Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment, or just click "edit". Sign your comment by writing "~~~~" at the end. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.
I named this "incorrect" because I couldn't think of a better summary
The arguments FOR communism seem more informed about the basic ideas of communism than the arguments against. While the Aff arguments talk about Collectively owning the means of production, the Neg arguments constantly refer to the "Communist state" and "governments". In reality, a "communist state" is an oxymoron, as communism means No government, no classes, no state. The Neg arguments continually argue that any attempt at communism will eventually devolve into a USSR, North Korea, or PRC type of government. The Aff argues for the theoretical basis of communism while the Neg continually argues for the pragmatic side effects of a communist revolution. This isn't very productive because it fails to address the real question at hand. For example, in the question "can communism help the less wealthy?" the Aff says yes it can, that's the point of communism, while the Neg says that governments who restrict the rights of the individual are only hurting people. As previously stated, communism does not entail restriction of rights, or even a government. Communism is mostly a sociological theory of societal evolution, claiming that the "endgame" of human evolution is a stateless, classless society. The neg mostly operates under the idea "If they call themselves communist, them must be communist", to which I ask: Is North Korea democratic because they call themselves the democratic people's republic of Korea?
The writer of this article needs to examine both sides of each question more carefully, as the Aff examines the theoretical basis for communism while the Neg talks about this mythical "communist state".
Also I suggest the removal of the question "Is a communist state possible?" because communism means No state, no nations, no borders, no government.
The only viable question in the entire debate was "is communism fair?" and I had to change the answer for "no" to even match the parameters of the question.
All other questions ask logical fallacies, such as "is a communist state possible?". the answer to both sides is no. Communism is clearly defined as a stateless classless society where the people control the means of production. It's like you're asking "Is a fascist democracy possible?" no, because theyre a contradiction in terms.
other questions, such as "will communism help the poor/wealthy?", is irrelevant, because there are no poor or wealthy in communism, there are only people. Communism is the abolition of private property, so there are no poor OR wealthy.
On the same token, it asks something along the lines of "will communism ruin the economy"? Technically, yes, because communism is based on the idea of completely eradicating the economy of the "buy/sell" function of the economy and create pure sharing, in the most general of terms.
In the video section, the "yes" answer gave objective definitions of what communism is, but the "no" section ignored communism, and only looked at socialist countries claiming to be communist like russia and china.
This debate is about the legitimacy of communism. Not the outcomes of it (unless you ask a question like "is communism possible?"). If you ask "is communism fair" and the opposition says "communism ends up in socialism, and socialism kills people", then you're not answering the question. We often forget that debate resolutions operate in the "perfect world" scenario. if you ask a question that says "is communism fair?", then the debaters must place themselves in a hypothetical situation where there is a truly stateless, classless society, and they must question "is it fair that what I make is shared with everybody else?"
As far as the question of "will people willingly share in communism?", it's a redundant question. communism means that everybody shares. It's like saying "will people buy and sell things for competitive prices in capitalism?" of course they will, it's the central property that makes each economic system what it is
to whomever wrote this article originally, please review your research. Read primary sources from the people who thought of the foundations of communism, and read authors who object to the idea of communism itself, rather than what socialist countries have come to be called communism.