Communism is the greatest economic ideal

Extend Overview 1 (OV1). It basically says that since communism is against human nature and since it requires every member of its population to be intelligent, benevolent, and diligent, the system will never work out. Extend Overview 2 (OV2). This says that since my opponent is not comparing Communism to anything and is only saying "communism good" in his case, he does not reach the burdens placed upon him by the resolution. Line by line. 1a. My argument is *against* Stalin. 1b. The definitions do not destroy the turn on the Stalin argument. My point there was that if we make Communism the greatest economic ideal then we would have a dictatorship that would probably do what Stalin did. It is against human nature to be communist, as people want rewards for doing more work, and require motivation to do things. Refer to OV1. 2a. Greatest is comparative indeed, but as long as I'm on CON and he's on PRO, he has the burden of proof to show that the resolution is true. I have no burdens at all in this debate other than to prove him false. Providing an alternative better than communism is a way I can attack his position, but I chose not to do that. Instead, I'm just attacking his case so he can't prove the resolution at all. 2b. "Hinting" isn't good enough; he needs to say his points clearly in debate. 2c. I do not have to defend laissez-faire. 3. He brings up this argument about how my VC (I'll just call it that, because it's the weighing mechanism) won't work because it's contradictory and it needs an opinion. 3a. Irrelevant; is true of every debate and clash between ideas. 3b. He doesn't give any warrants as to why it's contradictory. 3c. Insofar as I'm providing a way to weigh the arguments in the debate and he is not, we look to my VC, which says that when determining which idea is better than the other, we need to look at real world implications and not just what the idea promises. Since he makes no other responses, this VC is what will determine the winner of the round. 4. "My opponent states I don't state Stalin's regime. In reality, the industrial and economic growth was the capstone of Stalin's regime. " 4a. Capstone is irrelevant; it's the side effects and costs, what it took to create the capstone that matters. If we only looked at the capstone of things then we'd basically look to how much profit slaveowners made without looking at the treatment of their slaves; we'd look to how much iron and coal is mined without regard to the children in the shafts; we'd basically just be using some people for the benefit of others. If we're only at the capstone, that means everything from child labor to slavery and forced prostitution are justified. And those aren't things we should idealize. [Communism is a solution] - I didn't twist his words. I was talking about the resolution. I say that it doesn't matter if his argument talks about the working class or not; the resolution doesn't specify an actor. And as soon as rich people get involved in this revolution, it's no longer communist because it doesn't fit the definition. [Poverty cannot exist] a. He provides evidence with no analysis or impact. We do not know what he is saying. b. Talked about this last round: "If that's happening in communism and it's not happening with capitalism, There's no way communism can be the best economic system, let alone the greatest economic ideal. " c. Extend my previous arguments; this "Poverty cannot exist" argument no longer gets any of its impacts because it has not been shown by roycegee to be true. "The classless society brings upon collectivization, or grouped up farms consisting of the ENTIRE population. Classes do exist in American society (I'm assuming United States? )" a. So why does this make Communism the greatest economic ideal? b. Why does 100% employment rate mean it's a good thing? I can create a 100% employment rate by just making all the men slave farmers and miners and force all the women to be prostitutes, THAT'S 100% employment rate. c. Classless society does not mean collectivization, so there is no link between a 100% employment rate and communism. [Economic Growth] "Bringing that up is irrelevant to the topic of economic growth. " a. Cross apply 4a. b. Russia grew in industry, but it also sent a lot of its people to death and slave labor camps. "Your definition of an economic ideal is an economy we should work towards. This debate is not arguing about the possibility of a communist society's ability to function, as human nature opposes that. It's too much work. However, we can STILL work towards communism, the IDEAL society. " a. On the contrary, as I've already said in the VC, we are weighing this debate on the merits of how the economic system works in the real world. Every type of economic system has its own bright intentions and a future it looks forward to, but only when we look at their implications of the real world do we know what system is better or the best. A communist society's ability to function is factored into real world effects. b. roycegee has just conceded to OV1 by saying that its premises are true. At this point you can already vote CON because he can't win the debate if my OV1 stands. "My opponent is completely oblivious to the fact that Russia had just left World War 1 because it was in the midst of a revolution. The civil unrest and poverty was caused by the reigning royalty: the Czar. Lenin did his best to clean up the mess the Czars had created. " a. I'm not oblivious. b. All of that stuff is irrelevant. c. Extend the original wiki quote that was a warrant for my third response to [Economic Growth] [Lenin] You can stop reading it at the first line. The New Economic Policy was not communism. [Holodomor] a. Link this back to 4a. b. It isn't complicated. Historians say that it was an example of a genocide. [OV2] "My opponent is trying to void my argument by stating that comparison is necessary. " - It is. And I warranted that claim. "However, he has not proven his case because he hasn't compared it to any ideology either. " - I don't need to. Explained this earlier as well. "If your going to tell someone what to do, do it yourself. " "Going back to my example, Michael Jordan had flaws too. He has missed a shot. He has fouled out. However, without comparison, how is it possible to prove that Michael Jordan isn't the greatest? " - Straight turn: This is exactly why he needs to compare things. Summary: roycegee has first of all, not broken through OV2 which says that he needs to compare to other economic systems, so he's already lost the round. Second he falls to OV1, which says that Communism is against human nature and since we can't make everyone nice and smart people it won't work. Then, none of his arguments really link to anything; he attempts to use them to say communism is good, but I link it all back to bad impacts in two ways: 1) It basically justifies child labor and other abhorring things, and 2) It allows people like Stalin to come to power and murder millions of citizens, all in the name of "the people".