countries can transmit crises—even panics—from market to market with lightning speed. The crisis of 2007–10 also highlights the role of international financial flows, as it was in large part the result of a decade of very substantial cross-border lending and borrowing (Chinn and Frieden 2011). Financial and currency crises, it seems, are the price of open financial markets.

Although contemporary capitalism has been associated with rapid economic growth in many parts of the world—most strikingly, in communist-ruled China— there are still many parts of the developing world that remain mired in poverty. Whether this is due to excessive or insufficient reliance on markets or excessive or insufficient integration into the world economy remains a topic of hot debate. This is not surprising. It is almost certainly in the nature of capitalist political economies that there will be enduring conflicts over how and how much government should intervene in markets and how tightly and on what terms national economies should be tied to the world economy.

Over the past five centuries, capitalism has gone from being a novel economic system in a small region in Western Europe to being the prevailing form of economic organization in the whole world. The rise and eventual triumph of capitalism on a global scale has been associated with the most rapid economic growth in world history. It has also been associated with spectacular crises, wrenching conflicts, and a great and growing gap between the world’s rich and the world’s poor. Global capitalism holds out the ho

Let's go into what else Prop says and Rebuke it.

Unless our socioeconomic system is based on scientific methodology and reason, it will always be detached from technical and physical reality to at least some degree. This means that we will inevitably create conceptual problems within our collective social consciousness that end up effecting[sic] our real-world situation in remarkably idiotic and destructive ways. 
- Prop
I challenge Pro by saying three things:

  1. Prove what you just said is true. Why is it that the system not being based on scientific methodology or reason means that social consciousness will have problems that end it up affecting the real world in remarkably idiotic and destructive ways?
  2. What does this have to do with Capitalism being Obsolete? Even if I were to concede that it has the problems you said on top of being unscientific then how does this mean that Capitalism is not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable?
  3. Capitalism is scientific because it correctly understand human psychology and the motive to work. This is why the entire world except North Korea and Cuba have it within their politics and economy and why Communism has been consistently dying out post WWII whereas Capitalism has spread internationally at a phenomenally steep yet consistent rate to the point that only two nations on Earth currently don't have it or believe in it. If it was as unsustainable and unscientific as Prop suggests, Socialism and/or Communism would have flourished after the Cold War and at least from WWII to the Cold War we'd have seen Communist nations having gained such a stronghold due to their superior strategy in their oh-so-scientific way of running things. This is not what we saw; the exact opposite occurred.
All because we rely on social constructs such as the monetary system. I have already provided an example of this with the great depression.
- Prop

Prop has yet to prove that the Great Depression occurred due to Capitalism being obsolete or alternatively that it was a blatant sign that Capitalism is becoming Obsolete. I need not prove anything since Prop has proved nothing. A YouTube Video by Jacques Fresco is not an argument and one cannot just link a source like that, Prop needs to refer to what in the source supports your case so that I can quote Prop on it and take people through why it's wrong step by step. I will completely negate anything Prop has posted if he hasn't quoted the source or elaborated on what in the source proves that Capitalism is obsolete.

Firstly, even if capitalism was the only way to effectively and efficiently motivate humans to work (which is a ridiculous claim) 
- Prop

Why is it ridiculous considering how it completely wiped out Socialism in popularity and effectiveness again and again throughout history post WWII?

Even if capitalism was the only way to effectively and efficiently motivate humans to work that would not make it scientific.
- Prop

Yes it would. It would make the opposite of it completely ignorant of human psychology as well as the 'science of economics' if you consider how scientific and statistics-based economics is. Economics is a soft-science in the same ways that psychology is and in fact has more mathematics and logic to it that psychology does so if both come together in Capitalism then what exactly is left to prove? I know it's not equal to physics or chemistry in how hard the science is but that doesn't negate that both Economics and the psychology involved with justifying Capitalism as being effective are in any way at all non-scientific or as you word it 'unscientific'.

