Capitalism is superior to Socialism.

Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Con forfeits fullaciously

for now, we are evolving perhaps socialisim is just premature at this point

Did you mean pure liberitarian capitalism vs socialism? And do you have a specific definition of socialism, as they are so varied? If this is a good fit i might take this debate if you choose to restart it. I promise to post more then your current opponent. Lol

>>it does not care about intent.

One reason why that doesn't matter is we can't know it.

That's the definition I used. You must have misunderstood my comment. I pointed out that intent matters as well, and that is a flaw of consequentialistm since it does not care about intent.

Consequentialism: Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.

I don't know where you got your definition from.

Consequentialism - Intent matters as well. Intending to do a bad thing is not the same as not intending to do a bad thing.

Non-Consequentialism (whatever they're called) - There is no way to find out someone's intent.

>>Each side's argument has flaws.

What is the flaws of each?

You know what, I don't know either. Each side's argument has flaws.

>>That is a more efficient way to do it. There will be some discrepancies because people make mistakes.

Any improvements?

What is your position?

That is a more efficient way to do it. There will be some discrepancies because people make mistakes.

>>The intentions exist, whether or not we know them.

If we don't know it then we don't know their intentions. This does matter. My stance is that we can't know intentions which is why I judge people based on their actions. This can be the words they see or the actions outside of words they do.

I don't know lol.

More seriously: probably since it makes the most sense.

Observation? Interrogation? Pretty hard. I feel like this is gonna go back to a previous annoying discussion we had. The intentions exist, whether or not we know them.

How do you judge people?

Would you consider yourself a consequentialist as well?

wowee.

Welcome to the dark side where you are one step closer to thou shall not be named action.

I guess I'm a consequentialist then. Intent doesn't matter, if someone intends to commit a criminal action, he is not commiting a crime. Crimes are planning, attempting, or commiting criminal actions.

>>what they intended to do

How do we find out what people's intentions?

>>why you wanted to achieve something

This is intent.
Intent: intention or purpose.

A purpose is a why you want to do something. We can't truly know that.

Kinda hard to rephrase.

People should mainly be judged on what they intended to do. For instance, I don't really consider socialists bad people because generally are trying to get the best outcome for many people. However, I judge the actions of stealing money through excessive taxes immoral. Actions of people can be bad, but they don't have to be bad people.

>That doesn't tell you why they did it.

Did I ever mention anything about why? Maybe I'm wrong, but I define intent as what you wanted to achieve, not why you wanted to achieve something. For example, if a criminal intends to rob a bank, the robbery is something he wants to achieve. It tells us nothing about why he wanted to achieve it.

>>They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?

You can only state that they wanted to do X because they failed to do it or prepared to do it. That doesn't tell you why they did it.

You can know someone's intentions if:

I. They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?

II. They admit their intentions.

>>both by their intentions

How can you judge people by their intentions when you can't know them?

I don't know lol. I think we should judge people both by their intentions and their consequences, but I also think that consequences are more important, since consequences are what affect the world.

>>It makes sense to judge actions by consequences, but judge people by intentions.

Can you say this in a different way?

>>I wouldn't say that I'm a consequentialist, but I understand their points.

What are you then?

It makes sense to judge actions by consequences, but judge people by intentions.

I wouldn't say that I'm a consequentialist, but I understand their points.

Then you are a consequentialist. Good one.

True. We cannot know someone's intentions 100%, so it's more rational to judge people by the outcomes of their actions.

That's not what I said. Good intentions AND good results are what justifies something. If you tried to steal from North Korea but ended up destroying Amazon's website (idk just a comparison), that would be good intentions but bad results. If you tried to steal from North Korea and actually did it, that would be good intentions and good results. So there is a difference, both intention and outcome matter.

>>His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.

Ethics: moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

Wylted is correct. Just another word for morals.

Wylted is also correct about intentions. We shouldn't even set that bar because we can never truly know what people are thinking (qualms for short) so it is best to go by people's consequences after hearing it is bad but they still do it while also having a level-head when making that bad decision.

Sounds like an easy way to justify pretty much anything. Well I had good intentions. As long as my intentions are good,I can do whatever I want.

If you steal from North Korea or some criminal syndicate, I wouldn't be against that. However, whether what you do is moral or not depends on your goals. If your goal is just to get rich, I wouldn't call that very moral, but if your goal is to hurt the bad guys, there's nothing bad about that.

I have never heard of that definition for ethical. I have used it as a synonym for moral, and yes depending on who I steal from, I would consider it ethical.

His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.

If he values himself over stealing then yes Wylted would be ethical in that value framework and if we ought to value our values.

I have no idea how you can consider stealing 6 figures a year "ethical".

Doubtful stealing would work out for the long term.

I would say go through college, uni route. Doubtful a company would hire a person with just skill alone. They would like qualifications as well.

Most of my spare time is spent studying shit related to ethical hacking or programming at the moment, so I can at some point get a real job making 6 figures or use my skills to steal 6 figures a year

Ask him to make it again with 2 week deadline.

And have someone constantly telling you to post an argument. Just have a reminder on your phone or something.

I actually enjoy playing devil's advocate. I just overestimated how much free time I had

So......
Guess you must've realized you were defending socialism.

definitions are crucial to this topic.

What are your definitions of capitalism and socialism?

This is a bit too vague, what are the definitions you'll both be using for capitalism and socialism? And who has the BoP?

Done.

10,000 is fair

I agree.