Play Devil's Advocate! (4)

Kc1999 makes very, very interesting arguments. I half-expected my opponent to immediately start attacking my arguments and crumbling them down to the ground like he did in the smoke-ban debate. However, he seems to have focused more on building his arguments rather than crushing mine, so I'll try to rebut his arguments the best I can. 1. Heavy capital/communism makes the industry more efficient?My opponent seems to be confused and made a mistake. From 26 million tons to 1005 tons signifies a gigantic decrease, not increase. Anyhow, as we know, America is definitely not a communist country. Not that I know of. It is far more effective than Russia... Source: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org...Furthermore, at maximum Russia can't reach even 300 million short tons... source: http://www.wrsc.org...While on the other hand the US can produce up to... Website: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org...That's right...way way up high to almost 1,200 million short tons!!! This only proves further that the US, a non-communist country, works far, far better than a communist country. Your truism/first prostulate is invalid.2. Heavy capital can be cheaper to make with more supplyThis point fails because if this point is true, then the US is far cheaper due to its absolute MASSIVE supply compared to Russia's tiny supply. Thus without communism stuff is even cheaper than kc1999 claims. 3. Modern MachineryI'm not sure how this helps his argument. I'll check out the rest of his arguments and see if they work.1. Manual LaborMachines are much, much more expensive than hiring people. It is very very difficult to produce a lot of machines to keep up the work, and especially the maintainance fee, keeping the machines working and well is especially difficult to do. The communist government would have to hire people to maintain the machines anyways, which is quite counter-productive, because my opponent's argument works on how "people don't have to work", especially since the communism government isn't very efficient as pointed out in my previous round. 2. Whatever that word meansMy opponent makes a very elaborate story plot and talks about the abolishment of money. I'm not sure how this helps to his argument. Anyhow, he then talks about how we're leading to a period of communism....so what? It won't work, as I already said. We're not discussing whether or not capitalism works, only whether or not communism works.3. Random stuff about Marx"Humans are in freedom, accordingly to Hobbes, when human have the complete liberty to do anything. "Exactly. And what I said about pursuit of happiness? Can't do that in communism countries. Your manual labor argument goes against your freedom argument, because now people can't work due to machines doing everything for them. Irrefuted arguments-Right to pursuit of happiness (strengthened by my opponent's own manual labor argument)-Communism's unfairness-Communism does not work because it reduces manpower and withdraws military and police-Communism is ineffective-People have right to creativity-The US, a non-communist country, works better and produces more supplies than Russia, a communist country (Thus the coal can be produced more cheaply due to the supply-and-demand theory as my opponent already talked about)I suggest my opponent spend more time with his actual arguments rather than trying to construct truisms.Back to you, Krit.