The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
oalks
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Socialism is evil

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
squeakly54n6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,785 times Debate No: 121219
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (121)
Votes (5)

 

squeakly54n6

Con

Due to the nature of this topic, I do not have to prove why anything is moral, You have to prove to me why it is immoral. However before we begin I would like to define Socialism, Redistribution of wealth, And evil. Also pro will waive the last round since I am using this round to establish rules and definitions.

Socialism: The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth

Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism.

Evil: Harmful to society
oalks

Pro

I will be arguing that Socialism, Under the definition he posted, Is harmful to society (evil).



My points

Socialism has a historically high failure rate.

As a few examples; Venezuela, North Korea, And Russia. This has been tried many times before without success.

Socialism isn't viable as an economic system.

Ties into my prior point, I believe everywhere a purely socialist economy has been attempted is a failure.

Socialism is less efficient as an equalizing agent than capitalism.

Capitalism has historically raised the living standards of the majority of the world's population.

Socialism centralizes power and incentivises corruption.

Redistribution implies the seizure of money and spreading it; this makes more government control a necessity.



I look forward to this debate and the arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Con

" As a few examples; Venezuela, North Korea, And Russia. This has been tried many times before without success. "

- These are 3 of many countries that have gone socialist, And historically and recently there have been very successful countries with socialization. The United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Canada, And Sweden also have high levels of socialization in their countries and are prospering and some of which are arguably better than the US.

" Capitalism has historically raised the living standards of the majority of the world's population. "

- While the US has raised the standard of living, Socialism has helped it. Capitalism in it's purest form is not viable for sustaining a country. The most accurate example of a purely based capitalistic country with little to no socialism is during the industrial revolution mainly in Europe and America. During this time there were little to no regulations or socialization, And in this time the working conditions were very poor, The vast majority of people lived in poverty, The environment was in shambles, And disease ran rampant.

- More socialized countries according to US News, Have higher median wages than the US does. For example, The US's median wage was around 59, 000. Switzerland had a median GDP per capita of 62, 000, Norway has 72, 000, Ireland has 73, 000, And Luxembourg has around 105, 000 all of which have higher levels of socialization than the US does. So stating that more socialized countries don't have higher standards of living if not HIGHER standards of living are inaccurate.

" Redistribution implies the seizure of money and spreading it; this makes more government control a necessity. "

- And in a capitalist system, All of the power goes to greedy corporations that would rather see people die than to see their profit margins drop. Statistically, 45, 000 people die in the US from being underinsured and people everywhere are going bankrupt from privatized college.

- I would rather see a government providing these services since the government at least does these for the good of the people are not for profit. Countries such as Norway, Japan, And the United Kingdom have socialized medicine and have higher life expectancies than the US. In fact, Spain is actually leading in the worlds life expectancy and has national healthcare.

- Redistribution of Wealth occurs in America as well based on the definition. This is basically what taxes are. Taxes essentially take some wealth from others and create socialized programs such as the military, Education, And healthcare. So unless you are going to be arguing for an anarcho-capitalist country, You have to have some level of redistribution.

SOURCE,

h t tp s: / /w ww. U snews. C om/n ews/be st-c ountr ies/ov erall-ra nkin gs
oalks

Pro

DEFINITIONS

Socialism: The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth

Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state.

REBUTTAL

“These are 3 of many countries that have gone socialist, And historically and recently there have been very successful countries with socialization. The United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Canada, And Sweden also have high levels of socialization in their countries and are prospering and some of which are arguably better than the US. ”

The Nordic model is highly capitalist, You were wanting to debate socialism as you defined in round one, Not social systems. If anything, They would be categorized under welfare capitalism or a mixed economy.

You’ve specified that you weren’t erroneously using Socialism as an umbrella term, So I expect you to meet your own criteria with your examples.

“While the US has raised the standard of living, Socialism has helped it. Capitalism in it's purest form is not viable for sustaining a country. The most accurate example of a purely based capitalistic country with little to no socialism is during the industrial revolution mainly in Europe and America. ”

The standard of living hasn’t only risen in the USA, It’s risen all around the world due to modern advancements in Science and technology.

These are not examples of a purely capitalist economy, They’re examples of a purely libertarian society.

“More socialized countries according to US News, Have higher median wages than the US does. … So stating that more socialized countries don't have higher standards of living if not HIGHER standards of living are inaccurate. ”

These countries having higher median wages is meaningless. These countries also have a much higher cost of living with a higher tax rate to support their social systems.

“And in a capitalist system, All of the power goes to greedy corporations that would rather see people die than to see their profit margins drop.

This is simply not true, Unless you think government itself is somehow innately socialist. I’m not advocating for anrcho-capitalism as you seem to assume.

