the capitalism is bad

PRO has the sole BoP. He claims capitalism is "bad" without defining his terms. So I will.

Capitalism: economic freedom for individuals and businesses

Bad: undesirable, having overall negative impacts on society

PRO'S argument was

The first premise is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not prove causation. Capitalism does not cause pollution, human factories, cars and meat farms do. Capitalism is not responsible for humanity's tendency to overexploit Earths resources. The premise is not sound, its untrue.

Premise 2 is only valid long term. For millions of people today, energy from Oil and gass is necessary to cover energy needs. It's near impossible to achieve high living standards quickly without taking advantage of fossil feels. Hence the climate debate in the UN being more than one-sided.

The conclusion to PRO'S argument does not support his resolution. Capitalism having negative consequences doesn't mean its bad. Capitalism May have positive benefits, perhaps some moral, economic and and political reasoning as justification; that make it good despite its downsides. I will come back to this in my second round.

For now, PRO'S argument is debunked. I am awaiting his response.

Thank you, PRO.

PRO has the sole BoP. PRO did not bring up definitions for bad and capitalism. Instead he accepted my definitions. They are:

The first premise is sound by basis of scientific research. The second premise is also sound, the majority of climate gasses released by humans is caused by certain products of the economy. Not having an economy would perhaps prevent climate change, but it certainly would not be good for humans, as we need the economy to cover our needs and ensure peacefull cooperation instead of violent fight for controll over resources. Next, the third premise.

Does capitalism cause the buying and selling of certain products? Absolutely not. The burning of fossil fuels is caused by human greed and specifically, our desire for cheap energy and fuel. No matter how we organize our economy and distribute resources, as long as humans are in charge, resources like fossil fuels will be exploited.

PRO conceedes that replacing capitalism with another economic system would not end climate change. Any economy with sufficient technology and infrastructure would fall into the trap that is overexploiting fossil fuel. The only possible solution to climate change, by PRO's admission, is to repress specific resources and products. Capitalism was never the problem; using it as a scapegoat serves no purpose but to distract from the real solution which is targeted regulation.

Really? If overexploiting fossil fuels were illegal, does that mean we abandoned capitalism? What about other illegal products. It is illegal to pay a judge or politician to subvert justice. Likewise, many drugs, weapons and services are banned or regulated by law in most capitalist countries. Humans can actively and severely harm themselves and each other using products bought with money. Laws and regulations regarding these products are intended to protect humans against themselves, not to infringe on economic liberty. Nobody claims these restrictions make our economy non-capitalistic. Thats because, they don't. 

Economic liberty is not about what products or occupations are legal, but rather the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves what options to choose and what they are willing to pay/work for it. The fundamental virtue of capitalism is that you protect people from being forced to work as slaves or have their occupation/products forcefully decided by others. When you understand this, you can see that restricting dangerous products, whether it be drugs, guns or fossil fuels, is not the same as removing capitalism. Therefore, it is simply wrong to claim that climate change won't end before capitalism does. Thus, the argument PRO presented is not valid.

Sorry for not having time to write a fully fleshed out argument with sources and syllogisms. Here are my points of what makes up for any critique of capitalism one could ever make:

I have debunked PRO'S argument. Capitalism is definately not bad. It is the fairest, simplest, most effective and most benefitial economic system. It fits our modern values and allows for reasonable regulation. The resolution fails.

