Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

the capitalism is bad

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1718
rating
41
debates
70.73%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
English is not my mother tongue, so please mention my spelling mistakes.

my argument is structured like this:
Premise 1: One of the consequences of the free market is carbon dioxide pollution.
premise 2: carbon dioxide pollution is bad for humans.
conclusion: the free market has negative consequences for human beings: for premise 1 I will compare the pollution of those countries with a high degree of economic freedom, and that of those with a low degree of economic freedom, according to the wall street journal and the Heritage Foundation, the most capitalist countries are Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland and China, while the least capitalist are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Eritrea.
Singapore (the most capitalist) is a clean city, while Korea (the least capitalist) is the 120th country in terms of the most pollution.

Australia (the second most capitalist country) is among the most polluting in the world, while Venezuela (the second least capitalist country in the world) is ranked 148th among the most polluting countries.

Cuba (the third least capitalist country) ranks 107th among the most polluting, while New Zealand (the third most capitalist country) ranks 117th.

Sudan (the fifth least capitalist) is 99th in the ranking, while Ireland (the fifth most capitalist) ranks 116th.

Eritrea (the sixth least capitalist) is a low polluting country, while China (the sixth most capitalist) is a very polluting country.

My source on CO2 pollution in the countries is datosmacro.com, of course, it is not enough to demonstrate a correlation, however, it is clear that a free market, where the basic law is supply and demand, will be based on meeting the comforts of the public, regardless of whether or not it generates a negative long-term effect.

Premise 2 is pretty self-explanatory, but just to exemplify, several serious studies mention global warming as a possible world catastrophe:

Con
PRO has the sole BoP. He claims capitalism is "bad" without defining his terms. So I will.

Capitalism: economic freedom for individuals and businesses
Bad: undesirable, having overall negative impacts on society


PRO'S argument was
Premise 1: One of the consequences of the free market is carbon dioxide pollution.

premise 2: carbon dioxide pollution is bad for humans.

conclusion: the free market has negative consequences for human beings
The first premise is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not prove causation. Capitalism does not cause pollution, human factories, cars and meat farms do. Capitalism is not responsible for humanity's tendency to overexploit Earths resources. The premise is not sound, its untrue.

Premise 2 is only valid long term. For millions of people today, energy from Oil and gass is necessary to cover energy needs. It's near impossible to achieve high living standards quickly without taking advantage of fossil feels. Hence the climate debate in the UN being more than one-sided.

The conclusion to PRO'S argument does not support his resolution. Capitalism having negative consequences doesn't mean its bad. Capitalism May have positive benefits, perhaps some moral, economic and and political reasoning as justification; that make it good despite its downsides. I will come back to this in my second round.

For now, PRO'S argument is debunked. I am awaiting his response.
Round 2
Pro
Thanks for the answer, I agree with the definition of capitalism, however, I prefer to define something bad as that which has negative consequences, either in general or in part.

1. It is not a logical fallacy, since although correlation does not imply causality, I never said it was, the proof of causality is something that I am going to deepen now:
1. The main cause of carbon dioxide pollution is the burning of coal, oil and gas.
2. Without buying and selling certain products, the burning of those fuels is extremely reduced.
3. Thanks to the free market, the buying and selling of these products occurs.
4. Thanks to the free market, most of the pollution occurs.

For premise 1, a few scientific investigations are sufficient to confirm this.


For premise 2, a simple analysis is enough, the main reason why these fuels are burned is to fulfill a purpose that is associated with a product, such as automobiles, aerosols and others.
For premise 3 we have the fact that if this buying and selling is not repressed, it will continue to happen, since humans are selfish, and on the other hand, if it is repressed there will already be an absence of a free market, so as long as there is no absence of free market, pollution will continue to occur.

Con
Thank you, PRO.

PRO has the sole BoP. PRO did not bring up definitions for bad and capitalism. Instead he accepted my definitions. They are:

Capitalism: economic freedom for individuals and businesses

Bad: undesirable, having overall negative impacts on society

Moving on.

ADRESSING PRO'S ARGUMENT:

1. The main cause of carbon dioxide pollution is the burning of coal, oil and gas.
2. Without buying and selling certain products, the burning of those fuels is extremely reduced.
3. Thanks to the free market, the buying and selling of these products occurs.
 