“Statistically, 45, 000 people die in the US from being underinsured and people everywhere are going bankrupt from privatized college. ”

Yes, And universal healthcare isn’t a solution; though an obvious red herring, I’ll address this because I think it’s important to you. The solution is a market-based system which produces MORE doctors and MORE healthcare. Centralizing this and laying it upon the government will do little to help in this regard. Not to mention, The United States’ is the primary innovator of medicine.

Subsidizing College was one of the stupidest decisions the United States ever made. Ideally, A College education would distinguish you, But in making it accessible it negates the value entirely. The average person should not be going to college, Nor be attempting to. It would be better if the government just got out of this.

“I would rather see a government providing these services since the government at least does these for the good of the people are not for profit. Countries such as Norway, Japan, And the United Kingdom have socialized medicine and have higher life expectancies than the US. In fact, Spain is actually leading in the worlds life expectancy and has national healthcare. ”

Why? It seems to me all these things could be provided by a capitalist system, Except better. The only issues the United States has had in recent times has been tied to social systems and welfare. I’m not convinced piling more of the same problem ontop of the mess we’ve already created will solve anything.

“Redistribution of Wealth occurs in America as well based on the definition. This is basically what taxes are. Taxes essentially take some wealth from others and create socialized programs such as the military, Education, And healthcare. So unless you are going to be arguing for an anarcho-capitalist country, You have to have some level of redistribution. ”

This isn’t socialism, Taxation is necessary in order for the government to enforce the social contract and protect it's sovereignty. Properly implemented, Taxation should not interfere with a capitalist economy.

Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Con

" The Nordic model is highly capitalist, You were wanting to debate socialism as you defined in round one, Not social systems. If anything, They would be categorized under welfare capitalism or a mixed economy. "

- These are far from " highly capitalist " countries. In fact, These countries aren't 100 % either at all. These countries have redistribution of wealth and socialized government programs such as free college and free healthcare. All of which are forms of redistribution of wealth.

- If you are going to make the argument that since these countries aren't 100 % socialist, This doesn't make them socialist and their success is mostly due to capitalism than this is wrong.

The problem with this logic is that acting as if countries have to be 100 % of one ideology or the other, Which is unrealistic and limiting. For example, Capitalism combined with socialism is a very successful system. This takes the good parts of capitalism being innovation and economic growth, But at the same time having socialized safety nets to prevent poor living conditions and the exploitation of workers.

Also by this same logic, Capitalism would be considered unsuccessful since no country with 100 % capitalism has ever been successful Unless you are going to argue that the industrial revolution countries were successful which is just absurd.

" You were wanting to debate socialism as you defined in round one, "

- I want to debate whether or not it is evil. The fact that mixed economies with socialization work prove it is not " evil" as by our own definition it isn't harmful to society. Again if you are going to go with the mixed market argument, Then you'd have to say any economic system in the entire world that is mixed is also evil.

" The standard of living hasn"t only risen in the USA, It"s risen all around the world due to modern advancements in Science and technology. "

- Never said the standard of living wasn't rising, It is rising which is due to mixed economies on socialism and capitalism. The standards of living have risen due to mixed countries with capitalism and socialism. Again during the industrial revolution when there was little to none socialization, There was immense poverty, Wealth inequality, Crime, Disease, And poor working/living conditions. If this is your idea of an " ideal " world than we can start an argument about that.

" These are not examples of a purely capitalist economy, They"re examples of a purely libertarian society. "

" Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state. "

- Last time I checked, The industrial revolution checked everything in the definition of capitalism, During the industrial revolution these countries had all of trade and industry owned by private owners for profit with little redistribution of wealth. In your own definition, It never states that the market should be " regulated" at all or argue for the redistribution of wealth.

" These countries having higher median wages is meaningless. These countries also have a much higher cost of living with a higher tax rate to support their social systems. "

- This is inaccurate, According to Forbes, The only countries mentioned on my list that have higher taxes are Germany, Denmark, And the Uk. Every other country such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, And Japan all have lower taxes than the US does.

" This is simply not true, Unless you think government itself is somehow innately socialist. "

- By our definitions that we agreed upon, The government is entirely run on the redistribution of wealth/taxes which would, Therefore, Make them immoral from your POV.

" Yes, And universal healthcare isn"t a solution; though an obvious red herring, "

This isn't a red herring at all, Addressing points that you may bring up later isn't a red herring. The reason why I pointed out that socialized programs are generally better is that this is a common argument used in favor of privatized industries.

" Centralizing this and laying it upon the government will do little to help in this regard. "

- Explain to me how statistically according to CEO world and literally every other statistic out there, That the US isn't even in the top 10 nor 20 when it comes to highest life expectancies. Being beaten by countries with more socialized medicine such as Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Denmark, Spain, Uk, And Sweden.

