My opponent hasn’t engaged with my actual position but with a distorted caricature of it. He attacks a fictional version of communism I didn't describe. It is not collective ownership with democratic control. It is not participatory economics. It is not a system designed around shared human flourishing. Instead, he builds a strawman and then congratulates himself for defeating. But that tactic avoids truth.
“In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable…”
This is a false dilemma. Many desirable ideals like justice, equality, sustainability are pursued precisely because they challenge existing limits. To say that something is not worth desiring unless it's already proven achievable is to surrender to the status quo and abandon progress entirely.
Ironically, capitalism itself was once considered unachievable, during feudalism. If that logic had prevailed, your system wouldn’t even exist today.
“This is now trying to change the definition… which clearly said equal access to resources and democratic control.”
No, I am clarifying (not changing ) the definition. Equal access to resources is universal access to human necessities and means of self-development. You interpret it reductively, assuming “equal access” is “same allocation regardless of context,” which isn't what the principle implies.
Your logic leads to this: “Skilled people deserve more because they are better,” as when you claim: “Skilled people = those who are better at managing resources.”
This is circular and elitist. Who defines "better"? In capitalism, it's whoever already controls capital and not necessarily those with merit or moral authority.
“It is economically justified to let economy be managed by those who are best at it.”
Problem is that this assumes meritocracy exists in capitalism, which is empirically false. Economic power is not distributed by skill—it’s inherited, accumulated, and hoarded.
Just look at dynastic billionaires or financial speculation: capital doesn't flow to the "most skilled" but to the best positioned to exploit structural advantages.
“So this is another very unrealistic goal with no proof of being achievable.”
Again, progress doesn't require certainty, only possibility. Universal literacy was once considered “unrealistic.” So were the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and open-heart surgery.
The fact that people differ in talent doesn’t justify systemic exclusion. It’s precisely why communism emphasizes equitable access to what fosters talent: education, nutrition, healthcare.
“This is a concession that all human rights and basic needs depend on economy…”
Correct BUT irrelevant. What you fail over and over to grasp is that an economy is not neutral. It embodies values.
An economy that produces billionaires and homeless children simultaneously is not a neutral distribution system it is a value system that rewards ownership over need.
“It is common sense that Capitalism lifted more people out of poverty…”
Cherry-picked historical claim. Yes, material standards have risen globally, but much of that:
- Is due to technological progress, not capitalism per se
- Has been achieved by hybrid or state-guided systems, not pure free markets
- Ignores the global inequality capitalism creates and preserves
Moreover, poverty “reduction” under capitalism often means shifting people from absolute deprivation to precarious survival—not genuine security.
“That’s not circular argument, that’s just deductive reasoning…”
Not at all…it’s circular if your conclusion is embedded in your premise. Your chain:
- Capitalism = better economy
- Better economy = better life
- Therefore, Capitalism = better life
Assumes what it must prove: that capitalism indeed produces a better economy. But this is precisely the contested point of the debate.
“People as a whole benefit from Capitalism.”
This is demonstrably false. According to the World Inequality Report (2022), the richest 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Meanwhile, over 2 billion people lack access to clean drinking water (WHO/UNICEF, 2023), and 1.6 billion live in inadequate housing (UN-Habitat, 2022).
Furthermore, ecological collapse driven by capitalist models that externalize environmental costs is threatening the foundations of life itself (UNEP, 2021; IPCC, 2022).
Capitalism's benefits are not evenly distributed, and your vague claim that “people as a whole benefit” is a smokescreen to hide that. It’s not an argument it’s a deflection.
“No person will invest all his money at once. That would be terrible and risky.”
That’s not a refutation of my point. You claimed billionaires grow the economy through investment. I pointed out that most of their capital is not invested, it's parked in offshore accounts, stock buybacks, or dead capital.
You’ve now conceded that wealth is hoarded, and simply call it “risk management.”
“Of course people innovate for profit.”
This is a reductionist fallacy…Of course. Profit can motivate, but it’s not the only or even primary motivator for many.
