The Instigator
edawg99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

America needs more socialism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 92570
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

edawg99

Pro

Round 1: Rules and position clarification.
Round 2: Opening Statements.
Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing statements.

I will be arguing that America needs more socialism. Best of luck to my opponent!
bballcrook21

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate.

As the Pro for this argument didn't write any definitions, I would like to present them here for our agreement as to halt any form of semantical debate or misunderstanding.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

We can thusly assume that under strict definition, more government authority and government regulation of economic and political matters, as well as any anti-property means undertaken are to be labeled "Socialism".


We can also agree that from the current economic standpoint, we are a Capitalist economy with an enlarged welfare state and corporatist policies, rather than a completely "free market".

With these basic postulates established, I wish my opponent good luck and may we have an interesting debate.

I await your response.

Debate Round No. 1
edawg99

Pro

I thank my opponent for providing these definitions. I am still new to debate.org and hope to improve on clarifying my side of the argument.
America needs more socialism because the country is facing an economic crisis in which 99% of the country owns 1% of the wealth. With a more equal wealth distribution, poverty and homelessness would decrease, as well as the power of individual business owners. In order to improve the public ownership of capital, business owners and others who qualify as the 1% need to pay significantly higher taxes, including college taxes. With socialism, more government spending would help smart and capable individuals reach their full potential, so all Americans can bear the same natural rights preached by John Locke: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
bballcrook21

Con

Economic

Socialism, in any sense, has instituted an economic decline in every nation that it has been introduced in, so long as that nation was industrialized beforehand. In fact, the public ownership of the means of production is not only a moral quandary, as it justifies the usage of force against private owners so as to redistribute said property, but it also creates an economic debacle.

Monetary systems in Socialist nations favor fiat currency based upon the predilection that the current fiscal system cannot hold as the demand for money is very low, as heavy taxation burdens make money itself, as a tangible and perishable good, less useful than before.

Instead, the means of exchange shifts towards stock options in the case of the wealthy and affluent, and tradeable goods on the case of the non-wealthy, meaning the lower middle class to the working class. This would entail a distrust in the monetary system, which is not only self deprecating to the collective well being as well as the individual well being, but it also leads towards an economic spiral in which the end result shall be equality, in the strict sense, but the egalitarian society shall consist of destitute and remorseful people with little to no belongings.


In another sense, the fiscal system, which is every bit as important as the monetary system, will destroy itself much quicker. In fact, when the tax burden is so high as to stop the desire as well as the ability to create profit, so will the desire and ability to learn a trade or a certain set of skills that are pertinent to the creation of this wealth. This achieves a system in which the vast majority of skills and pedagogical abilities happen to arise from manual labor, meaning a vast number of laborers in the working class, rather than doctors, businessmen, financiers, economists, scientists, etc.


The reason for such arises from the lack of incentive, which is every bit a human fact as it is an economic one, as one ties into the other. When individuals lack the incentive to create wealth, they will no longer do so. Thus, the only “wealth”, in the monetary sense, that will be created, will arise from government fiat, which starts inflation. Nations such as Zimbabwe and Venezuela are perfect examples of corrupt, economically unsound nations with very poor monetary policy, as Venezuela is in economic and political disarray, while Zimbabwe tops 50% inflation per month.[1]




Philosophical

As this is an opener, I will steer clear from refuting my opponent’s argument and focus on writing one of my own.

Firstly, I would like to make the distinction between a negative and a positive right. A positive right is a right which creates a debt for your person, meaning you are owed some service or product as a result of the Constitution in that specific country. For example, a positive right to Life means that every person within your vicinity is required, by law, to protect your life and your well being with their own as you are entitled to such. It also means that they are required to pay vast sums of taxes to pay for and provide health care programs to whomever is owed such a right.

A negative right, on the other hand, is a right to be left alone. It’s a right that doesn’t impede on the rights of others, meaning my right to life as a negative will not impede on anyone else’s right to property or liberty, as they are not required to defend my life with theirs, nor are they required to pay for my health care and medical needs.

The vast distinction here is what created and influenced the founding fathers with the United States Constitution, which is based upon the predilection of negative rights, not positive. The right to life, liberty, and property in the U.S. Constitution is the right to not be killed, meaning it is illegal to murder, the right to purchase health care without the government stopping you, and the right to do as you please without impeding on the rights of others (meaning you cannot kill, steal, or harm in any such way), and lastly, the right to own property and the right to not have it taken from you by anyone, including the government. A positive system would mean that the right to life, liberty, and property, all place obligations on other citizens to provide for, meaning I am required, by law, to pay for your health care, food, housing, and other necessities, which is not only tyrannical but economically inefficient and unsound.

I await my opponent's response.

Source(s):
[1]http://www.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 2
edawg99

Pro

edawg99 forfeited this round.
bballcrook21

Con

Since he presented an opening argument, I will present a counter argument for it.

Contention 1:

America needs more socialism because the country is facing an economic crisis in which 99% of the country owns 1% of the wealth.