" But in making it accessible it negates the value entirely. The average person should not be going to college, Nor be attempting to. It would be better if the government just got out of this. "

- Going to college helps society and the economy by having more skilled workers and a more educated population. Which in turn leads to more innovation and more economic gain. So yes the average person should be going to college.

" Why? It seems to me all these things could be provided by a capitalist system, Except better. "

- This is an acetal claim which I already provided statistics to that contradict it.

" This isn"t socialism, Taxation is necessary in order for the government to enforce the social contract and protect it's sovereignty. Properly implemented, Taxation should not interfere with a capitalist economy. "

- Taxes are taking wealth and redistributing it. In this case, It is going towards social programs which is essentially socialism with the definition we agreed upon.

- By this own sentence, You pretty much agree that at least some levels of socialism are necessary which completely concedes your entire argument.

Sources will be posted in my profile comment section.
oalks

Pro


DEFINITIONS


Socialism: The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth


Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state.


ARGUMENT


(that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed).


Socialism has a historically high failure rate (relative to other systems).


REBUTTAL


“These are far from " highly capitalist " countries. In fact, These countries aren't 100 % either at all. These countries have redistribution of wealth and socialized government programs such as free college and free healthcare. All of which are forms of redistribution of wealth.


If you are going to make the argument that since these countries aren't 100 % socialist, This doesn't make them socialist and their success is mostly due to capitalism than this is wrong. “


It’s not a matter of making an argument, These countries don’t meet your own criteria of socialism. You’re misattributing wealth redistribution as a function of socialism, When it’s really a general function of a government.


Socialism requires a tax hike to support the extensive list of things it provides for ‘free. ’ This doesn’t mean all taxation is somehow socialist.


“But at the same time having socialized safety nets to prevent poor living conditions and the exploitation of workers. ”


This is welfare, Not socialism.


“The problem with this logic is that acting as if countries have to be 100 % of one ideology or the other”


I never claimed they had to be ‘100% socialist, ’ (whatever that means), Only meet the criteria you provided in your definition. This is straw-manning, As I have never made this argument and won’t in the fourth round either. If your definition is impossible to meet, Then it’s an unobtainable ideal and simply not relevant. If you cannot provide an example of something which meets your own criteria you have no way to justify it.


The fact is, Most of the countries you listed are more open to trade than the United States. (Denmark, As a specific example).


“Never said the standard of living wasn't rising, It is rising which is due to mixed economies on socialism and capitalism. The standards of living have risen due to mixed countries with capitalism and socialism. ”


No, The innovation isn’t coming from socialism. The world has had a hell of a time recovering from the scars of World War 2.


“Last time I checked, The industrial revolution checked everything in the definition of capitalism, During the industrial revolution these countries had all of trade and industry owned by private owners for profit with little redistribution of wealth. In your own definition, It never states that the market should be " regulated" at all or argue for the redistribution of wealth. ”


I agree, But the problem wasn’t capitalism, The problem was unchecked capitalism. This teaches about the value of government, Not the detriment of capitalism. Regulations and rules can be in place without becoming non-capitalist.


“This is inaccurate, According to Forbes, The only countries mentioned on my list that have higher taxes are Germany, Denmark, And the Uk. Every other country such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, And Japan all have lower taxes than the US does. ”


All these countries you’ve provided have a capitalist economy, With slightly larger welfare systems than the US. Even still, The welfare isn’t generally beneficial it’s specifically beneficial, The general detriment is seen to be outweighed by the specific benefits. (i. E. , Healthcare)


I’m going to isolate Canada here, As it’s the biggest example of this being a possibility. This only holds true if you only calculate personal income tax. The average Canadian will spend 42% of their income on taxes; the average American will spend an effective 24% of their income on taxes.


“By our definitions that we agreed upon, The government is entirely run on the redistribution of wealth/taxes which would, Therefore, Make them immoral from your POV. ”


I disagree with excessive taxation, That’s my point of view. Redistributionism is not the same thing as socialism.


“Explain to me how statistically according to CEO world and literally every other statistic out there, That the US isn't even in the top 10 nor 20 when it comes to highest life expectancies. Being beaten by countries with more socialized medicine such as Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Denmark, Spain, Uk, And Sweden. ”


Culture and habits, The United states is incredibly unhealthy overall relative to other countries.


“Going to college helps society and the economy by having more skilled workers and a more educated population. Which in turn leads to more innovation and more economic gain. So yes the average person should be going to college. ”


I disagree, Going to college does not in and of itself help the economy. Smart people, Who learn valuable and rare skills from going to college helps the economy. Most people should get an apprenticeship, Pursue their career, Or create a business. Normalizing college will not increase our intelligence, And it certainly won’t raise our standards.


