Capitalism in practice does more good than harm

The main theme was comparing things that do exist to things that don't exist. It's surprising how often that theme arises in different contexts. In this debate, Con apparently wanted to compare the merits airy-fairy Marxist theory, as preached by ideologues, to practical capitalism. When Con objected that I provided advantages by comparison to all existing alternatives, I challenged Con to explain how an "advantage" or "disadvantage" could be shown without a comparison. He did not respond. He continued to claim that a non-existent Marxist system offers advantages of universal prosperity, eternal peace, and total equality. Those are advantages with respect to what? Obviously, Con is using comparisons that he claims I am not supposed to use. Since Con's theoretical Marxism is "heaven on earth," he is is claiming it advantageous over any possible conceivable alternative. That's silly and pointless, but in particular it violates Con's terms of debate that everything must be supported by evidence. He said, "I also ask that any claims made by either side be backed up by evidence from a credible source. " Con did not reference a single real-world fact in the entire debate. He only offered ideological dogma that is contradicted by clear examples. For example, his quoted theory says that North Korea should be more prosperous than South Korea. I asked if it was. Con simply ignored all the facts and restated theory that predicts capitalism should be less prosperous. He didn't even claim that somehow North Korea didn't follow certain Marxist tenets; he insisted upon completely ignoring the real world altogether. Yet he insisted at he outset that only capitalism as practiced was admissible evidence. Con argues that the Marxist ideologues he quotes have advanced degrees and published papers. That doesn't mean they are not ideologues. The success of an ideologue lies in rationalizing a theory against facts. For example, I called attention to one of Con's "experts" having attributed the rise of Stalinism to a failure of capitalism to provide prosperity. I asked Con to explain how that was possible, since there never was a capitalist system in Russia and Stalin rose out of Communism. As in every case when the real world contradicts Marxist theory, Con ignored the challenge. People with Ph. D. 's publish papers despite their overarching bizarre theories. They do it by considering narrow subjects. A learned professor may believe that birds are strange visitors from another planet, but may nonetheless publish a fine paper on the nesting habits of the sage grouse. Con's Marxist theorists proclaim that capitalism always leads to poverty and oppression, that capitalism cannot coexist with any other system, and that capitalist countries are compelled to war. I gave examples disproving each of the claims (the Koreas and divided Germany, modern China, modern Europe). Con did not dispute the factual refutations of Marxist theory, he only reasserted that he was quoting authorities. If the facts prove an authority wrong, that alone is enough to prove they are not authorities. We know that Con's claimed authorities are ideologues because they make the ridiculous claims that only an ideologues make. Con offers no credible evidence, he only offers the unsupported opinions of others. I challenged Con repeatedly to justify his assertion that economic equality ought to be the goal of economics rather than having everyone prosperous. Why is it better to have everyone dirt poor and equal rather than spread from moderately wealth to very wealthy? Pro never gave a reason, he just proclaimed it as true. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Consequently there are many example of it co-existing with various types of authoritarian and nanny-state political systems. Capitalism still produces prosperity insofar as free markets are allowed. Con attempted to equate "not a democratic system" with "opposed to democracy," an obvious error. I claimed that capitalism was a meritocracy and offered supporting data. Consumers vote on the merits by selecting the products thehoose to buy. Con only reasserted Marxist theory in response. Con's definition of capitalism stated in was based on private capital. I quoted the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that ownership of private property was a human right. Therefore any system that does not allow private capital is contrary to human rights. Con did not dispute that owning private property was a basic human right, nor did he dispute it was inherent in the definition of capitalism. He only claimed that his debate rules ruled out comparing capitalism to non-capitalism. I pointed this out that advantages only come from comparison, but he still had no response. There are universal laws of economics. The two I cited were that money has time value and that market prices arise from supply meeting demand. These are so universally acknowledged they are in virtually every economic text, including the classic text by Samuelson I referenced. Capitalism explicitly acknowledges and takes advantage of the laws of economics. Alternatives to doing so are therefore unsuccessful. Con had no rebuttal beyond expressing perplexity at there being well-established laws of economics. The calculus of advantages and disadvantages is simple. Capitalism actually exists and actually works to provide prosperity and to honor the human right to own property. It raises people out of poverty. People who enjoy property rights come to value other rights. Prosperity also brings contact with the rest of the world, and that undermines the lies that authoritarian regimes use to stay in power. All of Con's disadvantages are in comparison to a hypothetical Marxist state that doesn't exist, cannot exist, and whose elements are thoroughly disproved in the real world. Con has not made his case. The resolution is affirmed.