Then you say: “My opponent… made an example of people innovating for money in Capitalism when being paid by state. This is a contradiction…”
No contradiction exists. The point is that public funding, driven by social goals, has produced major innovations. The researchers were paid but not via market profit, but collective investment. That supports my argument, not yours.
“Public funded isn’t non-profit.”
No one claimed otherwise. The point is that public investment without competition, ownership, or capital accumulation has driven real innovation. Your model requires profit maximization to justify production. Mine does not.
“Capitalism tries its best to give you best product for lowest cost…”
This is idealistic nonsense. Capitalism optimizes for profit, not for social good. Hence:
- Planned obsolescence
- Addiction-maximizing algorithms
- Cost-cutting that exploits labor and destroys the planet
You cite smartphones as progress yet millions mined the cobalt in slave-like conditions. Capitalism gives consumers toys, but hides the chains that built them.
“Your definition of Communism in description doesn’t [allow for cooperatives]…”
This is simply false, I don't know if you are lying deliberately or if you forgot to read what you yourself quoted.
The description stated: “Collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production.”
Worker-owned co-ops are collective ownership, with democratic control. You deliberately misinterpret this to force a strawman. No serious model of communism advocates random confiscation of individual enterprises by passersby.
“Capitalism thrives when businesses are safe from crime.”
But you claimed: “Capitalism does not produce crime.”
Now you shift the goalpost: first denying the correlation, then implicitly admitting it.
You also ignore how capitalism externalizes crime: poverty-related theft, housing insecurity, underground economies—all symptoms of systemic failure, not individual pathology.
“The U.S. is the most desirable country to live in…”
That’s an appeal to popularity (opinion), not a defense of the system. Many flee war zones, gang violence, or economic collapse often caused or exacerbated by global capitalism. Migration ≠ endorsement of capitalism as ideal.
Also: U.S. has more empty homes than homeless people. Is that desirable?
I mean…I would never live in the US, but that’s just my opinion, just as relevant as yours.
“The burden of proof is on Pro by default.”
False. Both sides bear the burden of defending their model once they assert it. You’re making bold claims about capitalism’s superiority, but you must defend them, not just snipe at communism.
You’ve claimed:
- Capitalism benefits all
- Innovation depends on profit
- Communism is economically destructive
- Skilled people deserve more access
All of these require justification. You’ve provided assertions, not proof.
"because its goals are “unrealistic,” we shouldn’t desire it"
No, the debate is about which we should desire more. Again, you have those reading issues where you seem to fail to understand difference between "desire" and "desire more".
You didn't have to say it explicitly since it's what your entire reasoning implies. You repeatedly argue that because Communism hasn’t been achieved, or because its goals are “unrealistic,” we shouldn’t desire it. That’s precisely what it means to reduce desirability to current feasibility. If that’s not your standard, then your entire objection collapses.
And accusing me of “reading issues” doesn’t cover up the contradiction it just adds insecurity on top of confusion. I quoted your own logic back to you. If you’re upset with how it sounds, maybe rethink what you're defending.
Now go ahead, set up the rematch. This time bring more than rhetorical elbows and a Wikipedia level take on political theory.
"Ah, so now desirability is entirely contingent on what's immediately “realistic”?"
Thats not what I said. I guess you have some reading issues.
"So yes, I accept your debate challenge happily"
Make another debate just like this then.
You claim “the debate is over” and then proceed to write three paragraphs of unsolicited post-debate cope. That’s so cool.
Let’s unpack this masterpiece of contradictions, shall we?
“We are supposed to desire more realistic things over self-contradictive fairy tales.”
Ah, so now desirability is entirely contingent on what's immediately “realistic”? By that logic, abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and civil rights were all “undesirable” until they magically became achievable. That’s a neat way to eternally justify the status quo , just declare anything transformative a “fairy tale.”
You conflate desirability with achievability, then smuggle that false premise into every argument like a contraband ideology. But unfortunately for you, I didn’t write the debate description just for decoration. It explicitly stated that this was about principles and long-term implications, not implementation history or current feasibility. Your inability to read the premise isn’t my fault, but just yours.
“Saying we should desire values that would destroy society...”