“This is an acetal claim which I already provided statistics to that contradict it. ”


What does organic chemistry have to do with economics?


“Taxes are taking wealth and redistributing it. In this case, It is going towards social programs which is essentially socialism with the definition we agreed upon. ”


Sometimes, And depending on the program it’s an error. Most taxes go towards the functioning of the government and the defence of said government.


“By this own sentence, You pretty much agree that at least some levels of socialism are necessary which completely concedes your entire argument. ”


I said redistribution is required, Not socialism.


SOURCES – In profile, More available upon request.


Debate Round No. 3
squeakly54n6

Con

" You"re misattributing wealth redistribution as a function of socialism, When it"s really a general function of a government. "

- You understand that the definition we agreed upon includes the redistribution of wealth amount the government right? This point makes zero sense.

" Socialism requires a tax hike to support the extensive list of things it provides for "free. " "

- There hasn't been much research on how much the US would save by adapting a free college model, There has been extensive research on national healthcare. Statistically according to business insider, Bernie Sanders national healthcare model would actually save the US Trillions of dollars across a decade period. This is a very simple concept I pay 1, 500 dollars on healthcare, However now since it's national I have to pay 1, 000 more in taxes however now I save 1, 500 dollars. Therefore I've saved 500 dollars from the national healthcare model. While the numbers in this context aren't 100 % accurate, The concept still apply s.

" This doesn"t mean all taxation is somehow socialist. "

- Taxation is the redistribution of wealth and the definition we agreed upon on socialism included the redistribution of wealth. So yes technically taxation is socialist.

" This is welfare, Not socialism. "

Again these are government programs run on the redistribution of wealth which makes it socialist.

" I never claimed they had to be "100% socialist, "

- This is pretty much what you said, You acted as though since the Scandinavian countries are mixed markets, This makes them " highly capitalist".

" If you cannot provide an example of something which meets your own criteria you have no way to justify it. "

- I already provided to you 20 countries that fit the definition of socialist. The Uk, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Japan, Canada, And Spain all have robust economies and have high levels of socialization. The US also technically also falls into this definition since the US redistributes wealth by taking taxes and using them to fund government programs such as the military, Education, And welfare.

" The fact is, Most of the countries you listed are more open to trade than the United States. "

- According to Heritage. Org, The United States only ranks # 12. This is higher rated than Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway, Japan, And Spain. The only countries that are higher rated on the list that I mentioned are the Uk, Canada, And Switzerland.

" No, The innovation isn"t coming from socialism. "

- Again you understand that socialized programs such as welfare, Social security, National healthcare, And education actually boost the economy right? Welfare helps poorer families obtain enough to help their families, Education keeps qualified workers in the workplace, And finally national healthcare gives workers healthcare which in turn increases worker productivity and is cheaper.

" Regulations and rules can be in place without becoming non-capitalist. "

- Government regulation is essentially socialist from the definition we've agreed upon.

" All these countries you"ve provided have a capitalist economy, With slightly larger welfare systems than the US. "

- Again I do not think you understand that the redistribution of wealth and social programs are socialist.

" That"s my point of view. Redistributionism is not the same thing as socialism. "

- Yes it is from the definition we've agreed upon.

- An argument you may bring up in the future and what you kinda brought up earlier is that redistribution of wealth is only one part of socialism which is incorrect on the definition we've agreed upon.

Our definition includes redistribution yes, But also includes the government regulating these means of production. The government can only function with tax money obtained from the redistribution of wealth. Therefore redistribution isn' just a " tiny part" since without the redistribution of wealth, The government can't run at all which would therefore make socialism obsolete.

- Another argument you may bring up is that in these countries the government doesn't own the means of production. Which is just an absurd argument since the means of production includes healthcare and education. The government also regulates the factories and businesses as well which doesn't happen in a purely based capitalist system.

" Culture and habits, The United states is incredibly unhealthy overall relative to other countries. "

- This is a very arbitrary argument since there are similar countries out there to the US. In this comparision I will be comparing a country which I feel is a very close country culturally, Economically, And history wise.

The country to be used will be one of my favorite countries, Germany. Germany has a big; economic and cultural powerhouse of its continent; relatively young country conglomerated out of a bunch of little separate states with common backgrounds; strange mix of socially progressive and conservative values and legislation (though in many ways the opposite mix from the US); workaholic culture (relative to its neighbors? ), Less urbanized and maybe more provincial in places than most of Western Europe (from my understanding, Rural Germany can be isolated and conservative in much the same way as the rural US); had to learn a lot by coming to terms with its shitty history; but profoundly prosperous and industrious from a global viewpoint despite everything. And guess what, Germany has a a form of national healthcare and is still leagues ahead of the US in terms of life expectancy and quality of life. However this is just one country out of many other developed nations I could use as a comparison, So if you reject this one I can bring up another one if you would like.

