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.
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.
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).
Don’t get in which sense is Dialectical materialism “more real” than christianity /judaic religión? what is the debate about exactly? social description?
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.
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.
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).
Don’t get in which sense is Dialectical materialism “more real” than christianity /judaic religión? what is the debate about exactly? social description?