What an adorable little strawman...you ar such a sneaky little one. I didn’t argue for desiring destruction, I argued that a system based on human dignity, equal access, and democratic control of production is more desirable than one that structurally rewards exploitation. That you interpret this as “destructive” says more about your values than mine.
“You never proved any goals are achievable.”
Again, not the debate. And still: I actually did argue that many formerly “unachievable” goals became reality, public education, universal healthcare in several countries, the end of monarchies, etc. That undermines your pessimistic absolutism quite well. But you weren’t looking for logic. You were looking for affirmation.
“Capitalism works. You conceded.”
No, I acknowledged that it produces things. That’s not the same as saying it produces justice. In fact, I spent three rounds showing how capitalism’s “productivity” also produces homelessness next to vacant homes, ecological collapse, wealth hoarding, and despair. You just ignored all that because your bar for “works” is simply: GDP goes brrr.
“You had different short and long descriptions.”
Wow, sharp eye, detective. Except... no contradiction. The short description was a summary. The long one elaborated. If summarization confuses you, debating might not be your ideal hobby.
“You tried to change the definition of basic words...”
You’re really mad that I clarified that equal access to resources doesn’t mean “everyone gets the same number of hammers.” It means people have the material conditions to live with dignity. If that’s too “insane” for you, then maybe your ideology is allergic to decency.
So yes, I accept your debate challenge happily. But only if you agree to read the description this time and not treat “common sense” and “I just feel it’s true” as evidence.
Let me know when you’re ready to try again , ideally after you’ve upgraded from slogans to arguments.
Thanks for replying.
This was never about changing the outcome but it’s about whether your vote reflected the actual debate.
You admitted I made stronger arguments on desirability and progress (THE REAL core of the resolution), yet shifted the burden to “achievability,” which the description explicitly ruled out. That’s not neutral judging, it’s rewriting the debate. If the debate would've been like that, maybe I would've failed with my actual arguments...but the debate problm was clear.
You praised my clarity, structure, and focus, then rewarded the opposite. You ignored the fact that Con relied entirely on vague generalizations and “common sense” without sources.
You didn’t vote based on what was argued.
You voted based on what you wanted the debate to be.
That’s not analysis. That’s projection. I suggest you try to be more objctive and less subjective. Good day mate.
The debate did not have much time left, and I wasn't expecting to change who won, as I did not report any votes.
I don't agree with all your criticisms, but certainly it's something for me to think on.
Also, trying to change definition of basic words in middle of debate just because you couldnt defend the very insane goal you set: "equal access to resources for all people"?
Also, you placed two different contradictive descriptions in short description and long description. I dont know what that was about.
Debate is over. No need to get fussy just because we are supposed to desire more realistic things over self contradictive fairy tales. I can do another debate on this if you want, but it seems to me like you wanted to avoid all obvious failures of Communism, but sadly, topic was about being desirable, and saying that we should desire more those values which would destroy our society is an argument which fails even if we assume all previous failures of communism were unlucky accidents. To put it simply, you never proved that any goals mentioned there are achievable or wouldnt just fail horribly, while capitalism was proved to work over and over and improve lives constantly, which you conceded. So to say we should desire communism more is same as saying we should switch to communism, and at that point, you do need proof of achievability, which you had none.
While I appreciate the engagement, this vote ultimately sidesteps the debate’s framing. The resolution was about desirability of principles, not historical track records or current implementations which the voter admits, then disregards.
Penalizing Pro for “achievability” when the debate explicitly excluded real-world comparisons shifts the goalposts. Furthermore, claiming “neither side used sources” ignores that I cited five real-world organizations while Con cited none.
If “Pro made strong points on desirability and progress,” then Pro fulfilled the resolution. Con’s appeal to capitalism’s current reality is not a refutation of what we were debating. As such, the argument vote should at least be a tie, if not in Pro’s favor.
6. Appeal to Popularity and Personal Bias
You finish: “Pff, you’d rather live in Russia or North Korea? USA! USA! Well, maybe too much.”
This is not debate-worthy reasoning. It’s appeal to nationalism, not logic. The debate was not between USA vs. North Korea, but capitalism vs. communism as principles.
Pro even stated: “I mean… I would never live in the U.S., but that’s just my opinion, just as relevant as yours.”