" I disagree, Going to college does not in and of itself help the economy. Smart people, Who learn valuable and rare skills from going to college helps the economy. "

- This is an absurd argument. This is my argument expect you are simply changing the wording around. Of course going to college doesn't automatically equal a smart person, However do you really think the majority of people who go to college don't learn anything at all?

" Most people should get an apprenticeship, Pursue their career, Or create a business. "

- What about people who want to get into the medical field? Or the Law field? Or want to become a teacher? Also not everyone can just " create a business". Creating a business is very risky and hard to do and not something the average person (including myself) can or want to do.

" Normalizing college will not increase our intelligence, And it certainly won"t raise our standards. "

- How do you explain that a country such as Singapore with free college has statistically according to Forbes, The highest IQ per person in the world?

" What does organic chemistry have to do with economics? "

- My bad I meant anecdotal.

". Most taxes go towards the functioning of the government and the defence of said government. "

- Which are government programs.

" I said redistribution is required, Not socialism. "

- Socialism can only function with redistribution, So essentially you agree that some socialization is necessary for a country to sustain itself.

Case and point, My opponent has little understanding of the definitions we've agreed upon and is making pretty absurd claims with no strong analysis nor evidence to back it up.

Sources will be posted in my profile comment section.
oalks

Pro


You understand that the definition we agreed upon includes the redistribution of wealth amount the government right? This point makes zero sense.


- The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth.


- You don’t get to disclude the more important half of your definition just because it suits your needs.


There hasn't been much research on how much the US would save by adapting a free college model, There has been extensive research on national healthcare. Statistically according to business insider, Bernie Sanders national healthcare model would actually save the US Trillions of dollars across a decade period.


- I don’t think you understand the reference study. If we were to double our tax rates and assume that this proposal wouldn’t result in a max exodus of medical professionals, We still wouldn’t be able to afford it. (This is from Mercatus, The same source that they used in their publication. ) From the people who did the study: “A doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. . . . . These estimates are conservative because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors’ goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, In addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs. ”


“Taxation is the redistribution of wealth and the definition we agreed upon on socialism included the redistribution of wealth. So yes technically taxation is socialist.


Again these are government programs run on the redistribution of wealth which makes it socialist.


Again I do not think you understand that the redistribution of wealth and social programs are socialist.


Yes it is from the definition we've agreed upon. ”


- Here’s the thing, In your definition it says that socialism redistributes wealth. It never says that wealth distribution is specifically socialist. In fact, In your opening argument you created the distinction yourself.


“This is pretty much what you said, You acted as though since the Scandinavian countries are mixed markets, This makes them " highly capitalist". ”


- They are capitalist, That’s how the government pays for it’s extensive welfare system. Sweden specifically is one of the most liberal markets in the world.


- I’m not going to attempt to refute all these countries you’ve provided me. I will provide a few links proving how non-socialist the Scandinavian countries are, But that’s all I can do since you’ve neglected to specify a prosperous socialist country (it doesn’t even have to be ‘100% socialist, ’ just primarily so).


“According to Heritage. Org, The United States only ranks # 12. This is higher rated than Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway, Japan, And Spain. The only countries that are higher rated on the list that I mentioned are the Uk, Canada, And Switzerland. ”


- This is inaccurate for our purposes, Since it also includes government size, Government integrity, And judicial effectiveness.


“Again you understand that socialized programs such as welfare, Social security, National healthcare, And education actually boost the economy right? Welfare helps poorer families obtain enough to help their families, Education keeps qualified workers in the workplace, And finally national healthcare gives workers healthcare which in turn increases worker productivity and is cheaper. ”


- No, They don’t, That’s impossible considering the general increase in taxation they require to support them. Welfare and social programs are implemented for 2 reasons; 1 – as a safety net, And 2 – to prevent alienation from the competition (social control).


- In most cases they actually work against the economy directly by inculcating a reliance upon government through handouts. In the United States specifically, The black poverty rate only began to increase with the introduction of such welfare states.


“Government regulation is essentially socialist from the definition we've agreed upon. ”


- How? There is nothing about regulation that is inherently socialist by your definition.


- Limiting something isn’t the same as controlling and providing something.


“An argument you may bring up in the future and what you kinda brought up earlier is that redistribution of wealth is only one part of socialism which is incorrect on the definition we've agreed upon. ”


- Redistribution isn’t a synonym with socialism, Even under the definition you provided that isn’t the case.


- All socialist countries have to redistribute, But not all redistribution is socialist.