While it's generally true that the wealthiest few in the United States, as with other developed nations, happen to hold a considerably large amount of wealth, it's not the case of the 1% holding 99% of the wealth in this country. If that was the case, that would mean that roughly 300,000,000 people would have a share of 0.18 trillion, or 180 billion dollars total, which is also not the case.

In fact, sources [1] show that the income distribution is very low, roughly 26% of income going to the rich, and the net worth of the US that goes to the 1% happens to only be 35% of the GDP, not 99%. This statistic is not only a bunch of drivel with no basis, but it's also off by 64%, which is a large factor. I emplore my opponent to state facts, not sophistry.

Contention 2:


With a more equal wealth distribution, poverty and homelessness would decrease, as well as the power of individual business owners.

This argument, once again, is a false assumption, one that has been debunked by 40 years of data and evidence gathered from poverty rates in the United States in correlation with growing welfare spending.

The President that has spent the largest sum of money on anti-poverty programs happens to be Barack Obama, and under his presidency, the poverty rate has stayed the same.

According to this source[2], "In 2014, median household income was reported as $53,657—statistically the same as it was in 2013. The same stagnation held when it came to the poverty rate, with about 14.9 percent of Americans, or almost 47 million people, falling below the poverty threshold of about $24,000 for the year."

Another source [3], shows that poverty rates during the 90s started to fall, while they sharply rose back to 15% from the 11% in 2000. This was in course with the large social spending, which is generated through taxation systems, which thus impacts employers and those with the least skill most harshly.


Contention 3:

In order to improve the public ownership of capital, business owners and others who qualify as the 1% need to pay significantly higher taxes, including college taxes. With socialism, more government spending would help smart and capable individuals reach their full potential, so all Americans can bear the same natural rights preached by John Locke: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Not only is this factually inaccurate and hardly plausible, but it's also a misuse of Locke-ian principles as well as a profound lack of understanding of Classical liberalism and the philosophy behind such.

The rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, are by no means a right that you are owed from someone else. Governments are created to uphold these rights, which is the basis of our Constitution, but by no means are citizenry required to provide these rights to other members of the citizenry.

The right to Life does not mean you are owed anything, and neither does the right to property. These are rights that you are not allowed to impede upon, but not rights that you are forced to provide. In fact, here is an argument made by a the "Americans for Free Choice in Medicine" organization [4], which states that:

"The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to thepursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence."

Additionally, there is a direct correlation with economic output and the prices of products and services as well as the wages earned in relation to the amount of regulatory burdens placed upon those who create such opportunities. Taxing the rich is not a plausible plan for any form of nation, as they will simply move their wealth elsewhere or spend it all frivolously. Not only will this be detrimental to the economy, but it's also a breach of the right of property, in which you cannot be taxed heavily as a result of your personal success.


Conclusion:
My opponent has refused to show the respect that this platform requires in which he has decided to forfeit a debate that he himself created and I kindly accepted. I have written my counter-argument, but I see it inane to explain more any further.




Sources:
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com...

[2]http://www.theatlantic.com...
[3]http://www.statista.com...;
[4]http://www.afcm.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
edawg99

Pro

Unfortunately I must forfeit this debate due to personal conflict. I probably should've set the time for 72 hours. Maybe we can debate this some other time!
bballcrook21

Con

Extend. Just say the same for the next round so this debate can be over in a jiffy. We can come back to this in a week or so.
Debate Round No. 4
bballcrook21

Con

Extend. Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BrandonHyde 5 months ago
BrandonHyde
I can't believe these kinds of debates still exist, socialism has been disproven so many times.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: parkerwil// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con wins conduct due to Pro forfeit. Con wins spelling and grammar due to fewer grammar mistakes- both sides had little to no spelling errors. Con had more convincing arguments; Con backed up statements while Pro just made statements. Con used way more reliable sources.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the conceding side.
************************************************************************
Posted by bballcrook21 5 months ago
bballcrook21
I hope you are working on your argument rather than waiting it out to forfeit another round.
Posted by bballcrook21 5 months ago
bballcrook21
Are you going to post an argument?
Posted by bballcrook21 5 months ago
bballcrook21
Only 24 hours to respond? Good thing it's almost the weekend, otherwise I wouldn't have had time.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 5 months ago
famousdebater
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by parkerwil 5 months ago
parkerwil
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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: Con wins conduct due to Pro forfeit. Con wins spelling and grammar due to fewer grammar mistakes- both sides had little to no spelling errors. Con had more convincing arguments; Con backed up statements while Pro just made statements. Con used way more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by someloser 5 months ago
someloser
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Source vote goes to Con for using any. Pro essentially made no argument in favor of socialism, merely pointing to the existence wealth inequality, and asserting more socialism would help with other issues. On top of that, Pro's forfeits grant Con the debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 months ago
lannan13
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had forfeited the debate to Con.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 5 months ago
tajshar2k
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF plus Con used sources and provided an argument with more detail.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ffety ff
Vote Placed by Valladarex 5 months ago
Valladarex
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: forfeit
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 5 months ago
ThinkBig
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited