@13soaringeagle are we ready to go?
@switchlurk I am ready
Daymn, that's an opening statement...
@matt_callert25 professionally trained - you can tell
@matt_callert25 What did he say?
@japes16 Not so much, just been doing this for a long time :)
Can we shed some light on Socialism while we're at it? I hope this doesn't turn into a Communism vs. Capitalism
Let us differentiate between 'practical' and 'immoral'. It might be immoral, but it's definitely one of the most viable economic models.
I agree with @13soaringeagle on the value creation potential of Capitalism although he could have used much better examples to depict that (on fund raising specifically)
Gents, I removed the time limit on this debate - so i suggest that we end it at 40 minutes or so. Sounds good with you?
Great question @switchlurk
Don't agree with switch but he definitely won this one.@adamjadel should have pushed harder on the difference between value and profit.
@benmouse42 thanks for the feedback! This was my first debate ever and I was a little under prepared. I was expecting the 3 minute turn but the technical difficulties turned this into a self moderated which I was less prepared for. But still fun!
@benmouse42 I agree!
@benmouse42 spot on
You're both wrong because neither of you actually have a good definiton of capitalism.For @switchlurk1) When you say that a system promotes immoral activity, that could be any system. Immorality and capitalism can exist as two separate entities, and that's why it's dangerous to assume they exist as the same because there is no reason one exists without the other being present. There is always a danger that both will exist simultaneously, and then you get a correlative effect. But to further expand on a definition of capitalism...2) The definition of capitalism that most libertarians and forward thinking conservatives use has a central principle called "privatization." Immoral actions are strictly actions that do NOT consider personal freedoms and infringe on other personal freedoms. It is literally impossible to have a system that values "private property" and "private exchange" while also infringing on personal freedoms of others. Capitalism by definition, aka the private exchange of property, cannot be immoral. Because any immoral exchange was not done through privacy, it was done through some means that breaks privacy and therefore is no longer capitalist.Go through your 4 main points and ask yourself "Does this insinuate someone is infringing on another's rights? Does this infringe on private property?" If so then it can't be capitalism. @Adamjadel You argued from a point of "This is worth it", which is fine but it doesn't necessarily rebuke Switch's arguments which were basically moral issues.But I do think that there is a very strict, historical precedent for capitalism being incredibly sensitive about morality. And I think capitalism is inherently moral and cannot be immoral. Immoral trade and actions should not be considered capitalism at all, just by definition.