“Another argument you may bring up is that in these countries the government doesn't own the means of production. Which is just an absurd argument since the means of production includes healthcare and education. The government also regulates the factories and businesses as well which doesn't happen in a purely based capitalist system. ”


- Providing health insurance is vastly different from hiring doctors and creating free public hospitals.


- As god awful as our public school system is, I think we would benefit quite a bit from privatization.


- Regulation simply isn’t socialist, If anything it's capitalist.


“This is a very arbitrary argument since there are similar countries out there to the US. In this comparision I will be comparing a country which I feel is a very close country culturally, Economically, And history wise. ”


In response to your Germany example, A simple indicator of health is the obesity problem: World Graph on profile.


This is an astonishing rate of Obesity (34. 7%) when you consider the population of the United States. The only countries that beat us in this regard are Saudi Arabia and small island nations.


“This is an absurd argument. This is my argument expect you are simply changing the wording around. Of course going to college doesn't automatically equal a smart person, However do you really think the majority of people who go to college don't learn anything at all? ”


- If you publicize and normalize college, They will be unable to teach skills at an advanced level. Perhaps instead of destroying the college system further we should fix secondary and primary schooling first.


- People who go to college now do not go to learn in the sense they used to, They go to get a degree because it’s required for many entry-level jobs.


“What about people who want to get into the medical field? Or the Law field? Or want to become a teacher? Also not everyone can just " create a business". Creating a business is very risky and hard to do and not something the average person (including myself) can or want to do. ”


- The average person is not capable of becoming a doctor or a lwayer, It takes an incredible amount of commitment and intelligence.


- As for being a teacher, If they can’t show to be sufficiently adept at the profession I don’t think they should be teaching anything.


- They could also invest the money that they would spend yearly, As that has been proven to be a consistent method of gaining wealth.


“How do you explain that a country such as Singapore with free college has statistically according to Forbes, The highest IQ per person in the world? ”


- It’s a correlation and not caused by college. We’ve made attempts at increasing intelligence through compensatory education, As far as I know there has been no success.


- Regardless of the extent we’re able to change it through childhood/upbringing, Genetics is the largest known factor for IQ.


Conclusion


It appears to me that my opponent thinks because socialism requires excessive redistribution to run, That they are one in the same. Evidenced by this quote: “Socialism can only function with redistribution, So essentially you agree that some socialization is necessary for a country to sustain itself. ”


I’ve provided substantial evidence contradicting this claim, Not limited to the origin of welfare itself. I've also described how many of the scandinavian countries afford these safety nets and insurances through vehemently capitalist economics.


Debate Round No. 4
squeakly54n6

Con

" - The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth.

- You don"t get to include the more important half of your definition just because it suits your needs"

- This is a baseless accusation, I have included the entire definition, You've just ignored it. I elaborated in my last argument the ways the government owns the means of production, I will do so again here just to clarify for the reader.

- The government owns the means of production in these countries, First of all, They regulate the economies to ensure there is wealth equality in the country. Secondly, These countries governments use their GDP to buy businesses to stimulate the economy. Thirdly these countries stimulate the economy by owning healthcare and the education system.

- I did include the whole definition, But for some odd reason my opponent keeps on ignoring my points. Either way, This is a clarification just in case my opponent makes these claims again. Then again he probably is going to ignore this but either way.

". If we were to double our tax rates and assume that this proposal wouldn"t result in a max exodus of medical professionals, We still wouldn"t be able to afford it. "

- My opponent is using an argument that I already addressed in the previous rounds. Just to clarify for the reader, I already provided statistics that show that while taxes would rise, We would save money in the long run.

- This is a rather simple math equation that I've stated numerous times, I pay 1, 500 dollars on healthcare, I now pay 1, 000 dollars on healthcare now that it's nationalized. Therefore I saved 500 dollars.

- What sounds better paying more for less? Or paying less for more?

" Here"s the thing, In your definition it says that socialism redistributes wealth. It never says that wealth distribution is specifically socialist. In fact, In your opening argument you created the distinction yourself. "

- Ok, I can use this same logic on capitalism or ANY other system for that matter,

- Capitalism NEVER states that free trade is exclusive to it, So I guess that means that these socialist countries are socialist countries after all.

- Communism NEVER states that a classless system is exclusive to it, So I guess that means capitalism is a classless system.

- Athiesism never states that the disbelief in god is exclusive to it, So I guess that means religious people can express disbelief in god as well.

The bottom line is this logic is rather arbitrary and can literally be translated into any other system in existence.

" - They are capitalist, That"s how the government pays for it"s extensive welfare system. "

- The existence of government and a welfare system, In general, Are created by the redistribution of wealth. This means that these countries are mixed.

