Which side makes a better case?
avatar
11 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @change_my_mind @chriscowherd

    The winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @navapanichz

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @navapanichz I am not sure you heard the debate I heard. IMO - Some of your points - were the opposite of what the points made by the debaters.

        First - a couple of points of what I believe (and believe are easily provable) both communism and fascism are horrible systems....choosing between the 2 is like choosing a form of execution. However - as I pointed out above - communism has a far worse human rights record. PRO properly points out an example (and I mention others) - of where a 'fascist' state evolves into a near first world state with democratic rights for the people...Chile. Show me where that has occurred for communism except for where the government was overthrown. AND - PRO mentions that China has 'evolved' from 'pure communism' to a more state run capitalism....which is what a loose definition of fascism is. WHY? Because communism wasn't working...and fascism in China IS working far better. (That, in it self, is proof that communism is worse than fascism). BUT - unfortunately - plenty of millennials are 'horrified' of the evils of fascism - but haven't been introduced to the greater evils of communism. Like I said above - plenty of colleges have living breathing communist supporters as professors - yet no one would tolerate a professor who glorified fascism. I think the judge lacks the 'historical perspective' to pick up the points that PRO made...but were 'passed off'.

        ALSO - the idea of 'voluntary communism' sounds great - except no example was given where it works! It DOESN'T....unless it is very limited (like a small group of people living together in a commune). Communism ultimately requires brute force - and the evils of Lenin, Stalin and Mao make Hitler look like a piker! Why 'voluntary communism' was mentioned (without support) by CON....and 'endorsed by the Judge- is hard to understand.....but I attribute it to youth, inexperience and perhaps an 'idealistic' approach that maybe 'voluntary communism' is a good thing - when it never really has worked. Take away 'voluntary communism', recognize that China has gone from communism to a form of fascism - and PRO made the proper points.

      • 2 years ago

        @navapanichz Thank you for your decision

    • 2 years ago

      @chriscowherd Congrats for advancing to the next round!

      @change_my_mind Thanks a lot for participating!

      • 2 years ago

        Excellent debate, first one I watch in full, live, this tourney

        Also very difficult difficult to judge.. you’re both extremely eloquent (Stephen, great enunciation)

        I think Chris did a great job at equating fascism to communism on various levels , while still bringing out authoratrian (and voluntary) communism on top

        On the other hand, I felt that every that every point brought up by Stephen on the advantages of fascism over communism was shot down sufficiently by Chris, such as the short term economic boom of fascism or the transfer of regime/power (which actually seems to have worked out better for communist countries, according to the case made by Chris).

        Where I found myself struggling to choose was when Stephen spoke, rightly so, about the longevity of communist regimes under famine/suffering being a bad thing, whereas Chris also rightly so spoke about short-lived regimes being a sign of their inevitable failure (Stephen was also right in pointing out that war played a huge and primary factor in ending those regimes.. but unfortunately there were no more examples other than Chile, which was an insufficient example to fully make the case compared to Chris’s)

        Voting con on this one, not an easy choice tho.. I actually think Stephen made great, eloquent arguments but the overall case was more convincing by the con side

        Thanks guys

        • 2 years ago

          I would have probably voted draw if this was outside the tournament , but if I had to choose a winner I would choose Con

        • 2 years ago

          @yaz Read my comments. Yes - PRO missed a second case- besides Chile ....Spain.

          AND - South Korea had a militaristic dictatorship that evolved to a real democracy....

          AND - PRO pointed out - China has gone from 'pure' Communism as designed by Mao....to a more 'fascistic' type control - because it works better....

          SO - Chile, Spain, maybe So. Korea....and look at the partial evolution of China. That is 4 - and PRO got 2 of them (Chile and China.)

      • 2 years ago

        If you're comparing the 2 systems, which indeed are very much alike and both liberal/leftist systems, they must be applied at the state level, that is national, where the state controls and owns all. Some falze claims by Con- There is no such thing as "voluntary communism" on national level, Marx didnt believe in voluntary communism but that the system would go in that direction inevitably meaning nkt voluntary and Mussolini didn't invent Fascism he just was the first to implement.
        Con is correct about the artificial bubbles brought by Centrally Planned systems of F & C. However Chile brought in free market systems through a so called fascist dictator that brought long term growth and economic prosperity that the previous communist dictator did the opposite of as did all it's surrounding communist nations like Venezuela & Brazil.
        Mao never gave up his full commu ist tyranny. He died and his predecessor, who i believe was exiled by Mao twice, took over and brought in market ideas but are not a market system by any means.

        • 2 years ago

          Intriguing start by PRO to suggest that 'hypothetically' - we decide whether we want to set up and run a tyrannical government as a Communist government or a Fascist government.

          [Me - I think it would be sufficient to look at which one has more horrible a record....but that is just me. Look for the book: "The Black Book of Communism" - or get the Cliff Notes from Wikipedia - where there is a comparison between Communism and Nazism (considered to be the worst form of Fascism)....]

          Leftists typically believe the opposite - communism good- nazism is evil - because even though historical records show that attempts at communism have resulted in the deaths of more than 100 million people (at the hands of their own government) - many colleges have professors teaching Marxism and communism (and in a positive way, not critical way), but no credible college has any professors dedicated to teaching Fascism in any 'positive manner'. Plenty of leftists admire communism. We even had people wishing that Obama had the same power as leaders in communist China.

          PRO looks at Nazi Germany vs. USSR...looking at Hitler coming to power up to the start of WWII when Germany went from a condition of hyperinflation to an economic powerhouse. [not sure I would want to go there....]

          CON does attempt to tie Fascism to Communism (which, IMHO - is valid and correct...one is a 'slight variation' of the other.)
          [CON's comments about Chile's Pinochet are wrong, IMHO....he did not attempt to militarize as a start to 'conquest' - like Hitler did, and he did attempt to fix the economy that was being destroyed by Marxist supporters - and he was largely successful - and he created a path back to democracy - which he was eventually hugely successful - and PRO did 'correct the record' on Chile's success.]

          NOTE - Spain, for many years - was ruled by General (and dictator) Franco - and the control was considered 'Fascistic' (and - Franco was helped put in control after the Spanish Civil War - 1936-1939, with Franco's side aided/assisted by Hitler)- but Franco also, in his later years, established a path to democracy rather than a communist type control PRO's contention that a Fascist government might evolve to something better is 'validated' by Chile and Spain.

          The discussion of China helps prove the 'debate statement'- China has evolved from pure communism to more 'fascist' (heavy government control)....WHY? Because communism is worse than fascism, and under fascism, the economy gets better (PRO scores here too!)

          Good points on both sides...but PRO makes a better case (and so do the facts IMHO).

          • 2 years ago

            I enjoyed the debate and critique. Has there been a debate on the third way?