The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ToasterMinistry has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 120966
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




1st round post is entirely opponents points. However, Opponent must clarify position.


True Socialism never works well. In fact it has never worked at all.

So how is Pro defining Socialism?

And what is different to what?

And what depends upon what I do?

I would suggest that Pro needs to clarify their position first.
Debate Round No. 1


Re: ¨True Socialism never works well. In fact it has never worked at all. ¨

Lets take the USSR(Soviet Union) as an example, And compare it to the US(United States of America). America had hundreds of hundreds of years to revolutionize to become a world superpower, And they were seldom directly attacked (except in cases like the War of 1812). On the other hand, The USSR was only formed in the 30s, And were in an economically backwards state aand held an illiterate population due to the revolution. On top of that, They recieved embargos from dozens of capitalist nations, Ranging from Britain to the United States.

You cannot expect the USSR to survive under these circumstances. For example, You do not compare a marathon runner to a 3 year old toddler who can barely run. You do not compare one who is learning to write to Shakesphere.

Similarly, You can't compare the USSR to the US. If they were on the same playing level, However, Things would have been very different in history. Therefore, Comparing capitalist countries to socialist ones is pretty nonsensible.



1) Pro has not as yet clarified their bracketed references.

2) Pro suggests that "Socialism can work well". Nonetheless Pro appears to suggest in round 2 that Socialism does not work well.

3) In which direction do I therefore move this debate forward?
Debate Round No. 2


Uhh. . . . I'm kind of new to debating, So can you tell me what your first point meant, XD

Re: 2) Pro suggests that "Socialism can work well". Nonetheless Pro appears to suggest in round 2 that Socialism does not work well.

I only stated that the USSR mainly failed because of how badly it started off as (which wasn't even it's fault) and that fact that there were a LOT of embargos on it by Capitalist countries, Ranging from Britain to the US, Cutting it off from trade. When the USSR was at it's most Socialist state, It was also the time when the USSR had it's best economy and society.

And for your third point; I guess by refuting my arguments? I don't know. . . I'm a noob.


1) Bracketed references:
A. "I know their different".
B. "But it depends what you do".
What do this mean? I have no way of knowing unless you explain it clearly.

2) Your proposition was:
"Socialism can work well".
It is therefore incumbent upon Pro to substantiate this claim. You somewhat counter intuitively cited the collapse of the U. S. S. R. As evidence of socialism working well.

3) As Con; I should be refuting your claim by arguing that socialism does not work well and I would therefore probably cite the collapse of the U. S. S. R. As an example of socialism not working well.

Debate Round No. 3


1) Shoot, Don't mind that part and just go on like the title was "SOcialism can work well". It was just some dumb thing. . . .

2 and 3) I was taking the USSR as an example. The USSR did NOT fall due to it being SOcialist. It fell because of

a) It was surrounded by enemies
b) It was denied from most trade, As it had numerous of embargos placed on it
c) It started off very badly, So progressing in a world of much stronger powers and then making enemies with them is, Ehh. . . . .




But you still haven't given any examples or evidence of socialism working well.

True socialism should be founded on absolute equality, But how could a society function effectively without hierarchy?

I would suggest that true socialism is an unachievable, Theoretical utopia.

People simply do not have equal capabilities, Therefore a society will always naturally evolve into a hierarchical system.

The founding principles of the U. S. S. R. May have been loosely based on socialist theory, But from the outset compliance to the system was enforced through fear rather than through thoughtful cooperation. As such the U. S. S. R. Was never a socialist state. The U. S. S. R. Was never anything other than an authoritarian dictatorship.

a) To not be an "enemy" would be to accept and to legitimise an authoritarian dictatorship.

b) To trade openly would give the same recognition as above.

c) The U. S. S. R as a true socialist state, Never actually started. But I would strongly assert that it would be inaccurate to say that The U. S. S. R. Was unable to progress. The U. S. S. R. Possessed an abundance of knowledge and resources which allowed it to compete both militarily and technologically at a global level.

We are focusing to much on the machinations of the former Soviet Union and straying from Pro's opening proposition, Which was; "Socialism can work well".

I therefore reiterate:
Can Pro give me an example of true socialism, Working well?
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Pro. Plot a graph. On one axis put the economic freedom index (EFI) of countries (the higher the index the closer the country is to free market Capitalism), On the other place GDP per capita ( a proxy for wealth and prosperity). If you like do a second graph of EFI against the GINI coefficient of wealth disparity. Now it is true that correlation is not causation, But the null hypothesis (that you must present counter evidence against) is that reduced economic freedom leads to both impoverishment without any improvement in wealth distribution. Infact the only proven way to "level out" income inequality is to ravage a nation through removing all freedom, Through war, Desolation through disease, Starvation and scarcity crises. The only places we have seen that is in the 3rd world and communist states. The more socialist a country becomes the worse everyone is in terms of freedom and prosperity, Because it is a race to the bottom. Every single example through time and geography shows us this. It only takes between 20 and 30 years for socialists to spend the wealth generated by capitalism, Run out of other peoples money and lurch into an economic crises of one form or another which spirals down until they are booted out of power.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.