America with the Socioeconomic choice of Communism
Debate Rounds (3)
* Health care
For one, the typical impoverished individual fails to pay for health insurance which leads to their arrest due to the already socialistic policy that is Obamacare. Communism, allows all individuals from each social class to enjoy the luxury of free health care which is something that we lack inside the United States of America. To give you a general idea of how many people fail to pay for this ridiculous bill I will use the following information from CNN.com. "About 13.4 percent of U.S. adults lacked health insurance in April." that 13.4 may not seem like a lot at first, but once we do the math the reality of it is startling and disturbing 4177952 individuals failed to pay for their health insurance making this tragic and unacceptable, we shouldn't deny an individual health care based on their financial situation, we should be acting as one large unit and we should support each other no matter what the cost.
Education in a nation is a sign of a nations maturity. In a civilized country a large portion of individuals educated will often appear to be superior in the eyes of countries that can't quite afford to fund the proper education needed for success. Our country is quite the opposite. We are more revered for our advanced technology (that doesn't seem that advanced to other countries anymore.) and our once great military that will eventually be dwarfed in comparison to our rivals. So if you look at it in that light we are so great anymore. In fact, 14 percent of the United States population can't read according to an article from the Huffington post. That really indeed does emphasize the idea that this nation is falling behind not only in most fields, but in the educational tier as well. This brings me to my main point, a large percentile of those people were subjugated to that due the fact that the United States educational program is flawed. It's flawed in the sense that an individual from a higher income area of the country gets a quite adequate education, but whenever we head into some of the poorer districts of the country we will find that the success rate for these individuals are much lower then that of the ones who have money. Not only is that a problem, but some individuals in general don't even have the means to get a proper education in modern day America. This is solved with communism it simply allows each and every individual to have the same opportunities for education and it eliminates any unusual outliers among educational institutions.
* Equality among all individuals.
Communism benefits all in the sense that it disallows any jobs from paying more then others which allows those who want to get there dream job to get a sense of enjoyment out of the job solely because they enjoy it. No longer would we see the under privileged cry and beg others for help. Money would be distributed in such a way that allows all people to enjoy the same luxuries as everyone else. Eliminating the higher class and the lower class and just creating one solid beautiful proletariat class.
* Concerns may be eliminated
Now, just to eliminate any ad nauseam about how corruption is rampant in communists countries and how it's impossible to have a stable, happy country while running a communist social economic system. One would say that the megalomanical men in charge would be given an absurd amount of power and that they could simply abuse it and turn the country into a corrupt power hungry totalitarian government with one thing on it's mind: Luxury for its ruler. My suggestion to avoid this would to allow any non-conflicting amendments to still be in effect (such as the right to bare arms) just in case if the time comes for the great American people to do what their founding fore-fathers designed for us once they created the constitution (rebellions). The ruling class would simply be corrected automatically should they be delusional enough to only benefit their own selfish needs.
These are my main arguments for the communist agenda and I have many reasons why we should invest into a red future, a bright future, but I will save that information for my respected opponent to see.
Normally I would ask for clarification in the comments when unclear about an instigators position. I'm going to take a bit of risk here and do that in round 1. This should be interesting since it's only a 3 round debate.
I'm unclear on what your definition of communism is. It sounds like your actually defending socialism. I'll provide the following reference as a source of reviewing Pros resolution:
I'd argue that communism has never been implemented in reality. I'm ok with Pro arguing either communism or socialism. However, without a clear resolution defined by round 2, I would be put in a bind since it's inappropriate for me to bring new arguments in round 3. I'd ask voters to consider this.
With that out of the way, I'll ask a few clarifying questions. These are all based on the link given above.
Is distribution of resources to the population based only on needs, or is it possible for someone to earn more based on their contribution?
Is there any form of profit available to be earned, or is this all placed in the common pool for distribution?
Does the philosophy depend on the idea of super-abundance brought be advanced technology?
Is there any private property?
Are free markets allowed? Is there actual buying and selling of goods?
Is there money? (Pro says yes in round 1 but I'm asking for confirmation because communism is typically described as being moneyless)
Is 100% of the economy centrally planned?
Pro's position seems to depend on some kind of super-abundance of goods. Pro's arguments appear to ignore the fact than humans have infinite wants while resources are limited. This is the ultimate challenge of any economic system. Capitalism, through it's system of supply and demand and market prices has shown success in accomplishing this. Communist (or rather socialist) countries have failed at this empirically.
If this was simply a matter of making it free, politicians would have done this long ago. There are two issues: the first is that nothing is really free. Even if communism could be implemented, labor must be brought to bear in order to produce goods. Commodities, which are in limited supply, must be dug out of the ground. While money might not exchange hands, resources are still consumed. "Free" is just a way of hiding this and has the result of over-consumption.
The same issues regarding education being free apply as in health care. In addition, Pro seems to take the position that, if education were free, there would be no illiteracy. However, in the United States, primary and secondary education is already "free". Pro will argue that the poor get a poor education, but this assume too much: for one thing, it places the fault completely on teachers and assumes students bear none of this fault. Second, it assumes an abundance of super-human teachers able to overcome students who show no real desire to learn.
Classless, equal society
Humans have not shown they are capable of such a thing, except on a very small level and for a short time duration. There are many examples in history at attempts to do this and all have failed. I'd ask Pro to show us an example where this has not been the case.
Pro says that maintaining the right to keep and bear arms would keep totalitarianism in check. This has been shown to be empirically false. Pro's form of communism will necessitate centralized control of the economy. This centralized control also carries with it centralized enforcement of law. Governments thru out history have used this power to remove the right to bear arms and simply confiscate guns by military force, regardless of the constitution. Even democratic governments like Britain, who have a long history of the right to keep and bear arms, currently have vast restrictions on gun ownership.
Xenocrates forfeited this round.
extend all arguments.
Xenocrates forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Godridden95 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con when they claimed that Pro was speaking of Socialism instead of Communism. The principles of Socialism already exist within the United States anyway. However, we are not straight socialist, we are more Social Conservative. Con had better conduct and Pro essentially conceded defeat because of their absence of retaliation to Con's contention.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.