That wasn’t a dodge it was a mirror to show how personal preference does not qualify as objective justification.
7. Conclusion: Inconsistent, Unfocused Scoring
You claimed: “Currently I lean Con, neither side is too exact with proofs, but I think Con is managing to address all of Pros arguments.”
But Con never directly refuted Pro’s points on:
Structural contradictions within capitalism
The exploitative nature of wage labor
Innovation under state funding
Ecological collapse driven by profit incentives
The incoherence of defining worth purely by productivity
Instead, Con:
Repeated the same economic dogmas
Claimed “common sense” as argument
Ignored citations
Dismissed ideal theory as fantasy
Your vote, by your own admission, was not based on theoretical rigor or argument quality, but personal impressions, uncertainty, and lack of political literacy. Do better mate.
3. Contradictory and Unfounded Claims
You say:“Communism is ever crabs in a bucket, pulling everyone down.”
That is a metaphor not an argument. It lacks any demonstration, evidence, or even internal logic. Worse, you admit shortly after:
“Not so sure myself, the USSR seemed to do alright in that area for a time.”
Which completely undermines the absolute claim about stagnation. These contradictions weaken your evaluation.
4. Evaluating Without Sources, Then Penalizing for Sources
You mention:“I again think the debate could benefit from sources.”
Yet the Pro side did cite multiple credible sources (World Inequality Report, WHO, UN-Habitat, UNEP, IPCC). If you missed this, your evaluation unfairly penalizes Pro while giving Con a pass for making bold but unsourced generalizations like:
“Capitalism constantly improves.”
“Capitalism has reduced poverty.”
“Communism reduces innovation.”
5. The False Analogy: The Dog vs. The Wolf
You write:“I might desire a wolf that will not bite me and will follow my commands… but I desire the dog because it ‘won’t bite me’…”
This analogy collapses under scrutiny. First, it contradicts your earlier point about desire being tied to achievability (which you later say isn’t always true). Second, it implies capitalism is safer, yet you also mention:
“I’m not convinced by their argument of the homeless children, I don’t think homeless ‘children’ are as common…”
So homelessness exists, but you minimize it based on intuition rather than data even though Pro cited 1.6 billion living in inadequate housing, and UN data was presented. You prefer anecdotal comfort to structural critique. All of which were asserted, not demonstrated.
Let me clarify and show that you voted poorly, I get you don't like communism, but this debate wasn't about that, If you read carefully this time you will se that.
You state:"But I'm uneducated on political theory."
This is an honest and respectable admission, but it highlights a core issue in your decision-making. Evaluating a debate on complex political and economic systems while lacking foundational knowledge inevitably leads to leaning on preconceptions rather than argumentative strength.
Let’s examine some of the inconsistencies and missteps in your evaluation:
1. Shifting the Burden of Proof Arbitrarily
You write:“If BOF is not in description, then it becomes a suggestion.”
That’s incorrect. The burden of proof (BoP) in DebateArt is shared by default when not specified, especially in value debates like “desirability.” This is not a debate of fact (“God exists”), but of comparative values. Both sides are affirming positions, and thus, both must defend them.
To say:
"Per rules of site, burden of proof is on Pro, not on me, nor shared." As Con did, is simply false. And your accepting that claim reveals a misunderstanding of the structure of debate burden.
2. Rewarding the Strawman Instead of the Core Principles
The debate description explicitly said:“This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes… but about the core principles and long-term implications.”
Yet you still write:“Eh, maybe I should take the view that Con takes the position that capitalism is more desirable? Vagueness in title and description.”
That’s inaccurate. The title clearly asks which system is more desirable, and the description defines the lens: not failed implementations, but the ideals themselves.
You continue:“Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.”
This shows a misunderstanding. Core principles are the long-term implications in normative theory. Arguing from real-world outcomes was allowed as illustration, but anchoring the debate solely in flawed historical outcomes, while ignoring the ideal models being debated, directly violates the debate frame.