My belief is that economics is somewhat more vulnerable than the physical sciences to models whose validity will never be clear, because the necessity for approximation is much stronger than in the physical sciences, especially given that the models describe people rather than magnetic resonances or fundamental particles. People can just change their minds and behave completely differently. They even have neuroses and identity problems, complex phenomena that the field of behavioral economics is finding relevant to understanding economic outcomes.

But all the mathematics in economics is not, as Taleb suggests, charlatanism. Economics has an important quantitative side, which cannot be escaped. The challenge has been to combine its mathematical insights with the kinds of adjustments that are needed to make its models fit the economy's irreducibly human element.

The advance of behavioural economics is not fundamentally in conflict with mathematical economics, as some seem to think, though it may well be in conflict with some currently fashionable mathematical economic models. And, while economics presents its own methodological problems, the basic challenges facing researchers are not fundamentally different from those faced by researchers in other fields. As economics develops, it will broaden its repertory of methods and sources of evidence, the science will become stronger, and the charlatans will be exposed.
- Robert J. Shiller (yes I know his hame has Shill in it and you will giggle and point it out but it won't win you the debate, he is a Yale professor of Economics with a 2013 Nobel laureate in that very subject) https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller

Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as monetary value or ownership. These things were literally made up by humans.
- Prop

Debating is a social construct and the value of votes and of source reliability as well as argument-strength are all made up by humans. Prop has to concede that this debate in no objective manner is won by him in order to uphold this point and then has conceded the debate to me as I say that constructs made by human can still have value and then go on to say how I have won this debate according the the constructed values. Additionally, Pro has to concede that the English language is constructed and thus is valueless and that thus this debate's resolution is meaningless in any objective manner. This makes it impossible to uphold the resolution and Prop concedes the debate.

Second, humans have been motivated for thousands of years before capital was invented. In fact, before we where even self aware organisms we where motivated to work in order to survive. Capitalism is no different than any other system in this regard, people generally work to survive and prosper no matter what system they live under.
- Prop

This both fails to prove that Capitalism is obsolete and directly defeats the resolution. If Capitalism ended up being superior in the long run despite having been only one system in the original humanity that proves that, over time (which reduces the impact of luck and variance) the winner was Capitalism.

In fact let me just quote that source:
Play as Many Hands as You Can
In the long term, your wins and losses will most likely even out and stabilize at your skill level. A sample is the number of hands that a player is dealt in his career. The number of hands that make a sample can be quite high for a regular player. The more hands played, the lower the variance. There are a few ways to increase the number of hands you play. You can simply play poker more often, play in fast games, or play multiple tables simultaneously online.
Variance is a Big Deal in Online Poker

To show how major this variance-factor is, let’s return to John for a moment.

John – our live poker grinder from our previous examples – just discovered the online poker world and he’s as decent online as he is in his local casino.

Let’s say he beats the $0.50/$1 No-Limit Hold’em tables online with a win rate of five big blinds per 100 hands (which is already way above average for decent players).

His standard deviation is 100 big blinds per 100 hands (that’s a usual standard deviation for six-max tables online).

Live, John plays 4,000 hands per month, so let’s see how he does online over this period. Again we head over to the Pokerdope.com variance calculator, enter the three parameters (win rate, standard deviation and number of hands) and take a look at the results:


See what’s happening here? Those samples go wild!

Over 4,000 hands John can expect to win 200 Big Blinds (which corresponds to $200 at the $0.50/$1 tables) on average, but he will encounter plenty of very hefty swings.

Let’s go through some numbers:
  • The probability of John losing money over 4,000 hands is 38%
  • There’s a 2.5% chance (once every 40 trials) that John will lose more than $1,000 (10 or more buy-ins) over 4,000 hands
  • In fact more than 30% of the time John will be stuck in a downswing for more than $2,000

Variance is a [Redacted]

The reason why variance has such a huge impact was already given above: win rate. A decent online player might win five big blinds per 100 hands -- maybe 8-10BB per 100 if he or she’s really brilliant and playing at a relatively low level.