Thanks to the free market, most of the pollution occurs.
The first premise is sound by basis of scientific research. The second premise is also sound, the majority of climate gasses released by humans is caused by certain products of the economy. Not having an economy would perhaps prevent climate change, but it certainly would not be good for humans, as we need the economy to cover our needs and ensure peacefull cooperation instead of violent fight for controll over resources. Next, the third premise.

Does capitalism cause the buying and selling of certain products? Absolutely not. The burning of fossil fuels is caused by human greed and specifically, our desire for cheap energy and fuel. No matter how we organize our economy and distribute resources, as long as humans are in charge, resources like fossil fuels will be exploited.


Government restrictions vs infringement on economic liberty
if this buying and selling is not repressed, it will continue to happen, since humans are selfish
PRO conceedes that replacing capitalism with another economic system would not end climate change. Any economy with sufficient technology and infrastructure would fall into the trap that is overexploiting fossil fuel. The only possible solution to climate change, by PRO's admission, is to repress specific resources and products. Capitalism was never the problem; using it as a scapegoat serves no purpose but to distract from the real solution which is targeted regulation.

if it is repressed there will already be an absence of a free market
Really? If overexploiting fossil fuels were illegal, does that mean we abandoned capitalism? What about other illegal products. It is illegal to pay a judge or politician to subvert justice. Likewise, many drugs, weapons and services are banned or regulated by law in most capitalist countries. Humans can actively and severely harm themselves and each other using products bought with money. Laws and regulations regarding these products are intended to protect humans against themselves, not to infringe on economic liberty. Nobody claims these restrictions make our economy non-capitalistic. Thats because, they don't. 




Economic liberty—the right to earn a living in the occupation of your choice without unnecessary government interference.  Institute for justice
Economic liberty is not about what products or occupations are legal, but rather the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves what options to choose and what they are willing to pay/work for it. The fundamental virtue of capitalism is that you protect people from being forced to work as slaves or have their occupation/products forcefully decided by others. When you understand this, you can see that restricting dangerous products, whether it be drugs, guns or fossil fuels, is not the same as removing capitalism. Therefore, it is simply wrong to claim that climate change won't end before capitalism does. Thus, the argument PRO presented is not valid.



Sorry for not having time to write a fully fleshed out argument with sources and syllogisms. Here are my points of what makes up for any critique of capitalism one could ever make:


WHY CAPITALISM IS GOOD:
  1. Capitalism gives people the liberty they deserve according to human rights. Humans are entitled to basic liberty. What is more a human right than being able to freely exchange goods? Without said right you would not be able to cover your basic needs. Allowing free trade, that is Capitalism, is the baseline of moral decency in an economic system.
  2. An extension of the last argument. The alternative to economic freedom is slavery, where your labour is not yours to use and sell, but rather controlled by someone else without your permission.
  3. Capitalism causes wealth and prosperity for everyone. Every other alternative economic model we have data on is objectively worse than capitalism at serving the purpose of distributing wealth and workforce. All the richest countries are those with strong capitalistic tradition. 
  4. This is because, as PRO said, capitalism always serves the interest of society. Under capitalism it is the people who work, buy and sell for their own wellbeing. And since every transaction is free, nobody is ever forced to accept a bad deal. This concept is called surplus, the idea that both buyer and seller can get a good deal at the same time, because they have different senses of value.
  5. Finally, only capitalism realises that value is by definition subjective. One mans trash is another mans treasure. Price should represent value. But if you don't have a open and free market, price seizes to be correlated with value. As a basic example, Monopolies always overprize their products. Capitalism erradicates such problems by providing the free and open market needed to allow competition, supply an demand laws, and ultimately, fair prizes actually representing value.