" I will provide a few links proving how non-socialist the Scandinavian countries are, But that"s all I can do since you"ve neglected to specify a prosperous socialist country (it doesn"t even have to be "100% socialist, " just primarily so). "

- I have no interest in you providing me links to good counterpoints, I want to hear YOUR points. Linking me your points through other studies with no analysis is lazy and it is not good for developing a constructive thought process. Otherwise, I could just link to you 100 videos demonstrating my counterpoints.

- I already provided to you countries such as the UK, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, And Japan, All of which have high levels of socialized markets and arguably are more successful than the US is currently doing.

" - This is inaccurate for our purposes, Since it also includes government size, Government integrity, And judicial effectiveness. "

- Ok so than what country would you have me provide than? If government size ETC mattered than explain how much smaller countries have more free trade than the US? Size doesn't matter that much since with a large country comes a large government.

" That"s impossible considering the general increase in taxation they require to support them. "

- Considering the amount of money we would save on a universal healthcare model, I'd wager people would save more money on a free college than being bankrupted by student loans.

" - In most cases they actually work against the economy directly by inculcating a reliance upon government through handouts. "

- This is another baseless accusation, Again I already provided to you Singapore which has a free college model and has the worlds highest IQ. Another example would be Finland which is also highly ranked as one of the best education systems in the world and has a more socialized education model.

" - How? There is nothing about regulation that is inherently socialist by your definition.

- Limiting something isn"t the same as controlling and providing something. "

- The government in these countries spend a good portion of their GDP on investing into businesses.

- You do understand that regulation and stimulation is essentially what controlling something is right? For example, In boy scouts, I am an ASPL or (assistant senior patrol leader). The SPl and I regulate, Put, And enforce rules on scouts in order to keep them in line. This is essentially controlling them. Of course, We aren't literally doing the stuff for them however this concept can be applied to the government.

- The government regulates businesses by providing minimum wage and safety regulations, Stimulate them by providing healthy and educated citizens, And put rules on these businesses.

" Redistribution isn"t a synonym with socialism, Even under the definition, You provided that isn"t the case. "

- Redistribution is essential to the government. Again this is as if I stated that profit wasn't a synonym with capitalism when in reality without profit capitalism is almost useless.

" - All socialist countries have to redistribute, But not all redistribution is socialist. "

- It's in the definition, So yes redistribution is inherently socialist. This is as if I stated that all capitalist countries have free trade, But not all free trade is capitalist. By this logic, I could use free trade in a socialist country and still pass it off as a capitalist, Which of course defeats your entire argument.

" - Providing health insurance is vastly different from hiring doctors and creating free public hospitals. "

- You understand that these countries own these hospitals right?

" - As god awful as our public school system is, I think we would benefit quite a bit from privatization. "

- This is a claim that isn't developed at all and isn't backed up by statistics at all and I've already provided statistics that prove that more socialized education countries are smarter.

" In response to your Germany example, A simple indicator of health is the obesity problem: World Graph on the profile. "

- Interesting so you don't think that national healthcare which provided more access to doctors, Gives people better chances of conquering obesity? Doctors provide patients with physicals, Assessments on their health which could include whether or not they're exercising properly or whether or not they may be deficient in some vitamins.

"- If you publicize and normalize college, They will be unable to teach skills at an advanced level. Perhaps instead of destroying the college system further, We should fix secondary and primary schooling first. "

- These are baseless claims and my opponent has provided little to no analysis, Therefore I will ignore these points.

I am unable to respond to several other of my opponent's claims due to the limited character space but regardless I feel I've made my points.

My opponent has avoided questions and counter-arguments, Making baseless accusations with little to no analysis, And has proven himself to be nothing more than a shill for capitalists as he is pushing for idea's which contradict his own objectives as a conservative
oalks

Pro

Waiving my final round.
Debate Round No. 5
121 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheesynachos123 3 years ago
cheesynachos123
socialism may create more friendships as everyone would dress and act the same.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Have to say though I'd prefer far less socialism in the USA. I'd probably go as far as preferring Laissez Faire Capitalism, But am willing to admit that later it would be likely that some angry mobs end up burning down the houses of some unscrupulous rich. I just think that big government fails often from being too far from the problem, I'd like more state laws and more city laws, But then again people travel so much nowadays. And I 'do find it annoying when laws vary from area to area at times. . . Meh rambling contradictions.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
squeakly54n6 - Not sure what a 'debate bomb' is, But if he's going to vote I'd like him to justify why he picked me. This is the reason I disliked Thot's vote so much but didn't complain much about Omar's. I don't especially care whether I win or not, But I'd like to see the rationale behind the choice.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Kvng_8

This is an obvious debate bomb.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: Conservatism is an inconsistent political philosophy (e. G. Adherents of limiting government intervention as it concerns a nation's Economics, But proponents of government intervention as it concerns an individual's personal life. ) Libertarianism on the other hand is a consistent political and moral philosophy, Despite its political adherents being inconsistent (e. G. Ron & Rand Paul. )
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
And in addition you can say that countries that employ a progressive taxation scheme are more redistributionist since they taxing higher income earners more in order to use that revenue for social welfare schemes, But again, It does not mean that it is necessarily socialist. The reason is simply because many other economic factors come into play. A great deal of the US budget is spent on the military due to several states having progressive law codes, Hence a lot of the money technically goes to a social welfare scheme. But the government still does not identify as socialist in that the market is still not centrally owned and managed by the government.

