Challenge : on capitalism

[Francois Tremblay]

I would like to challenge a statist (right or left wing) on the topic :
"Capitalism is the economic system most favourable to man's life."

The topic of capitalism is an important one for atheism, given that despite the fact that capitalism is the only political system which systematically defends the separation of church and state and man's individual right to his own conscience, most atheists preach left-wing statism.

I think it is important to make clear that all the empirical and deductive evidence proves that capitalism is the best political system. I will not argue for corporatism or right-wing, however, since that is not my position.

I would rather debate someone with education or debate experience on the topic of politics or economics. Relativists, Marxists and trolls will be blithely ignored. My proposed terms for now are 5000 words and 4 turns, 1 week per turn maximum.

[Samuel Waite]

I'll gladly debate. I consider myself a socialist and influenced by Marx, though not a Marxist.

On edit: I'd also like to know what is meant by capitalism and statism in this context.

[Gunnaheave]

I'm curious as to what you mean by "statist", and more importantly, how do you intend to define capitalism. I am btw something of a cultural relativist, so if you choose to blithely ignore me, I guess I can live with that. The questions remain.

[Samuel Waite]

Not a vulgar Marxist, that is.

[Francois Tremblay]

I basically use them as opposites, but if you want specific definitions :

Capitalism : The social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which most or all property is privately owned de jure and de facto.
Statism : The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

[Gunnaheave]

Thank you Franc,

I think your definition is rather skewed. What you actually seem to want to debate is whether or not the ideals of free market capitalism are the best system for man. Whether or not those ideals have anything to do with any actual capitalist society is another question in itself.

Also, they are not opposites, but rather contraries, i.e. they cannot both be best, but it is entirely possible that neither is best.

Have you thought about what criterion you are going to use to measure these societies? Or is that up for grabs in the debate itself?

[Francois Tremblay]

With all due respect, how exactly do you propose to understand actual societies without having some kind of explanatory model or criteria to analyze and compare them ?

[Samuel Waite]

Okay. I will argue that capitalism is deeply flawed, and that some form of socialism (anything from extensive state intervention to an actual widescale modern, socioeconomically egalitarian society) is preferable. Either Standard, Double Affirmant, Interrogative, or Three Way (preferably with either a right-wing "statist" or a middle-of-the-roader), starting whenever is most convenient for you.

As far as references go, I'd like to see participants cite sources where appropriate, but not have to worry about footnotes or anything.

[Gunnaheave]

With all due respect, how exactly do you propose to understand actual societies without having some kind of explanatory model or criteria to analyze and compare them ?

That sport of Weberian ideal model has its strengths and its weakness, but it is by no means the only approach to social analysis. More importantly, free market ideals are not an explanatory model by any stretch of the imagination. They has about as much relationship to actual capitalist societies as the communist utopia has woth actual socialist socities, just enough to provide a useful spin to selected parties within them. Neither ideal tells us anything about the actual workings of the societies which produced them.

If you consider those ideals relevant, then that's certainly a fair argument to make. I don't think defining capitalism, an actual economic system, in terms of such an ideal is really appropriate though. It enables you to assume much of what you would really need to prove, name that that ideal is viable, that is does in fact bear some relationship to the actual practices of capitalism, or at least that it is viable to organize a capitalist system in accordance with those ideals, etc. If that is your definition of capitalism, then you are effectively assuming all those things at the outset. That's stacking the deck a bit if you ask me.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi folks,

It seems that we have 2 challengers here: Samuel Waite and Gunnaheave. Franc28 can only debate one of you at a time. Would one of you be willing to step down? If not, then it's up to Franc28 who he will pick to debate with.

Jason

[Gunnaheave]

I'll step down.

[ZouPrime]

The topic of capitalism is an important one for atheism, given that despite the fact that capitalism is the only political system which systematically defends the separation of church and state and man's individual right to his own conscience, most atheists preach left-wing statism.

Capitalism is not a political system.

[Seb]

I agree with ZouPrime.

Originally posted by Franc 28
Capitalism : The social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which most or all property is privately owned de jure and de facto.
Statism : The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

According to your definition I don't see why these two are mutually exclusive. A mixture of both is credible and actual.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Franc28, Zouprime, & Seb,

I've moved your discussion over to a thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=90834) in the PD forum. Remember that FDP is meant for setting up debates, not for the actual debating.

Thanks :)

Jason

[ZouPrime]

Franc28, Zouprime, & Seb,

I've moved your discussion over to a thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=90834) in the PD forum. Remember that FDP is meant for setting up debates, not for the actual debating.

I was about to ask for a thread split ;-)
Sorry for the inconvenience. Let's say that, in my humble opinion, the debate question is not precise enough to be useful. Of course, if Franc28 and Samuel Waite are fine with it, I wish them good luck.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Okay, here's what we got so far. Feel free to suggest amendments, ideas, or corrections.

1) The topic of the debate:

Resolved: "Capitalism is the economic system most favourable to man's life."

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

Franc28 will argue for capitalism and Samuel Waite will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate:

Any suggestions? Will this be a debate on political science, philosophy, ethics, sociology, law, history, economics, or all of the above?

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

????

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

????

6) The maximum length of each statement:

????

7) The maximum duration between statements:

????

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:

Sources cited where appropriate, but debaters need not worry about making footnotes.

9) The starting date of the debate:

????

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

????

[Francois Tremblay]

I don't know how the question is vague. It's pretty clear to me.

Anyway, here are my suggestions :


1) The topic of the debate:

Resolved: "Capitalism is the economic system most favourable to man's life."

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

Franc28 will argue for capitalism and Samuel Waite will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate:

Economy and philosophy.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

4 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

In turns, with me going first as the positive. (given that I am the challenger and the one putting forward the initial case anyway)

6) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements:

I suggest 1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:

Sources cited where appropriate, but debaters need not worry about making footnotes.

9) The starting date of the debate:

As soon as Samuel is ready. My opening case is prepared.

[Samuel Waite]

What will be the format? And is the maximum duration between statements between one statements and the other person's response, or between rounds?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

What will be the format? And is the maximum duration between statements between one statements and the other person's response, or between rounds?

Unless stated otherwise, I'll assume the formal debate will be the standard format. The maximum duration between statements refers to the maximum time permitted between responses. For example, if the maximum duration is a week and if Franc28 posted a statement on July 10, then you would be expected to respond any time between then and July 17. And let's say you replied on July 12 -- Franc28 would have to reply by July 19.

Do you agree with all of Franc28's suggested parameters? Would you like to propose some amendments?

Jason

[Samuel Waite]

I agree with these parameters.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'll set up the debate thread now. This thread will now be closed.

Here's a summary of the parameters again:

1) The topic of the debate:

Resolved: "Capitalism is the economic system most favourable to human life."

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

Franc28 will argue for capitalism and Samuel Waite will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate:

Economics and philosophy.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

4 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

In turns and Franc28 goes first.

6) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements:

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:

Sources cited where appropriate, but debaters need not worry about making footnotes.

9) The starting date of the debate:

Immediately

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

Standard format.