The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Capitalism (Pro) vs Socialism (Con)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,090 times Debate No: 101412
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




This round is acceptance
Round 2 is opening arguments
Round 3 is rebuttal
Round 4 is Closing arguments

I hope you accept :)


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.

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 government as a whole.

Efficiency: ability to avoid wasting materials, energy, efforts, money, and time in doing something or in producing a desired result.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.


I accept and look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Capitalism by comparison to socialism is a far better alternative for our society and our economy. In order to prove Capitalism's superiority over Socialism, I shall argue that Capitalism is efficient and has a moral superiority over Socialism. My first point is that Capitalism is very efficient in nearly everything that it does. Capitalism encourages rapid economic growth and almost always guarantees prosperity for its citizens.

If you are to look at the economies of many socialist countries, you will see a rapidly increasing unemployment rate and a rapid decrease in GDP spending. The USSR and the former Soviet-bloc is a good example of which socialism has never worked in history. These socialist philosophies have been tried over many time periods in history of which it all ended in failure. Early colonization of the Americas attempted to introduce such concepts like collective property, this simply led to a refusal of work and a return to capitalistic policies. "My opponent might disregard the USSR as not "socialist" but even then, there is a clear contrast between the economies of socialist and capitalist societies. Many supporters of socialism use the Nordic countries as an example of a "successful" socialist system, however this is simply not the case. While socialism did improve the economy of the Nordic countries, it's quick burst quickly wore out and it's economy has gradually fallen. Socialism in Nordic countries: (

Many socialist countries are even electing right-wing leaders on economic policies and many nations such as France and the UK are moving away from Socialism.
Europe abandoning socialism: (,,

In fact many European countries are relaxing regulations, taxes and are slowly readopting capitalistic policies. Meanwhile, America's economy and GDP has continued to rise and is currently at a record high with a massive growth in small businesses and jobs.
USA economy: (

The falling unemployment rate and rising GDP required little governmental interference because Capitalism ensures that the most efficient solution will be used in any problem. Capitalism is motivated by profit and unintentionally improves the well being of a population. Socialism is motivated by "equality" and may attempt to force certain business to use ineffective policies which decreases profit. Without profit, businesses in socialist societies can"t grow or prosper and without any economic growth, the population's spending will decrease leading into a further decrease in profit. However, Capitalism will always find the most effective and efficient policies to maximize profits, this will lead to an increase in economic growth and will lead to an increase in the market. A larger market will result in a improved society as everyone will have an increase in income and spending.

My opponent might attempt to justify this inefficiency with the popular phrase "Socialism is an amazing concept if, only it worked" or "It might not be very inefficient, but it is fair!". I will explain why that is not the case and why Capitalism is a far better alternative using the argument of morality. First of all: WHAT gives the government have the moral right and obligation to steal from people? Voting to steal people, no matter how democratic, does not justify the act of stealing from people, for instance if there was a room with me, you and a buddy of mine, we can't just vote to beat you up and take your wallet. Socialism only cares about one thing and that is equality of outcome and has this false ideology about how inequity=inequality. Their way of thinking is that if there is two people and Person A has $2 while Person B has $5, then Person B "must have taken advantage/ stolen money from Person A. They do not consider the variables such as employment or work ethic. All they look at is just the outcome with no regard to the individual's previous actions that might have led to his current state today. The reason why I am not as rich as Bill Gates currently is because, I have not graduated High School yet and don't even have a job. But in the twisted perspective of socialism, all they see is my income and how rich Bill Gates is. "Life is about cause and effect, if you don't work then you won"t have money, if you work longer then you earn more money. Socialists however, don't believe in free will and is willing to trust the government with everything in our lives. Government is made up of normal people and the government does not have a moral superiority and obligation to rule over our lives.
How Socialists view income inequality: (

Socialism does not think about how to improve the lives of the poor but concerns itself with how to make the rich more poor. Putting a bunch of regulations on Microsoft may reduce Bill Gates wealth but, it won"t help the poor. The reason why people are poor are because some are simply not good with money, that is why many lottery winners turn poor again.
Evidence: (

Throwing money at people will not improve their life and is a complete waste of tax dollars. Socialism is forcing people at gunpoint to give up large sums of their income to the government. The government in socialism steals labor from people for what? Equality? Fairness? Justice? How is this different from slavery or holding people at gunpoint at night demanding for money?