This is just comical...I can't belive you guys just read all the debate and thoght that Lucystarfire gave better arguments...I mean I get you guys dont like communism, but the debate was clear...Lucystarfire couldn't adress any of my arguments, but I refute his. This is not about your opinions on communism, but a debate (logical arguments not your thought on communism).
> the con's arguments were really inconsistent and demonstrates the total absence of Marxism literature, or at least what communism really is without basing it on heard things.
You awarded 6 points for that. It is better than the previous vote in the comments, but it has much of the same flaws. That said, at least it implies knowing the topic under discussion.
> Pro was overall more persuasive, with stronger rhetoric.
You gave 7 points for that… It is not even sufficient justification for the argument award, and doesn’t even touch any of the others.
Title,
Well, 'execution 'does effect a lot, in a system.
There's good and bad examples of either.
Though, I think on a national level, Capitalism has a better track record,
Course one can argue lot of Capitalist Nations have a lot of Socialism in them, which many people call Communism of a sort.
But I'm uneducated on political theory.
Description,
"I take the position that communism is more desirable." - Pro
Eh, maybe I should take the view that Con takes the position that capitalism is more desirable?
Vagueness in title and description.
"This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes, nor about comparing failed implementations. Instead, the focus is on the desirability of the core principles and long-term implications of both systems." - Pro
Hm, yeah Capitalism has 'flaws, but it appears to 'work more than Communism.
Sure Communism that works might be 'desirable, but. . .
We desire things for what they 'are sometimes.
I might desire a wolf that will not bite me and will follow my commands obediently, more than a dog that will not bite me and will follow my commands obediently,
But I desire the dog because it 'won't bite me and 'will follow my commands obediently.
Course, what things 'are can change. Animals, Technology, Social Conditions.
I've heard it said that Marx thought Communism ought be attempted when a nation was 'ready for it, rather than when it was 'not ready.
Jocoqe Round 1
"Which system is more desirable as a model for organizing human life, in terms of justice, dignity, and sustainability?" - Pro
If either system can be manipulated until it's ideal version, how is one better than the other?
Capitalism rewards effort, merit.
Communism 'forces your labor, removes individual choice and property.
Pro argues sometimes flaws in Capitalism to be a feature, but why should this 'not apply to Communism?
Capitalists can be idealists as well.
If BOF is not in description, then it becomes a suggestion.
LucyStarfire Con Round 1
Makes resource management argument.
"Economy is everything" - Con
Well, I'm not so sure about that, I think economy can 'help.
But society can also structure to force or encourage certain institutions.
A bigger problem is 'defending one's country from other countries, if one doesn't have wealth, and by wealth, armies and weapons.
Makes an argument that Communism lacks innovation.
Not 'so sure myself, the USSR seemed to do alright in that area for a time.
Communism can also 'force communal savings, and 'force expansion,
Course it tends to work out horribly in history, I think.
Con makes poverty and Crime argument.
Round 1 Thoughts on Both
Still initial stage of debate.
. . . I think examples and proof are valuable, but Pro kind of lined such out in the description.
I'd say Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.
Jocoqe Round 2
I find Pros arguements in On Equal Access to Resources and “Skilled vs Unskilled” less than convincing.
Removing the ability to excel 'does mean the same outcome.
Communism is ever crabs in a bucket, pulling everyone down.
Skills 'can be produced through social structuring, but I think such is limited. It pulls people in and forces them to the party line and so called 'good of society, the status quo.
Course one can argue such is the un'ideal version of Communism.
On the “Economy is everything” fallacy
I still lean Con, but Pro makes a good argument that votewise this point goes Pro, unless Con makes additional argument on point.
Course a 'problem in the debate, is I think most 'real world nations use a 'mix of Individual and group valuing, not 'one or the 'other.
On Expansion and Innovation
Eh, most wealth is 'invested, it's how the wealthy 'stay wealthy, and 'get wealthier.
A better argument might be when patents can slow and stop innovation,
But that might be a debate in itself.
"The internet, GPS, vaccines, nuclear power, public universities (all emerged primarily from state or publicly funded research, driven by collective goals, not profit-seeking)." - Pro
Yeah, from a 'Capitalist Country.
And hardly 'removed from Capitalism in funding and implementation.
But these are 'claims, not proof by me.
