Instigator / Pro
7
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#22

Capitalism is obsolete

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
1
3

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

No information

all attempts so far have been premature society has not evolved enough yet

-->
@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"Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable."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.

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?

-->
@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.

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.

-->
@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.

I search for several minutes reading at genius speed to come up with the best sources to use.

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.

-->
@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".

If something is written in a reliable and well-worded manner it is pure inane arrogance to reword it yourself.

-->
@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.

I will outgrind, outthink, out-know, out-be the debater you are always and forever.

-->
@RationalMadman

Didn't mean to forfeit but I basically made too many debates expecting that only 10% of them would have any challengers.

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