The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite.

"LET IT BE NOTED TO THOSE WHO ARE JUDGING BY WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS AND NOT WHAT THE PRO SAYS THE RESOLUTION MEANS THAT THE PRO HAS DROPPED MY ATTACKS BASED ON AN APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIED INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION. IF YOU ARE JUDGING BASED OFF OF THAT, THE CON SHOULD WIN RIGHT HERE" My debate topic was, "The Communist Manifesto *serves* to divide, not to unite." First of all, I didn't say it doesn't unite at all, and second, that was my topic. There is a difference between a debate topic and a resolution. As I have already said, I specified what I wanted this debate to be about in my opening statement, "So what I'm aiming to prove in this debate is that "The Communist Manifesto" (1848) is more divisive than it is helpful in the goal of achieving a peaceful society. That's to say, it does more harm than good. Con should want to show how I'm wrong." Therefore, I haven't dropped my argument at all, so can we get back to the debate? "It supports war. Yeah. But the war it supports is one of unifying the many against the few. NO MATTER WHAT, there will always be more unity than division. This is an idea you have largely ignored." – That is a very simplistic view and you have no way of proving that "no matter what" there will be more unification than division involved. That's pure "speculation". And you say, "*The* war it supports…" that gives the impression it supports only one war when it supports "every" war as I have clearly shown. Do I need to bring up World War I in an attempt to sort of draw you a picture of how that divides more than unites? I haven't ignored anything, lol it really is you coming at this from a very largely ignorant point of view. "I believe that there are primarily the opressed and the opressors. You see, the problem is, the opressed tend to be divided into more groups, based on ethnicity, politics, religion, etc. "The Communist Manifesto" tries to unite these groups against the supposedly oppressive upper class. And furthermore, it doesn't matter if the purpose is war. A war can still unite." And "No, you're missing the point. Those are the institutions [law, morality, religion] which draw those lines of division. By destroying these lines and these institutions, "The Communist Manifesto" attempts to unite groups against the ultimate institution that put thsoe institutions in place." (You haven't actually read the Manifesto have you? Because all you've done this whole debate is repeat a very broad and foggy idea of what it actually is.) Anyway, I'm glad to read of your opinion that I'm missing the point; my opinion is that you're missing the point. Good to know we've gotten that outta the way, shall we continue? The Manifesto demonizes every "institution" I have mentioned thus far such as: Freedom, justice, law, morality, religion, and so on (which I've actually provided proof of, what a concept – but again, you haven't really read it, have you?) Now, it's a nice idea that once all of these are out of the way -- or abolished -- we're finally left with only two classes against one another in the ultimate war leading to communism, but that's an unrealistic view of the world to say the least. Yet, only if the abolition of all those "nasty" things actually accomplished that goal would there be more unification than division. It's dangerous manipulation of a downtrodden people that's really going on here, this is my whole point. Section one (part 2) of the Manifesto is primarily used to get the proletariat to believe Marx deeply sympathizes with their hardships(1), which naturally gains him their trust. He really understands them, it's like he's one of them, they're convinced he really cares. After he's done pandering and the working class is left burning for more, he delivers exactly what they want to hear next… a promise of salvation.(2) (1) "…Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself." (2) "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. " (That's a great catch phrase, I like it. I really hear the crowd cheering loudly after that.) So, he tells them who (the bourgeoisie) and what (all the above mentioned institutions) is to blame for their plight and promises a better communist world if only they do what he says (support every war that claims to be revolutionary there is and in the absence of morality, too.) Lol, wow. Isn't it ironic that politics is one of the things he's so against? What has always been the outcome of this kind of manipulation? Hmm… things like the Holocaust perhaps? (But those SS Germans were in fact united against those repulsive Jews so nevermind, I guess.) No, this crap will divide more than it will unite. It's simple war-mongering. "You just offered a quote where he talked about religion... How is that not important. Furthermore, even if I accept your claim, you haven't proven how his view of history is wrong, exclusive though it may be. You have not proven how his view of conomic classes is inaccurate" I don't understand what you're getting at with that first sentence. Marx believes religion is unimportant to humanity and history so therein, perfectly abolishable. And I have already said that my problem with Marx's theory of history is the conclusions he draws from it. He leaves all the above mentioned institutions out of everything he's reporting (which you've agreed) and his whole point in going through history is to explain why the proletarian war against the bourgeoisie is unique, inevitable, and why it will finally lead to communism(1). This is my problem with his theory of history. I don't need to prove that his view of economic classes is inaccurate because I never claimed that they were. (1)http://www.wsu.edu... "Wait... How does Marx's view of history take awway your free choice? What?" If he uses his theory of history to spell out how he thinks a war between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie is inevitable (which you have not contested) and people swallow his version of what history predicts; how is that not molding the people into believing what he wants? If you would agree that it is, then it's ultimately Marx making the decisions and choices, not the proletariat involved. "Anyway, economic relations tend to be the most important factor. It defines every other factor, and every other factor is related in. Religion keeps the oppressed masses rom revolting. The same with law, morality, etc. Whether you like it or not, everything comes back to money." That's a nice opinion, would you like to try and back it up or drop it? Also, what does that have to do with the problem I'm taking up with Marx's history lessons? "Alright. Then we'll talk about what it actually does. You have, at no point, given any evidence where it serves to divide." Communism really took hold (communism born of Marx's philosophy) after World War II… now, were people more united or were they more divided? So, what did it actually *serve* to accomplish so far? More division than unification. How is history not my aid in black and white to that end? "You have given speculation after speculation." You, sir – have given no proof of anything you've said and this whole debate from your end is nothing more than your opinion on a doctrine that you most likely haven't even read (With the delicious chaser of more of your backless opinions). You're exploiting the complexities of said doctrine and have narrowed this whole thing into a waste of time. Votes for you would simply be people taking your word for it and nothing more. Furthremore!... Lol, I don't like you very much.