I again think the debate could benefit from sources.
No reward, no profit, no incentive to improve." - Con
I 'mostly 'agree with him, exceptions exist, but I view the bulk of motive as self interest.
"Planned obsolescence
Addiction-driven design
Disposable consumer culture" - Con
All good arguments, but arguably Capitalism 'accounts for such by the Free Market.
Consumers 'are able to move as a group and demand what they want.
"On Suppression of Small Business" - Pro
Is at best a tie, it mentions use of Capitalist methods.
"On Stagnation, Poverty, and Crime" - Pro
Eh, America's complicated, still I'm curious if Con is able to compare it to Communist countries.
. . . But description says, "nor about comparing failed implementations"
So bit hard to say if argument even applies, as one can just claim that certain aspects of Capitalism were failed implementation.
"Other Structural Contradiction" - Pro
What 'proof is there that Communism could ever succeed and 'maintain it's success?
Con Round 2
"In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable, or there is no any point in desiring it in the first place." - Con
That's how I generally see it, but. . . Not 'necessarily how it is.
Sometimes we desire the unachievable, or the very difficult 'to achieve.
Makes arguments of individual ability and importance of the economy.
Argues Capitalism means many goods.
I'm not sure Communism 'quite works out as 'any person seizing the private business of another, but the government often does.
Possible flaw in debate, might be question of 'scale.
Compares America and Communist Countries.
BOP, eh, I'lean towards 'shared.
Round 2 Thoughts
Currently I lean Con, neither side is too exact with proofs, but I think Con is managing to address all of Pros arguments.
Currently I suppose I'd 'vote tie though, as I've said earlier, I think each side has 'half of the debate.
Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.
Jocoqe Round 3
“In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable…”
Pro makes the expected response, argues surpassing limitations.
“This is now trying to change the definition… which clearly said equal access to resources and democratic control.”
I still lean Con here, skilled and better people 'do acquire and use resources, merit.
Course there's the issue of inherited wealth, but Capitalism accounts for that when the unworthy 'lose their money.
Pro makes arguments against the worthy, but I found Cons argument of America's success convincing, compared to many 'Communist countries.
“So this is another very unrealistic goal with no proof of being achievable.”
Pro makes good arguments again, on 'progress.
“This is a concession that all human rights and basic needs depend on economy…”
Pro concedes economy importance.
I'm not convinced by their argument of the homeless children, I don't think homeless 'children are as common in America as homeless 'people, who mooch off of various goverment socialist programs, and soup kitchens.
Statistics needed.
“It is common sense that Capitalism lifted more people out of poverty…”
Argues this is due to tech, not the Capitalist system.
" circular argument"
. . . I don't 'think that's circular logic.
. . . That's more. . . 'maybe a equivocation fallacy?
Though I don't think I'd call it a 'fallacy, if Capitalism leads to a stronger economy than Communism,
And it's 'agreed by Pro earlier that economy is important, then one 'could see a connection.
“People as a whole benefit from Capitalism.”
We're still better off than the Communists.
And 'again, Pro has that 'ideal version of Communism or Capitalism in the description, though one 'could argue it only applies to COmmunism, they weren't specific, so I apply it to both.
But there's 'still the "core principles and Con on long-term implications."
I think Con is doing better on the long term implications, but that Pro is doing better on core principles.
“No person will invest all his money at once. That would be terrible and risky.”
A 'bit problem in the debate is both sides making 'claims, but not backing those claims with proof or statistics.
"Planned obsolescence
Addiction-maximizing algorithms
Cost-cutting that exploits labor and destroys the planet"
Again good examples, but one can argue 'ideal Capitalism.
"I mean…I would never live in the US, but that’s just my opinion, just as relevant as yours."
Pff, you'd rather live in Russia or North Korea?
USA! US- Well, maybe too much.
LucyStarfire Round 3
Argues the many achievements and 'reality of Capitalism.
Argues failure of Communism to 'be.
'Unfortunately debate description has,
"This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes, nor about comparing failed implementations. Instead, the focus is on the desirability of the core principles and long-term implications of both systems."
no worries!
@pierree
Thank you for voting!