Instigator / Pro
24
1518
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#532

Capitalism is ill-equipped to deal with climate change

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
4

After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Uther-Penguin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Burdens:
-By "equipped", Con must argue that our current economic system can realistically expect to be able to keep global warming temperatures below 1.5 degrees within the next twelve years.
-This includes "mixed economies" or capitalist societies where the state has a share in the means of production or intervenes in the economy.
Rules:
-This debate assumes that climate change is man made and poses a significant threat to human civilization.
- This is *not* a debate on capitalism vs socialism, not is it about any socialist alternatives to environmental protection,
-Burden of proof is shared
-No squirreling
-Be civil and follow the format.
Terms:
Capitalism: "An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets" i.e The current international economic system.
ill-equipped: Incapable of achieving, in the context of this debate. Incapable of containing the global average temperature to below 1.5 C degrees within the next twelve years.
Climate change: Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years). We will be focusing on anthropogenic climate change, climate change caused my humans.
Format:
Round 1: Acceptance only, no arguments.
Round 2: Opening Cases
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing closing cases/ Counter-rebuttals (Now new arguments)

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:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3lDh2x-pWoEW3lgCxYSkuPmGcSf1Yb_0T4S_gWlkhI/edit?usp=sharing

As always, ask any questions if you need a clarification.

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:

Pro r2

Pro notes the private sector has failed to meaningfully engage about climate change - have acted dishonestly, and repeatedly attempted to mislead about the dangers of climate change.

Pro points out that the Paris accords and Kyoto treaty appear to have failed - and that the biggest polluting countries seem to be the ones that push back the hardest.

Now - thus far I have two issues with pros argument. Firstly that he didn’t show that the dishonesty of oil companies is inherently due to capitalism. Secondly, he mostly implies rather than warrants government intervention is due to capitalistic interests.

Con r2

Con changes the agreed definition with no argument or context. I’m willing to entertain definition changes - but not by fiat like this.

Con talks about socialism. This doesn’t appear to be topical.

Con argues that capitalism produced equipment that has been used to detect climate change - I think this can be true even if capitalism cannot deal with climate change.

Capitalism could produce instruments that detected that the earth would be sucked into a black hole - but not necessarily to deal with it.

It’s not clear from arguments whether he’s claiming NASA is an instrument being fought over by capitalism, or there is a fight to provide instrument - the latter appears more contextually correct, the former makes no sense to me.

The rambling story about pre capitalism appears largely non topical and is not being considered.

Finally, simply copying and pasting quotes with no specific context or argument of your own, is bad form. Considering no other real argument was made - I’m only going to accept them with minute amount of warrant and weight them very lightly.

Pro r3.

Pro points out BoP is shared, and that con adjusted the definition, and moved the topic onto capitalism vs communism. I concur with pro that this is not topical.

Pro also does a good job of addressing cons largest contention. That capitalism supplies eauipment, this was a prima facia bad argument - but pro does okay batting this away by pointing out innovation isn’t limited to capitalism, I think the premise that you’d have innovation without capitalism is fairly valid. The second part was less good - it wasn’t fully clear to me what pro really intended here.

However pro does contrast that while capitalism creates a good environment - it also hinders action. That’s a better argument here.

I won’t consider the rebuttals to cons arguments that were not topical, but what pro does do here, is point out multiple examples of instances where capitalism exploits during emergencies: imo together with what he’s stated about the energy industry, this erodes the possibility that Capitalism will deal with climate change.

Con r3

Cons first argument here is that capitalism will necessarily deal with climate change as late as possible. This isn’t quite his argument, his argument was that they will deal with climate change when there is an economic incentive. Con doesn’t provide an argument that convinces me, or any argument at all - that the point of actions for capitalism is this side of the 1.5 degree line of the full resolution.

Pros whole shock doctrine from the previous round is that the economics are more likely to exploit scarcity than it is correct the error due to simplicity preemptively refutes this.

Con argues that the entirety of pros second pillar isn’t due to capitalisms failures but “government being incapable of harnessing sufficient equipment”, cool! What does that mean? Why do you say that?

Remainder of RfD in comments.

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:

I feel only pro side addressed the issue of Government intervention into shutting down companies that produce carbon emissions. Defining capitalism as ill equipped to reduce global warming doesn't consider or take into account the idea that the government in most capitalistic countries have the power to shut down their own sources of capital. the concept of capitalism does not negate the influence of government over them. Both sides argue the realistic nature of change on part of the economy however.

I don't believe either side won, primarily because both sides seem unable or fail to address the possibility of a natural, unnatural disaster or a sudden shift in socioeconomic power can shift the co2 emissions in a moment.

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:

BoP(shared)
Pro committed a goal tending fallacy by adding a fallacious contingency to the BoP. Specifically the 12 year ultimatum. This forced Con to prove a slippery slope fallacy to win the debate which does not fall in line with the nature of BoP that is already set forth in a structured debate. These types of contingencies should always be avoided. Furthermore, political debates about government vs government carry an extra burden. Practically speaking, there must always be a government in power, so in this case, it was not wrong for Con to ask for a light comparison of socialism and other viable economic systems. BoP should be on the merit of the arguments and not and arbitrary and fallacious contingency.

Pro:
Pillar one: Private failure.
Pro made it clear that there are definitely companies taking advantage of the government and hurting the environment. My problem is that Pro did not make any effort to debunked the idea that other companies could also help the problem. Pro eventually posited a remedy for this thought, saying that technology can come from anywhere, the economy wasn't the only factor, etc. But con refuted all of this (More on con later)

Pillar two: Government failure.
Pro cited specific examples to prove this with ease. My problem is that Con showed that there is no logical connectivity between these two pillars even though they're both true in their own right. I cannot accept the conclusion since I do not accept the premises. The conclusion cannot follow in an argument with invalid structure.

Con:
1. What is being equipped to deal with CC?
More about establishing a definition than a point itself. Still, Pro agreed with this and the point is succinct and tautologous

2. How is Capitalism sufficiently equipped to deal with CC?
Con's fatal blow. Con rightly points out that government and economy are not mutually exclusive which is what tears con's premises apart. Pro tried to get around this by appealing to current behaviors, but did nothing to refute this point practically or logically. Furthermore, Con rightly pointed out there are companies that do help the environment and pointed out times when it would also be financially beneficial. These were the two big sticking points and further arguments did not change the status of this. Con also rightly points out that other forms of government haven't done any better. Even though pro was not happy with this argument, the fact is, that it was relevant and it was a good point to be made and Pro should have addressed it at least to a little more than what was done in this debate.

All other points are tied.