In have been rewarded for my labor with my pay check. Your entire argument is defeated.

Calling something ridiculous is not an argument.

A ridiculous statement saying you can't ask for proof for s completely unrelated system isn't an argument either, but you probably thought it was.

It is clearly and demonstrably true. If I claim the Moon is not made of green cheese then that is a truth rendered self-evident by the law of reason.

I was under the impression he meant all of the time.

You still are not supporting anything you say with any argument, but at least you haven't spent 20 minutes calling me names, so your attitude is definitely improving, if not your intellect.

You didn't create this debate. Did you create another fake account?

No video has ever supported your claim before, why would this one be any different?

You did not. You have been an ass clown the entire time you have been on the website, and I am not one.

capitalism was forcefully implemented by a select few,

No, it wasn't.

Why would the many wilfully consent to a system which rewards only the few?

Everyone who works in a capitalist society is rewarded, not the select few.

You might as well demand "proof" that monarchies were forcefully implemented by a select few.

That's ridiculous.

Certain truths are rendered self-evident by the law of reason.

That's clearly not true.

Sorry, I don't believe you know how to find videos that support you.

Forgetting the basics of debating again. It's a shame you are so bad at this.

Yes, why are you on a debate website when you don't defend any of your positions?

Yes, being right and wrong is a yuge difference.

You seem to be under the impression that if the opponent was terrible that the winner can't also be terrible. That's a very stupid thing to think.

You have said countless times that trump is a horrible president.

I agree. It would be excellent if Trump wasn't president.

So, not 10 to 11 years like you said.

All of the republicans on the website seen to think Obama is still president. They won't stop talking about him add if he is currently in charge. Maybe Trump isn't president.

He said Trump wasn't a choice. Pay attention.

Just an FYI, if someone serves as president for more than 2 years of a term they can only be reelected once. Pence would have to serve less than 10 years.

Maybe you should use the personal income statistics for the debate about corporations paying workers instead of the payment statistics the federal government paid out for social security.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal incomeintheUnited_States

You might notice that wages and productivity used to increase together and now productivity goes up, but wages don't.

I live in America and it is not true for America. We cut taxes with Reagan in office and ever since wages have stagnated.

Because when companies have excess, only then do they give bonuses, give raises, hire new people, and not have layoffs. If they have any financial doubt, they do none of the above.

Unfortunately, that's not true. :( I wish it was.

t also makes companies want to stay or come to America rather than Mexico or China, etc.

Fair enough.

Still only addressing why we shouldn't raise taxes though.

The half that he didn't say is the thing you are claiming he said. You aren't claiming he said the other half.

He only said half of that. Do you understand that?

Yes, he never said every working person should be paid the exact same amount. Now you can't read and you can't listen. Congratulations.

Obama didn't say it ?

Correct. Obama never said what you claim he said. You have never once accurately described what Obama has said. He has said some pretty stupid things that are ready to attack, yet you choose to say something incredibly stupid and attribute it to him.

Moonbeam you mean to tell me the Obama Archives are lying ?

No, I already explained this. You are illiterate.

will destroy society

Correction: would have destroyed society

Women aren't second class citizens now. Get with the times.

You are talking about it, not Obama. Read your source. It doesn't say what you claim it says.

It satisfies me greatly. It shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, that's something we can agree on.

Your "Boy King" spewed it

Source?

Instead of telling me the news sources you like one at a time, just give them all to me right now.

"Can I only take as much as I contribute?"

That's what I was talking about.

Equal access doesn't really mean anything. Having access doesn't mean you get to take from it.

Ok, so you trust the N.Y. post and the Washington Times. What's next? Huffpo?

No. That was you. You ignored the model described. The model described said you get what you contribute, not everything equal.

Actually the basis of my argument is what people basically are.

And that's completely different than the debate description. That's the point I was making.

You are probably right with your assessment of communism.

I want you to post from the sources that you trust.