The definition of what makes a government 'socialist' is very precise and frankly not that hard to understand. Free markets having socialist aspects (which make them mixed economies) does not directly fall under the proper definition of socialism.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
I felt that I needed to take a second to make that clear. There have been very grotesque misrepresentations of socialism and I'm merely throwing my two cents worth so that others who read this in the future do not get mislead by the improper application of semantics.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
"With Pro's inadequate knowledge and incapable of understanding what socialism"

Taxation is not a direct form of socialism. Yes, It is considered a form of wealth redistribution hence why it is considered a socialist aspect but there is no tie between a socialist state and a taxation scheme.

Taxation is a natural feature in every government. In many governments taxation is not actually defined as 'wealth redistribution' but rather as a means for gaining government revenue. To say that taxation and socialism are one in the same is a ridiculous notion and uses two extremes of the spectrum (the other extreme being Laissez-Faire) and that demonstrates poor knowledge of socialism as a concept.

The Nordic countries (Norway being a key example) shows a stronger aspect of socialism in that a larger portion of the country is centrally owned and run by government forces. But it is still run along free enterprise lines, Not redistributionalist lines.

Taxation does not violate the rules of free markets and nor does regulation. To say that it does essentially equates every country on earth as a socialist country.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
"So a primary system is defined by what type of economy it has? "

- Certainly the economy itself is, There could be a plethora of libertarians in office stuck in a socialist economy by some form of necessity.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to call you a joke -- I'm quite stressed right now so it peeves me to have to deal with this type of disingenuity.

A libertarian advocates for the free market (economically speaking) and liberty politically speaking, While a conservative advocates for the upholding of traditional values. Conservatism isn't necessarily an economic stance but the vast majority will fall into being free-market advocates by necessity.

So I'm libertarian on economic issues and certain political issues, While also being conservative on certain social issues (which sometimes turn political).
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
squeakly54n6oalksTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Socialism having a "high failure rate" is debatable. Any analysis of this will show capitalist societies or other societies having hands in it. It is a viable economic system. To think otherwise is to misunderstand what socialism actually is. Socialism offers far more equality than capitalism. It is also incredibly naive to make a claim such as socialism inspires corruption. Capitalism is the font of all corruption. Socialism isn't dictators in dictatorships nor is it monarchies. Corruption and flaws exist in all systems. An inferior system at one point in time, given the correct conditions, will become a superior system. Calling an economic system evil is silly, particularly one that comes with less inherent evils than the system you espouse.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
squeakly54n6oalksTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the debate became a bit derailed over time due to disagreements over definitions. But if one goes by the definition in round 1, and my basic understanding of what's being discussed, I'd have to give Con the most persuasive argument. I tried looking on a couple different sites to better decide what definition I ought use for the definitions in dispute, but it seems there's plenty of people on all sides. So I'll go with the round 1 definition and my own thoughts. Capitalism and Socialism are commonly enough thought of as opposite to one another, it's not too much of a stretch to view capitalism as being moderated in some degree by introducing some tenants of socialism to a government, and vice versa. Honestly I think it's too bad that definition derailed the debate, I feel that Pro could have made a better showing if he had been able to argue that a primarily socialist country would function poorly, but he was hamstrung early on by definition. Lot of 'things are good in moderatio
Vote Placed by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
squeakly54n6oalksTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job in the debate to both opponents
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
squeakly54n6oalksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't substantiate his point in Round 1 which made Con rebut general statements. Pro states that the Nordic is a capitalist but fails to mention redistribute wealth is a form of socialism. With this in mind public healthcare is a form of socialism because it is redistributing wealth with taxpayer money. Pro failed to say how public healthcare was worse than private. Pro did say more doctors and more healthcare but failed to provide a source to back it up and even if this was true the business would have to make profit so people who can't afford healthcare like the 45k Con mentioned would still die. Basically Pro implies I don't care about the 45k deaths I much rather have privatised healthcare. Pro also failed to rebut Con's claim how people who do claim bankruptcy claim it based on lack of healthcare. Pro failed to understand even having a taxation which redistributes that wealth to what the government allocates is a form of socialism. Continues in the comments...
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
squeakly54n6oalksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

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