On balance, Capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

"I have demonstrates many reasons why capitalism is a superior system over communism. I look forward to CON's rebuttal." No, you've talked a whole load of sh1t. And there was dirty tactics for you. So much for a text only debate, huh? And those appeals to emotion... Wow. ---------------------------------------- So basically, darkkermit is trying to make Communism out as for death, ghost cities and recessions, Iraquis and Afghanistanis and the like. And of course, it was always going to come to that, but he's been retardedly sneaky about it. He's pretty much done nothing more than put forward laughing idiots to deride and fear monger, offering nothing of worth, but all the while highly suggestive in their personality over text, and there you have solely appeal to emotion. Now this is just to say I'm not going to post videos, I'll make my own argument. And it would only be in accordance with his own rules for this debate that darkkermit himself would refrain from further use. And now with that bit said, I'll get to the idiocy of his arguments. The Rule of Law: In my opponent's second video, at the very end, we hear proposed a "rule of law" that is, taking in good faith its proponent, for the better of humanity. Argument is made for this with reference to Iraq and Afghanistan, nations supposedly outside of this rule of law, and, as such... fvcked. It was about as basic as that. There's your "Tragedy of the commons". In the first video we see some idiot standing outside some building laughing at his own idiocy. This was "The Social-Calculation Problem". My opponent makes arguments regarding empiricism and innovation, not understanding whatsoever what he's talking about. And all this adds up to Capitalism being better for mankind than Communism. What a joke. And now I'm going to give my view on what I think Communism and Capitalism really amount to. Our definitions: better for mankind - increasing the well-being capitalism - an economic system where the means of production are owned privately communism - an economic system where the means of production are commonly owned. Now. So it's private ownership versus common ownership. These two are in stark contrast and thus could be considered to comprise a dichotomy. There are no other modes of operation. It's either individualism or collectivism or some amalgamation of the two. Established. And now let's look at the world for some empirical evidence. Let's start with the slave trade. Would that not be primarily the fault of private enterprise? There's not so much collectivism there, or between the slave and their trader anyway. Which side of dichotomy takes real blame there? Obviously it is individualism over collectivism, private ownership over common ownership. And one can account for every atrocity in such a manner, and those are the definitions. Take murder. One man kills another. Private enterprise is it not? How couldn't it be? Let's drive it home and say he kills him and robs his wallet. There you go. There's your "rule of law". And let's look at China. And, now, I'm not such a buff for keeping up on current affairs - more a drug addict to be honest - but they are leading the world in exports still, aren't they? Zero crime. That's pretty fvcking impressive. Pointing at some deserted buildings and stating "China fvcked up" doesn't really cut it. I mean, the Devil makes work for idle hands, right? Who's killing who the most? And then China have to compete. Private enterprise takes a toll on a Communist society and it still fvcking owns. There you go. Separate states make for a capitalist world. And especially separate states so capitalist as what we're dealing with. And China still owns. BE AFRAID PUNY AMERICANS!! And then one could account for wars at the fault of private enterprise too, and all this is in accordance with the definitions for this debate. There's fear mongering. And now, I suppose I'll pay some closer attention to my opponent's arguments against Communist functionality... 1. The Social-Calculation Problem My opponent talks shite. He states that outside of capitalism there is no way to value goods and services. He seems to have completely forgotten about democracy, which is a system to do just that, and is common enterprise as opposed to private. We all want to be healthy, right? And there's health valued. You hungry? There we go, that's food valued. Come on... My opponent believes we simply cannot know how many shovels we need through trying to figure it out together. So much for that old saying "Two heads are better than one," right? Stupid. And then, well, Ireland is a relatively capitalist country, right? How come we've so many empty houses all over the place? I thought it was that private enterprise went wild and built unneeded houses all over the place, no? Yeah, it was. You guys don't have a whole load of empty houses over in America? Yeah, you do. So... Capitalism slipped up, right? I mean, this surplus was generated by the market, right? by individuals having made plays for interest that was to be made on market prices, right? And it generated a surplus. And then, look who's talking! Say, we all got together, tried to figure out how many of us there were, and how many houses we needed, is it inconceivable that we get it anywhere near right? Of course not, that's dumb. All we'd have to do is count and do it. There's capitalism as waste for you. And remember, China are competing with the rest of the world, largely as Communists, and are fvcking owning! Do you need a shovel?! Okay, that's 1 for a shovel! 2. Empirical Evidence of the failure of communism and the success of capitalism More shite. True Communism has never been implemented. Again, the fact is that separate states make for a capitalist world. Communism is suffocated. Obviously, it's a slower method of doing things than capitalism, or in starting off anyway. I mean everyone for their own, grab what you can and make use of it, makes for an obvious jumpstart for industry, wherever. But, that's not at all to say it adds up to greater growth for humanity as a whole. Given the state of things, it looks like it's going to fvcking blow us up. I mean give a man likeminded to these bastards going on random shooting sprees a couple of hundred nuclear bombs and where does that leave you? Give him something worse. The 21st of December 2012 doomsday missile Illuminati magic hidden bastards missile, say. Fvcked! There we go. And conspiracy!! And now nobody's taking me seriously... but seriously, this is what you're dealing with. That's capitalism. So Communist priority number one is keeping you alive. Food and medicine. The rest of the world, all those other states are doing their own thing, fvck you. You're fvcked. You're not going to have any exports for a while, you're concentrating on the health and well-being of everyone, and the rest of the world gets the jump on you there, leaving their fellow man to die, rooting at anywhere there's power, or want, individually. And there's your weakness of Communism in a capitalist world, against separate and highly capitalist states. True Communism, as per our definitions, is pure and utter collectivization. My opponent has provided no empirical evidence of its having failed. But of course we get these examples of failings and dictatorships touting Communism nonetheless, as what is only fear mongering, and quite intellectually bankrupt. AMERICA FVCK YEAH!! Please... Did you see the Chinese at the Olympics? Holy sh1t. The Irish wrecked in boxing. 3. The Tragedy of the commons What a stuid argument. I mean, really? And put forward with overfishing as an example. Wow. Overfishing is as a result of individual enterprise over collective. It has been born of inadherence to what's best for the collective, for what's best for what one could consider "mankind". I mean that term can only relate to the collective... There's capitalism. And I mean, wow what a stupid argument, right? How about "The Tragedy of a capitalist fvcking world" to describe where those left with nothing after everything has been grabbed up are left to starve, or to turn against their fellow man to survive. There's fvcking tragedy for you... The sheep died. Please. There was no way to stop overgrazing without allowing for absolute individual ownership of material? Sure there was. Split up the fields and maintenance without splitting up property rights. What a load of bullsh1t. And then one can easily imagine how completely sharing property might make for its better cultivation, as regards...ammm, fish, say, and selective breeding and other things like that. The sharing of information. One might consider that in end competition but robs us of opportunity. The Tragedy of the commons... 4. Innovation incentive and productive efficiency Democracy can innovate. No need for the dog eat dog system of operation, the keeping of information from each other. My opponent talks nonsense. And I make no arguments for Bureaucrats, but collectivization. And back to you, darkkermit.