CONCLUSION:
I have debunked PRO'S argument. Capitalism is definately not bad. It is the fairest, simplest, most effective and most benefitial economic system. It fits our modern values and allows for reasonable regulation. The resolution fails.
Round 3
Pro
Thanks for the answer I am Mexican, so it is hard for me to understand terms like bop.accept your definition of capitalism, slightly modify your definition of evil, posing it as something that generates some negative effect.our drive for energy and fossil fuels is one of the causes of climate change, capitalism is another, because as long as there is a free market, there will continue to be exploitation of resources.I admit that replacing capitalism with another economic system would allow the solution to climate change, not doing so does not.Naturally, if specific products and resources are repressed in a world like ours where there are people who do not want them to be repressed, the only way to do so is to coerce against the will of these individuals, that is, preventing them from making exchanges freely, an economy that has prohibited the overexploitation of fossil resources would not necessarily fall into that trap, but of course, in this economy the free market would be violated, a regulation definitely aimed at coercing the actions of certain companies and certain individuals, so it would not give them freedom, there would be a direct violation of the free market.if there is an illegal product of any kind, it is a direct violation of the free market. Your definition really helps me, you see, if I can't decide to make a living selling fossil fuels, or selling guns or selling drugs because of state interference, then economic freedom is already being violated, only thing that doesn't help. I is Part of unnecessary, however, this is where your definition fails, as that term is vague, the heritage foundation definition is better, economic freedom is defined as the right to control labor and property, if it's a fossil fuel It's my property, and I can't sell it, I'm not controlling it. https://www.fundesa.org.gt/indices-y-evaluación-de-pais/indices-internacionales/libertad-economica If capitalism is about the freedom of individuals to decide what options to choose, then the moment the state prevents me from choosing a polluting option, that already goes against that freedom, and therefore your argument supports me, I don't know what I am referring to capitalism that prevents people from working as slaves.1. Human beings have the right to basic freedom, however, the free exchange of goods is not among those freedoms, it is perfectly possible to satisfy such needs without it, Cuba for example has 0% child malnutrition, 0% illiteracy, etc. all this despite living in a planned economy https://www.fao.org/in-action/agronoticias/detail/es/c/508233/ https://www.telesurtv.net/news/cuba-metodo-erradicacion-analfabetismo-yo-si-puedo--20191219-0011.html.2. this is false, one of the characteristics of slavery is to legally belong to another person, the mere fact of not having economic freedom does not mean that you can be sold and bought. https://www.google.com/search?q=slave+definition&oq=sl&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60j0i433i512l3j46i433i512.1299j0j9&client=ms-android-americamovil-mx-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 if you want to know what real slavery is, i recommend that you read the book, "el mexico barbaro" by john turner, in this book he narrates the slavery experienced during the ultra capitalist government of porfirio diaz.3. false again, in the first place, there are 22 million more poor people in the world, in spite of the fact that most countries in the world are capitalist, on the other hand, in 2020, china, a non-capitalist country was the only one that had economic growth. https://www.cepal.org/es/comunicados/pandemia-provoca-aumento-niveles-pobreza-sin-precedentes-ultimas-decadas-impacta https://www.clarin.com/new-york-times-international-weekly/medio-crisis-economica-global-china-unico-pais-crece_0_VaUQa8kus.html 4. if the above points are false, and they clearly are, then this cannot be the reason it is true.
5. value is objective, otherwise it would mean that amazon really isn't worth more than the average street vendor's business.

Con
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Sorry for the forfeit, I guess we are even. Moving on: BoP means burden of proof. That is, since you are making a claim, you are responsible to prove it correctly; it is not my duty to disprove it --- although I could if I wanted. Next, although I study spanish, it is a bad idea to have your debate sources be written in spanish. It is also a nice rule of thumb to write in paragraphs. Keep these tips in mind when debating on this site.



if I can't decide to make a living selling fossil fuels, or selling guns or selling drugs because of state interference, then economic freedom is already being violated
By that logic, a nation cannot both be capitalist and have even a single law. You would have to claim that no nation on Earth is capitalistic, which would be an obvious misconception. This claim of yours exposes a fundamental flaw in your understanding of our subject. You gotta understand that capitalism and anarchy are not equivalent. Capitalism is not the abscence of any and all laws, allowing you to murder and commit crime for money --- that would be anarchy. You failing to distinguish the meaning of theese words is a grand mistake on your part, and is not a valid argument. Capitalism does not inherrently promote the legality of every product and occupation regardless of its hazards. For this reason, a capitalists society can still enforce green regulations. Thus, climate change doesn't prove that capitalism is bad.


Human beings have the right to basic freedom, however, the free exchange of goods is not among those freedoms
Bullshit. The right to agency is the most basic right of them all. You can't deprive people of the right to basic exchange without depriving them of their basic freedom. If two people exchange goods, the only way to stop them is to physically prevent them from doing so. For some actions like murder, its justified for society to use physical force and the threat of it to prevent said execution of free will. But what justification do you have to deprive people of the right to exchange? None.


