Please do not discuss your opinions; no one should know what you believe. Adopt the site's tone and style: simple, blunt, precise, direct, plain, to-the-point. Include only the absolutely necessary context, and eliminate jargon. Content that is convincing, rhetorical, persuasive, elegant, evocative or embellished may be removed.
Argumentrix:Argumenters can discuss topics of interest
This is a free discussion page. Feel free to make suggestions, ask questions or coordinate projects here.
I feel a lot of the argument topics are poorly defined. For example, Capitalism is a Destructive Force. Most things have both positive and negative sides, and hence the net effect has to be considered, along with alternative solutions. It's hard to argue that Capitalism isn't destructive force because it does have negative aspects as do most things. When creating a topic like this, the arguments made for this topic also didn't consider alternatives. Assuming capitalism is a net destructive force, do we have a better solution? Is a command economy better? I'm finding so far that a lot of the pages so far have poorly articulated and backed arguments for topics that are often poorly labelled.
- I'm not sure I understand your concern. There is currently an argument at capitalism is a destructive force explaining that there is a net positive benefit despite any negative results. You can also add opposing points explaining that capitalism is the least destructive/most productive social order that can be implemented (as long as you also provide a source). Those are all perfectly reasonable opposing points to the titular argument. You can also propose a title change. Conclavion 21:37, 5 January 2012 (CST)