While in theory that’s a nice number it’s only a tiny fraction of this player’s standard deviation over 100 hands.

This means that variance will kick you in the butt every now and then and there is not much you can do about it. Your win rate is simply too low to negate a big downswing within a couple of hundred hands.

You might need thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) of hands to recover from your downswings.


More Hands, Less Variance

Let’s take a look a look at how to counter this variance problem.

The key to getting your variance under control is to play more hands. Almost all professional online grinders play tens of thousands of hands per month – some even play more than 100,000 hands (each month and every month).

If you are a winning player, accumulating more hands will inevitably reduce the impact of any short-term variance. The downswings wont just vanish, but you’ll out-win them eventually.

So let’s – again – return to John from our previous examples. He decided to give online poker a real shot and started playing 20 days per month, averaging 2,000 hands per day (playing 4 to 6 hours per day).

Per month he’s playing 40,000 hands. He plays $0.50/$1 No-Limit Hold’em and averages a win rate of five big blinds per 100 hands. His standard deviation is 100 big blinds per 100 hands.

What results can John expect for one month of playing? Well, let’s enter those numbers into the variance calculator:


While still looking quite wild, this simulation does not look too bleak.
  • There’s only a 16% chance that John will end up with a losing month
  • There’s a 5% chance that John will either lose more than $2,000 or win more than $6,000 in one month
After 40,000 hands variance still is a factor, but it’s already a much smaller one than over only 4,000 hands.

We can also simulate John’s possible results over 400,000 hands (which is 10 months worth of play for John):

  • The chance of losing money over 10 months (400,000 hands) is tiny: 0.08%
  • The chance of winning an amount somewhere between $7,350 and $32,650 is 95%
  • The chance of being stuck in a $2,000 downswing at any given time is slightly over 30%
  • The chance of being stuck in a $5,000 downswing (that’s 50 buy ins!) at any given time is around 4%
While those numbers might still look intimidating, unfortunately that’s the best one can come up with. Playing well, avoiding tilt and amassing plenty of hands is the only way to deal with downswings.

Those numbers also show: if you’re a decent (meaning: winning) player, you can negate negative variance by playing the necessary volume.

If at first there was general equality among many systems of running a society politically and economically and Capitalism ended up thwarting the others then it follows that the most strategic, scientifically sound of the systems was Capitalism since over time luck evens out but strength in valid strategy and sound logic do not even out, they snowball over time.


Everything else that Prop does is some variant of logical fallacy from Ad Hominem attacks to Bill Clinton turning into Appeal to Authority in the very same paragraph. Then we see him go totally away from proving that Capitalism is obsolete and instead trying to prove that it's somehow evil which I will neither react to nor address as something can be both evil and non-obsolete.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Hugest apologies to PokerListings, I am linking to you now:

That was the URL of the source I used for the last quote in my Round 2.

The rest remains resolute.

Notice that you can take conduct for forfeiting as it can be taken to be arrogance that he'd already won or you can even vote against Pro on sources as he keeps relying on blogs or YouTube videos whereas I use reliable sources and even a blog I used was very reliable in how it researched and put forth its thoughts.

