Communism is the greatest economic ideal

1. Overview 1 has been void. The reasoning? Yes, I agree with some points made in the overview. A communist society needs people with intelligence and loyalty. However, not every person needs to be. Just as in a capitalistic society, there is no need for EVERYONE to have the ideals of a communist member. In fact, there were many loyal communists in the Soviet Union. They were the backbone of society. So, what does this mean? If an entire nation could have these traits, wouldn't communism work? Again, please do not try to contradict this by practicality and probability, as this is not what we are debating about. 2. And yes, in #1 i compared it to capitalism. If my opponent insists, I shall compare it to capitalism. Happy? Your 2nd overview is now void. 4. Stalin was a dictator. However, you can not use Stalin as the role model for communism. Every leader has pro's and con's. In fact, many capitalistic societies have failed because of poor economic policy placed upon by the leader. On the contrary, Lenin was a great leader who improved the lives of the Russian Population. Sick of the greediness of the Czar, Lenin and the Bolsheviks effectively improved the economy that Nicholas left behind. So what? This means that the communism established is GREATER (comparison yay!) than the terrible government established by Czar. I apologize, I am a newbie. I will establish my value criterion right now. The problems of capitalism are just as great as those of communism, if not greater. However, in this debate, communism clearly wins. AGAIN, we are not arguing about which one will work. We are arguing about which one is more ideal. Can everyone agree on that? A more appropriate resolution is needed for one that is applied in the real world. Capitalism or Communism, which is better? Although Capitalism has a competitive market, this can only lead to a winner and a loser. If a person won, someone has to lose. In Communism, everyone ties. In Capitalism, innovation is great and likely. The same can be said about Communism. The problem about Communism is that it takes time to establish and a corrupt leader will only lead to chaos. However, if an ideal leader and an ideal population exists, it can be established that a communist society would win. This is because in the same circumstances, a capitalistic society would STILL have a loser. That is the flaw of capitalism. No matter how perfect, there will be a two-tier labor market. What this means is there are essentially two classes, with a small gray area in between. The losers are always the ones who make less money. The winners hog the market and provide no benefit to the poor. This is my value criterion for this debate. Judge, I understand that this is late and YES it should be considered in your decision. 5. My opponent says that the VC stands. According to his logic, his VC is completely mundane as EVERY debate has this as part of a value criterion. This is contradictory because the evidence I provided is a mix of facts and opinions. The SAME can be said about my opponents argument. 6. My opponent is arguing about the side-effects of the regime created by Stalin. I agree, forced prostitution is bad. I couldn't agree more! However, this is irrelevatn! ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THE ETHICS OF FORCED LABOR AND THE ETHICS BEHIND STALIN? The answer is no. This argument is void and I extend the argument because of topicality. 7. Communism isnt a solution. The actor is the working class. Essentially, no rich people would be involved. Controversy existed in Cuba because the rich did not like the idea of having the land stripped. What did they do? They fled. The ones who did support, the actors, remained. - Wikipedia, History of Cuba. His argument is void and I extend the argument further. Your definition of Communism is one created by Marx. If this is true, then the "rich" wouldn't exist. It would be abolished. That is the principle of communism. 8. Poverty can't exist My opponent says "Just because communism aims for elimination of poverty does not mean it will achieve that goal." This is void because of my interpretation of the resolution, which he agrees with (see above). Again, we are dealing with ideal circumstances with both societies. Because of my agreement, I will extend this argument. In capitalism, poverty will still exist. A winner and a loser must exist. My opponent supports this argument because he stated that the reason a person is motivated in capitalism is because of rewards. Rewards mean capital. This lack of balance creates a winner and a loser. In the same ideal circumstances, communism will NOT have a loser. Because no loser exists, Poverty can't exist. So what? This means that everyone contributes to the economy, instead of leeching off of unemployment and welfare (Capitalism). His rebuttal has been voided in all three subsections and I extend my argument by reason of interpretation and circumstance. 9. The classless society brings upon collectivization, or grouped up farms consisting of the ENTIRE population. This is relevant because there is no unemployment. Again, topicality destroys your argument. Economy functions. Period. Your second argument is pinpointed toward Stalin. Read my 4th argument. 10. My opponent's VC says that real world implications should be used. This brings up the question. Is the world ideal? Even in capitalism, we have death of starvation, genocide, and poverty. The interpretation of the resolution should be taken as a society we should work towards. So what? This means that his own interpretation of the resolution contradicts his value criterion. Again, I am basing this off your interpretation explained in your Round 1. I extend this argument. 11. "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." Okay, I agree with your point. My quote is nullified in terms of communism. Let's look at it again. He says that his wikipedia quote still stands. Let's look at the time period. At this point in time, WWI is out of the Russian mind. This is the time the New Economic Policy is introduced. Read what the quote says, and that is STILL the effect of Capitalism. Don't flip flop around this argument, it won't work. Clearly flawed argument. I extend my argument about the negative's of capitalism. 12. Holodomor - "Stalin's communism caused a lot of poverty. For example, he engineered Holodomor, which was a mass starvation of Ukranians from 1932-33. And then there was the starvation in the slave labor camps, which killed uncountable numbers of people." Ukraine wanted independence from communism. The matter is very complicated and does not deal with communism in its entirety. Find where I argued it wasn't genocide. Don't put words in my mouth. Mind giving me a quote? Who said the conflict wasn't complicated. Historian X doesn't count. 13. Straight turn: This is exactly why he needs to compare things. I did, your turn. Keep in mind, ideal society. Your VC is flawed as it doesn't apply to the resolution. My opponent hasn't attacked my interpretation of the resolution, as his VC is nullified. All of my previous arguments have been justified and in some cases have been extended. My opponent is addressing the resolution of real life circumstances, irrelevant to the topic. He brings up points about prostitution and ethics. This is completely irrelevant. In this argument I have linked it to communism and compared it to capitalism, one of the arguments he made about my debate. Those have now been nullified. My arguments all stand. Because of these reasons, you can already vote for me! That said, I had a great time debating with you Matthew.