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Capitalism is obsolete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
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct to con for the forfeit. See comments for argument analysis. It’ll be a few hits to be patient.