Thanks for the answer I am Mexican, so it is hard for me to understand terms like bop.accept your definition of capitalism, slightly modify your definition of evil, posing it as something that generates some negative effect.our drive for energy and fossil fuels is one of the causes of climate change, capitalism is another, because as long as there is a free market, there will continue to be exploitation of resources.I admit that replacing capitalism with another economic system would allow the solution to climate change, not doing so does not.Naturally, if specific products and resources are repressed in a world like ours where there are people who do not want them to be repressed, the only way to do so is to coerce against the will of these individuals, that is, preventing them from making exchanges freely, an economy that has prohibited the overexploitation of fossil resources would not necessarily fall into that trap, but of course, in this economy the free market would be violated, a regulation definitely aimed at coercing the actions of certain companies and certain individuals, so it would not give them freedom, there would be a direct violation of the free market.if there is an illegal product of any kind, it is a direct violation of the free market. Your definition really helps me, you see, if I can't decide to make a living selling fossil fuels, or selling guns or selling drugs because of state interference, then economic freedom is already being violated, only thing that doesn't help. I is Part of unnecessary, however, this is where your definition fails, as that term is vague, the heritage foundation definition is better, economic freedom is defined as the right to control labor and property, if it's a fossil fuel It's my property, and I can't sell it, I'm not controlling it. https://www.fundesa.org.gt/indices-y-evaluación-de-pais/indices-internacionales/libertad-economica If capitalism is about the freedom of individuals to decide what options to choose, then the moment the state prevents me from choosing a polluting option, that already goes against that freedom, and therefore your argument supports me, I don't know what I am referring to capitalism that prevents people from working as slaves.1. Human beings have the right to basic freedom, however, the free exchange of goods is not among those freedoms, it is perfectly possible to satisfy such needs without it, Cuba for example has 0% child malnutrition, 0% illiteracy, etc. all this despite living in a planned economy https://www.fao.org/in-action/agronoticias/detail/es/c/508233/ https://www.telesurtv.net/news/cuba-metodo-erradicacion-analfabetismo-yo-si-puedo--20191219-0011.html.2. this is false, one of the characteristics of slavery is to legally belong to another person, the mere fact of not having economic freedom does not mean that you can be sold and bought. https://www.google.com/search?q=slave+definition&oq=sl&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60j0i433i512l3j46i433i512.1299j0j9&client=ms-android-americamovil-mx-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 if you want to know what real slavery is, i recommend that you read the book, "el mexico barbaro" by john turner, in this book he narrates the slavery experienced during the ultra capitalist government of porfirio diaz.3. false again, in the first place, there are 22 million more poor people in the world, in spite of the fact that most countries in the world are capitalist, on the other hand, in 2020, china, a non-capitalist country was the only one that had economic growth. https://www.cepal.org/es/comunicados/pandemia-provoca-aumento-niveles-pobreza-sin-precedentes-ultimas-decadas-impacta https://www.clarin.com/new-york-times-international-weekly/medio-crisis-economica-global-china-unico-pais-crece_0_VaUQa8kus.html 4. if the above points are false, and they clearly are, then this cannot be the reason it is true.

5. value is objective, otherwise it would mean that amazon really isn't worth more than the average street vendor's business.

Sorry for the forfeit, I guess we are even. Moving on: BoP means burden of proof. That is, since you are making a claim, you are responsible to prove it correctly; it is not my duty to disprove it --- although I could if I wanted. Next, although I study spanish, it is a bad idea to have your debate sources be written in spanish. It is also a nice rule of thumb to write in paragraphs. Keep these tips in mind when debating on this site.

By that logic, a nation cannot both be capitalist and have even a single law. You would have to claim that no nation on Earth is capitalistic, which would be an obvious misconception. This claim of yours exposes a fundamental flaw in your understanding of our subject. You gotta understand that capitalism and anarchy are not equivalent. Capitalism is not the abscence of any and all laws, allowing you to murder and commit crime for money --- that would be anarchy. You failing to distinguish the meaning of theese words is a grand mistake on your part, and is not a valid argument. Capitalism does not inherrently promote the legality of every product and occupation regardless of its hazards. For this reason, a capitalists society can still enforce green regulations. Thus, climate change doesn't prove that capitalism is bad.

Bullshit. The right to agency is the most basic right of them all. You can't deprive people of the right to basic exchange without depriving them of their basic freedom. If two people exchange goods, the only way to stop them is to physically prevent them from doing so. For some actions like murder, its justified for society to use physical force and the threat of it to prevent said execution of free will. But what justification do you have to deprive people of the right to exchange? None.

Funny how you mention Cuba and not Venezuela --- where despite this "planned economy" people stand in long lines just to get essential products and food [1]. Funny how you mention Cuba and not USSR, North Korea, North Vietnam, or literally any communist country throughout history. Admit it, even if I simply buy your statement, Cuba would still be an underwhelming exception. Communism sucks when applied to real life, thats a fact. Also in this category is feudalism, tribalism, colonialism, slavery and most other economic systems. History proves that depriving people of economic freedom, to be totally accurate, sucks.

Sure enough, capitalism is the opposite of slavery. You are your own, you controll your own economic life, you have free agency. Is that really a bad thing?

According to all evidence ever collected, capitalism-remains-the-best-way-to-combat-extreme-poverty. Furthermore, poverty has been reduced from 80 to less than 10 percent the last century. This is due to, you guessed it, capitalism.

Austrian economists Mises would disagree. He has written entire books and created entire schools of though debunking this idea, including value-theory.

PRO's claims were all debunked. He has not proved that capitalism is bad, he has made no argument even remotely accurate to the true world.