I conclude that Capitalism is not obsolete.
Added:
all attempts so far have been premature society has not evolved enough yet
#14
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @Type1
RFD for arguments
If the resolution was Capitalism is exploitative, unsustainable, and unscientific, then pro would probably have won the debate. However, the resolution is whether or not Capitalism is **obsolete,** a point that con argues well. Con shows that capitalism is still in use and thus is not obsolete. The definition of obsolete, as con defined:
"Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable."
The general rule in debating is that you should define all your terms prior to the start of the debate. This is the mistake pro made in this debate (and in the other debates I've seen from him).
Pro forfeited the last round so conduct to con and this means pro essentially dropped all of con's arguments.
#13
Added:
I will repeat what I said before.
RationalMadman Contender
Added: 1 hour ago
If something is written in a reliable and well-worded manner it is pure inane arrogance to reword it yourself.
Here I quote myself because I can't write it better see?
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
No, you've got it all wrong. See, I'm both creative and logical. What you're doing is neither, you are just letting your sources speak for you 98% of the time. You aren't even technically debating.
Instigator
#11
Added:
Originality should never be rated over excellence. That's something even this very website and how it copied from debate.org proved.
You try too hard to be too creative and end up put in the dirt by a guy who is so elegantly in between creative and logical.
Contender
#10
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
The only way anyone here actually beats me is because of formatting and appealing to the sensibilities of the majority. When it comes to actually being correct and crafting your own arguments I am the best one on the site.
Instigator
#9
Added:
I search for several minutes reading at genius speed to come up with the best sources to use.
Contender
#8
Added:
Considering how this site breaks the formatting completely upon pasting it is quite a grind to make it look as beautiful as I do. I also cut out parts that aren't relevant in what's written most evident in the last quote. Read the sections 1 and 2 of what I pasted on the actual site.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Copying and pasting articles is not grinding. Making up your own religion is not thinking. believing is not knowing. not actually debating is not "being".
Instigator
#6
Added:
If something is written in a reliable and well-worded manner it is pure inane arrogance to reword it yourself.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
How can you do that when I'm already better than you. Only 2% of your arguments are actually you debating, everything else is a copy and pasted article yet you think that makes you a great debater.
Instigator
#4
Added:
I will outgrind, outthink, out-know, out-be the debater you are always and forever.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Didn't mean to forfeit but I basically made too many debates expecting that only 10% of them would have any challengers.
Instigator
#2
Added:
Huge apologies to pokerlistings I didn't link your URL at bottom of the quote I will do immediately in round 3.
https://www.pokerlistings.com/variance-and-poker-pt-2-the-secret-to-controlling-online-downswings
Contender
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: I believe that Con provided the superior arguments because he demonstrated how, according to his own definition, capitalism is not "obsolete." Pro never directly provided a definition of "obsolete" more compatible with his own arguments. If he had, and had not forfeited a round, I might have judged this category a tie or even in Pro's favor. I believe that something can correctly be called "obsolete" if it is no longer the best, all things considered, of multiple alternatives, and that Pro's arguments in favor of capitalism's obsolescence were overpowering by that definition.
Reliable sources: This absolutely goes to Con. Pro's sources were limited to Wikipedia, YouTube videos, and an alternative medicine website. Con cited in-depth articles and relevant quotes, all from sources ranging from reasonably reliable to scholarly and authoritative.
Spelling and grammar: I am not going to bother with a thorough analysis to determine which participant's spelling and grammar was quantitatively superior. The English usage of both participants was fully comprehensible and mostly literate, but riddled with minor mistakes.
Conduct: This clearly goes to Con. Not only did Pro forfeit the final round, but he was also unbecomingly abrasive and even used indirect ad hominem by describing the person behind one of Con's citations as an "alleged serial rapist, womanizer and deep-state puppet." The accuracy of these accusations is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such an assault is: 1. almost certainly intended, and likely to be perceived, as an attack on Con's moral character, not just his source; and 2. like all examples of the ad hominem fallacy, irrelevant to the contention itself.
#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:
The last round forfeit was the final nail in the coffin, but Pro set himself up to fail almost from the beginning by trying to argue that Capitalism is obsolete, rather then instead argue that it is exploitative, unscientific, or unsustainable as he did in his opening round. I also gave spelling/grammar to con because close to 90% of Pro's round 2 arguments were in bold which after a while started to make my eyes bleed and really fail to see which points Pro was trying to stress the most. That might be a little nitpicky, so I'll leave the other two criteria even
#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:
Conduct to con for the forfeit. See comments for argument analysis. It’ll be a few hits to be patient.