Karl Marx > Adam Smith

I agree with Pro: “We are debating the men, not what or how the systems work in reality…” (!) This is great news, my opponent thereby agrees that every rebuttal against Smith is invalid based on the logic and reason state by Pro quoted above. Please voters, please adhere to Pro’s wishes. So concluding argument based on Pro’s desire the debate focus “not what or how the system work[ed] in reality.” Great, let’s talk about pure theory, devoid of concrete reality or concrete application of theory in the world. Smith’s purely theoretical model of capitalism is undoubtedly superior to Marx’s purely theoretical model of communism. Why? In Smith we read from his theory no talk of violence, no talk of revolution, and no talk of the overthrow of existing governments; in Marx the opposite is true. And again we are only talking about theory, just theory (based on Pro's claim at the end of last round that critcism based on actual communists regimes and actual communists crimes, best exemplified by Stalin's Soviet Union should not count because that is application of communism and not how the theory works). I agree, this saves me a lot of time anyway. 1. Marx communist vision, even at the level of pure theory talked about revolution and the overthrow of capitalism and governments supporting a capitalist economic system. So I exclude every real communist regime, I only want to highlight the necessity of violence innate to Marxian pure theory. Again, I agree with Pro, let’s not get caught up in reality. Smith capitalist model, at the level of theory says that capitalism as a theoretical exercise could lead to global peace by relationships established by trade, this would inevitably increase global economic production, which in turn could allow for an infinite and exponential rise in the standard of living, and the subsequent result would be world peace, infinite economic growth, creating a workers paradise—all without disrupting any government whether they be monarchies or democracies or something else and all without theoretical violence or the violent overthrow of established governments. Why voters should Vote Con, because Pro invalidates every point made against Smith throughout the debate Pro’s desire to assess theory not implementation means every point made against Smith is null and irrelevant since it failed to tackle the theory and concentrated on how capitalism works in reality. By Pro’s logic, any remark against Smith should not count given they never addressed the theoretical but the facts and implementation of theory into practice. Voters should accept Pro’s wish not to deal with reality but only theory Ancillary matters: Pro said he gets a point because I concede the Smith was not a sociologist (since sociology became an intellectual discipline more than a hundred years after Smith’s death). I will concede that but only in Pro concede to use his own logic and in the comments section concedes his complete lack of intelligence based on his lack of detailed and accurate forecast of the economy, politics, and intellectual movements—standards he held Smith too and logically would apply to himself. But only two options exist here: (1) Either Pro’s concedes the logic of his arguments are fallacious and invalid (2) Or Pro’s concedes that he lacks any intelligence based of his lack of detailed foreknowledge of the future events including trends in the economy in 100 years If one is true then this is a matter for voters However, if two is true Pro should obviously should concede in the comments section after the debate (absence of concession in comments section will be read as implicit concession of outcome one). Thanks for the debate. It was entertaining, to say the least. Please listen to Pro, voters should assess pure theory and not actual practice.