Cuba for example has 0% child malnutrition, 0% illiteracy, etc. all this despite living in a planned economy
Funny how you mention Cuba and not Venezuela --- where despite this "planned economy" people stand in long lines just to get essential products and food [1]. Funny how you mention Cuba and not USSR, North Korea, North Vietnam, or literally any communist country throughout history. Admit it, even if I simply buy your statement, Cuba would still be an underwhelming exception. Communism sucks when applied to real life, thats a fact. Also in this category is feudalism, tribalism, colonialism, slavery and most other economic systems. History proves that depriving people of economic freedom, to be totally accurate, sucks.


one of the characteristics of slavery is to legally belong to another person
Sure enough, capitalism is the opposite of slavery. You are your own, you controll your own economic life, you have free agency. Is that really a bad thing?



here are 22 million more poor people in the world, in spite of the fact that most countries in the world are capitalist
According to all evidence ever collected, capitalism-remains-the-best-way-to-combat-extreme-poverty. Furthermore, poverty has been reduced from 80 to less than 10 percent the last century. This is due to, you guessed it, capitalism.


value is objective
Austrian economists Mises would disagree. He has written entire books and created entire schools of though debunking this idea, including value-theory.



PRO's claims were all debunked. He has not proved that capitalism is bad, he has made no argument even remotely accurate to the true world.


WHY CAPITALISM IS GOOD:
  1. Capitalism gives people the liberty they deserve according to human rights. Humans are entitled to basic liberty. What is more a human right than being able to freely exchange goods? Without said right you would not be able to cover your basic needs. Allowing free trade, that is Capitalism, is the baseline of moral decency in an economic system.
  2. An extension of the last argument. The alternative to economic freedom is slavery, where your labour is not yours to use and sell, but rather controlled by someone else without your permission.
  3. Capitalism causes wealth and prosperity for everyone. Every other alternative economic model we have data on is objectively worse than capitalism at serving the purpose of distributing wealth and workforce. All the richest countries are those with strong capitalistic tradition. 
  4. This is because, as PRO said, capitalism always serves the interest of society. Under capitalism it is the people who work, buy and sell for their own wellbeing. And since every transaction is free, nobody is ever forced to accept a bad deal. This concept is called surplus, the idea that both buyer and seller can get a good deal at the same time, because they have different senses of value.
  5. Finally, only capitalism realises that value is by definition subjective. One mans trash is another mans treasure. Price should represent value. But if you don't have a open and free market, price seizes to be correlated with value. As a basic example, Monopolies always overprize their products. Capitalism erradicates such problems by providing the free and open market needed to allow competition, supply an demand laws, and ultimately, fair prizes actually representing value.

CONCLUSION:
I have debunked PRO'S argument. Capitalism is definately not bad. It is the fairest, simplest, most effective and most benefitial economic system. It fits our modern values and allows for reasonable regulation. The resolution fails.

Round 5
Pro
ok, I admit that I must use English fonts.
I am not making anarchy and capitalism equivalent, if you are forbidden to kill for fun, you would not be violating the free market, if instead you are forbidden to kill for money you would already be breaking the free market, to affirm that no nation is capitalist is correct, no nation complies with Adam Smith's theory, just as no nation complies with Marx's theory.
If stopping two people physically goes against basic freedom, then neither can you prevent someone from stealing without physically stopping him, so according to his logic, this would also be basic freedom, which, it is not.
I have no problem talking about the soviet union, they consumed the same calories as the united states
This despite the fact that Russia had a much worse climate to produce food, the decline of the URR began after the elimination of Stalinism.
something similar with North Korea, which had a higher economic growth than South Korea, until the defense of the proletariat and other essential aspects of Marxism were eliminated, in fact, they were recognized for their high life expectancy, comparable to advanced countries, all this according to historian Jim Cummings.
I also have no problem talking about Vietnam, which has high economic growth.
Being free to trade whatever you want doesn't mean you don't legally belong to someone else.
The interesting thing about the study that you cite is that it is based on the correlation, and on the information from the heritage foundation, so if you accept that as proof that capitalism reduces poverty, you must accept that it increases pollution as well, It is interesting to talk about the trends within capitalism, however, it is interesting that you mention tribalism, during its heyday 4000 children died of hunger a day, today during capitalism 8000 die, Austrian economists start from the axiom that value is subjective, no one has been able to prove that it is.
all his other claims have been disproved, I accept the burden of proof, and so far I have done a good job proving that capitalism is bad.

Con
Forfeited