You are the one who disagrees with facts based on the news source. You projecting your hatred of facts on me doesn't change that. I am trying to figure out your news preference. I bring you articles from the Washington Times and you tell me it is fake news, then you bring news from Washington Times and say it is true. If I bring you a Washington Times article will you admit it is true?

So, you don't like the Washington Times unless it fits your narrative. Your idea of fake news involves anything liberal. You just like being misinformed. It's sad really. Being misinformed on a debate website is not the way to go.

That's called a complete failure. You are a complete failure.

So, is it ok to use the Washington Times when disputing you in the future? Is that a news source you trust?

Even in your stupid analogy you admit he failed. You are a failure at showing you're not a failure.

You are on a debate website. You signed up for the class. You claimed everyone else was a moron and you said you had great ideas, so you definitely entered the hall. You can fail exams you don't attempt to take.

I apologize for thinking you had ideas. I will no longer assert that you have ideas if your own.

 but destroying that aspect of the myth will collapse it's whole.

You failed miserably.

When everyone gets the same,

Communism is about giving people based on their needs and abilities. If you work hard that's an increase in ability relative to others. You do not have to be get the same amount for communism. And if we go by the debate description that implies you get as much as you contribute, working harder means more contributing which means you get more. The debate description fundamentally described an unequal system, so your argument needs to be tweaked.

Their increased contribution would be spread around to those who do the minimum or nothing. 

A certain amount from your initial contribution will be distributed, but if you get to keep any additional contribution you put in your argument falls apart.

haven't developed anything

That's funny. In your other debates you very much indicated that you have developed your own ideas.

The time i promised a theory, i had been thinking for a while(several days)

Wow, several days devoted to evolution. You really out did yourself.

. programing, robotics etc i would rather do......

Maybe lower the bar just a tad.

Why would i be thinkingAbout the theory of a moron;

You already said you spent several days thinking about the theory of a moron.

that would make me more moronic than darwin ever was.

That's true and it has.

can only talk about what there already is.

Maybe you shouldn't be bragging about being completely unoriginal.

"if communism could work"

Communism simply cannot work

Right, it can't work, but not because of the equal distribution of wealth that the debate description described.

are you alleging that you wouldn't have to work in a communist society? if nobody works, how would you obtain the bare minimum?

Yes I am. They wouldn't be able to. That's not the argument you made in the debate description. That's what I am trying to tell you.

why would number 3 want to be part of a communist society?

He wouldn't in the same capacity. That was my point. He would just be like 1 and 2 and get by. That's not self evident with your debate description.

and you understand that communism creates an environment that encourages people not to work? 

Yes, but that would only entice people to want communism. I could live in a society where I don't work, it one where I have to work. Why choose the work society if I get the same stuff?

the less you work the more you receive from others. 

No. You receive the bare minimum.

other than that, what is your definition of communism?

You get less if you don't use your abilities. You receive based on your needs and abilities. If you don't use your abilities (work) you only get what you need.

The topic is how communism makes no sense, not whether or not anyone is trying to implement it.

I told you WHY communism doesn't work

Sorry, but saying that only Fox News talks about it didn't explain anything.

You didn't like it, so you respond with a nasty comment.. What else is new?

Oh no I called you out for not discussing the topic. That's so nasty. I can't figure out what word you misuse the most.

Look at you. How is the Bronto tactic of completely ignoring the debate topic working out for you?

There's no selling in communism

False.

everything is already owned by everyone

No, it isn't.

if 3 wanted to give 2 and 1 his produce there'd be no need to initiate communism through a violent revolution because he'd do so himself.

Right, but you aren't person number 3. You are almost guaranteed to be person 1 or 2. Twice as many people benefit in your analogy by switching to communism. When more people would benefit there is a chance it would happen. That's the only reason why it would happen.

Or in other words "There is no reason to risk anything if you can't benefit from the risk." If only I had realized that earlier.

Your argument shows that we can't tax companies out of all of their money. Why cut taxes though?