Armor Games

Debate_Politics1

is ranked #141,538 out of 336,374 users

• Member since: 5/5/2008

Welcome to the Debates!  Here are some guidelines for everyone to follow:
- Everyone is welcome to view the debates, but please only post here if you are directly involved in the debate
- The person who started the topic must present the first argument, unless otherwise instructed
- Please post in a timely fashion.  If no response has been made within 48 hours, then the adjudicator can declare a winner.  If you’re not going to be able to respond for longer than 48 hours, just let everyone know by posting on this profile.
- There are 3 categories in scoring: Argument, Evidence, and Refutation.  It is important to consider all three to get maximum points.
- When citing sources, please don’t use Wikipedia â€" it is simply not reliable enough and you should be able to find the same information in at least 3 other places besides Wikipedia.
- Your best bet of getting a great score is to make very long, well organized posts.  Short quips back and forth make it very hard for me to see your line of thought and so it is incredibly hard for me to score.  There are old debates on every profile now, so look at some old good ones to get an idea of what you should be doing.

1. VoteSocialist says:

   Posted at 4:51am on 7/26/2009

   Socialism is better! :P

2. Drace says:

   Posted at 4:19pm on 10/12/2008

   Sure no problem.
   I got tired of it myself.

   It seems pointless. To tell the truth, I think we both did horrible, lol.

3. necromancer says:

   Posted at 9:36pm on 10/11/2008

   I have a lot going on right now. The few times I get a chance to go to Armorgames I have to take my time responding here rather than argue in the forum or play games. Would you like to have a draw and resume the debate some other time?

4. Drace says:

   Posted at 9:42pm on 10/3/2008

   I find consequentialism meaningless since it asks for a definition of "greater good". Our impressions of what is better is as natural as what our instincts tell us if something is moral or not.

5. Drace says:

   Posted at 9:31pm on 10/3/2008

   "You need to include a reason why capitalism doesn't treat people as individuals; Communism by comparison, treats people equally and disrespects their individual abilities."

   A business is not about the individual at all. Labor is a commodity like any other.

   The individual abilities as it seems are those of which your born with. Completely unfair to go other wise then to share equally? Education wise...

   Well its a cooperative society. Its no longer about the individual. How is it disrespect? They are given what they need, mmm? Shall I give one more then he needs for the heck of it?

   "Please explain in more detail and with reasons. I'm no sure what you are saying."

   You cannot call it exploitation because one is completely willing to do that extra.

   "Why would people work for that goal though? People are naturally selfish and act in their own interests; unless you brainwashed people, they wouldn't work harder "for the good of the people"."

   Oh God, I hate this "argument". Its just a out of no where statement to ignore all the ideals and go for a quick "Ok thats nice, but it can't work".

   I only have a whole theory to explain otherwise.

   I will it leave it to that in prehistoric times, the basic principles of communism had been established. Where there were only hunters and gathers, which of gathered and hunted and shared it. Classes formed while civilizing. Mmm..

   In the animal kingdom all over, there is 'communism'. Wolf packs...bees producing honey?

   Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity in my argument. What I was trying to say is that the owner of the factory makes money because the production costs less. If I slaughtered the animal independently. I would then have to sell it to someone else who would clean it, and he would sell it to someone to butcher it, and he would sell it to someone to redistribute it. Joined together under one business the system becomes more efficient, like with Carnegie's vertical integration. The efficiency is where the owner makes the profit."

   All of which are done by laborers of the factory which use his instruments. And he does so he can afford it, mmm. This efficiency can be done with or without the capitalist.

   So he is simply taking their labor.

   "Because market competition ensures it stays efficient, i.e. you can't claim these impacts saying that under Communism everything is unified."

   The division of labor is the process of having people do single jobs. Like how your example, "I would then have to sell it to someone else who would clean it, and he would sell it to someone to butcher it, and he would sell it to someone to redistribute it.".

   It seemed as if that you tried to explain that this division was market competition...

   "But you don't choose to work for society, Capitalism sees you as an individual choosing to work for yourself."

   This "Capitalism" doesn't see you, its only a system. The employers see you and they look for someone who can fulfill the job the best.

   You don't work for yourself, you work for a wage.
   Its rather communism were you work for yourself. By working for society, you work for yourself. After all, your part of society!

   "By production or your utility to the company."

   How do you measure this?

   "I bet night shift janitors are paid more because less people are willing to work the night shift, also a janitor who cleans more than others will be noticed and probably be given a raise."

   Yes because those people are desperate for a dam job. This is not relevant to their contribution though. The point is, everyone doing the SAME job is payed the same.

   So if we had 50 janitors at school, they would all be payed say $8 an hour. No one comes to see that you worked harder then others.

   Janitors don't really get raises, btw, like most jobs. They only promote someone if another of the higher position leaves.

   "People are happiest when they are free. They can choose what they want and no one has the the ability to coerce them to do otherwise. Communism coerces people into working for society and accepting the products they give to them."

   This is false. Society does not pick for you, wtf. I don't even know how thats possible.
   The distribution would be something like a 'store' where products created are transported there, and people can go and get what they need. Of course there would be limitations, so one does not go get 1000000 pieces of bread for the hell of it!

   And people are happy when they have freedom, but there is no financial freedom! You have a limited amount of money...

   "That definitely doesn't fall under the egalitarianism of Communism."

   I don't like to go by definition. Hell, it comes very close. Such a system would just be to ensure that one does not slack off. Else wise, everyone else has the same fruits of labor.

   "1) Public education lacks the competition found in private education. It therefore has less quality because the education does not have to be superior to another school's education."

   The schools would be of democratic control.

   This goes back to the cooperation vs competition argument.

   Also, the public schools here are quite competitive. And...most cannot pay for private education here so thats an argument against the current system.

   There was a statistic somewhere showing how the US, worlds best capitalist system, is ranking about 16th in the subjects such as math, science, and ehh ?? out of 21 industrialized nations in terms of student's education level.

   So what would happen is the concerned parents would try to do whatever to maximize their child's education.

   "Communism may give you the ability to choose what job you want, provided you have learned the skills necessary, however, it fails to it you choose who you want to work for. In Capitalism, I can choose who I want my employer to be, I am not forced into working for the only employer, society."

   Oh yes, society is so evil! Its bad to work for the greater good!!!

   And you are forced to work for an employer, doesn't make too much of a difference of which it is. None will give you what you ultimately deserve.

   "Therefore, I'll argue for a consequentialist conception of morality, you can either accept it or reject it and offer an alternative."

   This is going to cross into all over functionality, but hell screw it.

   Its capitalism vs communism.

   Oh and taking the Marxist viewpoint, capitalism isn't 'evil'. We see it rather as a progressive step over feudalism and believe the next step is...socialism then communism.