Capitalism on the other hand is forced altruism. If Person A does not give Person B something cool, then Person A is not going to get something cool in return. This is forced cooperation between the company and the consumer. If a certain company is doing something immoral then it would detract consumers which leads to a decrease in profits. Competition among companies results in an increased cooperation with consumers. Each business will attempt to "one-up another" such as providing better wages or better prices and services. These all lead to an improving economy and with an increased amount of money, this will lead to better living standards for all people. Capitalism can easily acquire the goals of socialism with little to no governmental regulations. It does not require stealing from anyone and is completely motivated by free will of which fuels a society's well-being.
Evidence: (


I will be advocating for democratic socialism, which to me, is half capitalism and half socialism.
Opening arguments:
Democratic socialism is by far a more effective form of an economical government. It is not really exercised greatly in this world, but considering how young politics is and how bad the world is, this would likely be a good thing. says

Capitalism encourages greed. But greed is only good for capitalists. For normal people it is anti-social and soul destroying, not to mention very bad for our communities, which rely on altruism, compassion and a generalized concern for others.
Capitalism is a system of minority privilege and class rule based on the private ownership of means of livelihood. This gives a few rich people the power to buy and sell jobs, which means they can build or destroy entire communities that depend on those jobs.
Capitalists praise freedom and individualism, but they destroy freedom and individualism for everyone but themselves. The vast majority of us who work for a living are daily asked to uncritically follow orders.
Capitalism requires the largest propaganda system the world has ever known to convince us it is the only system possible. It turns people into consumers through advertising, marketing, entertainment and even so-called news. Millions around the world are employed to use their creativity to twist our feelings of love, desire, human solidarity and fairness into tools of manipulation, so that ever more profits can flow into the hands of a tiny minority.
Capitalism is a system in which the principle of one dollar, one vote, dominates that of one person, one vote. Those who own the most shares (bought with their dollars, who were often born rich) control giant corporations, many of which are more powerful than all but a few governments. Rich people also use their money to dominate the elections that are supposed to give us all one, equal vote. Under capitalism those with the most money are entitled to the most goods and services as well as the most say in directing our governments and our economy.
Capitalism proclaims the virtue of naked self-interest, but self-interest without regard for morality, ecology or common sense leads to environmental degradation, destruction of indigenous communities, colonialism, war and other forms of mass destruction. Self-interest leads capitalists to seek profit absolutely everywhere, regardless of the damage done to other people and the health of the planet"s ecosystem.
Capitalists make profits from global warming, from destroying our oceans, from pumping ever more chemicals into the atmosphere and from patenting everything they can, including life itself. Only by getting rid of capitalism can we rescue our environment.

Of course, capitalism is good in that it allows you to make profit however you choose, but this gives people advantages that they can often be born into, and many other things making the system unfair.

Bernie Sanders on explained what democratic socialism is and why he follows that belief system/ idealogy. What dem. socialism is about is saying it is immoral and wrong that the top .1 percent own almost as much as the bottom 90 percent. 57% of all new income is going to the top 1%.

Here are my rebuttals to your claims:

Actually, according to, Norway"s unemployment rate is 4.8 (synonymous with the US). Denmark"s is an average of 5, and Iceland"s is 3! So these trend lines are decreasing.
What do you mean by GDP spending? You seem to fail to realize that the GDPs of all these nations are increasing. Thus, the economies of these Scandinavian countries are not really falling. France and the UK were never socialist anyway, so they have almost always elected conservative leaders. Sweden has a GDP growth of 1.5%, but the US is 2.2. However, this can likely be attributed to the US population growth. Socialism has different types and is different from communism, which you do not seem to get.

This is not stealing- it is merely changing the incomes. How can you steal what isn"t there (yet)? That"s like stealing an apple from yourself which you will buy tomorrow!

Actually, you can beat me up and take my wallet- only the law stops you. A capitalist in that non literal situation would take the money for profit- a democratic socialist would leave it as is. As for the person thing with $5 and $2, it is not stealing if they didn"t steal. But when companies steal money through scams and tax evasion, that is stealing and wrong.

Socialism has nothing to do with guns, by the way. If Person A does not give Person B something cool, then Person A is not going to get something cool in return works with democratic socialism too.

So, democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system (

And, on, they describe how the Democratic Socialists of America has at times endorsed electoral candidates, notably including Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama.

Thus, socialism in a democratic term is where I stand.
Debate Round No. 2


The countries that currently have democratic socialists as their governing party are the Philippines, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Greece, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Portugal, and Armenia. Please tell me which of these "powerful" and "wealthy" countries have the strong and effective economy of which you claim that comes with Democratic socialism. The nation of Bolivia has a poverty rate of 45%, GDP of only 33 billion and has an average income per person is $6746 so, please tell me where their large and booming economies are.

Capitalism does not encourage greed, but provides incentives and motivation. Greed causes the act of attacking and taking what belongs to others. Capitalism on the other hand drives emulation and encourages individuals to surpass others. This constant cycle of innovation and emulation to surpass another, grows civilization and society. Capitalism is forced altruism which betters society and can lead to greater acts of compassion, as more people have jobs and have more time to help others. That is why countries like the USA donates more money than poor countries like Vietnam. Capitalism is not just a system of minority privilege but rather helps the whole society.

A society"s success requires a functional economy and capitalism does just that. With the free market, more companies can form and grow much more quickly. If you have a job, it is all because of private businesses and their successes that democratic socialism can not recreate. All businesses need people such as capitalists to attempt to create an innovation. Creating innovations that benefit society need incentives and Democratic Socialism does not provide this incentive. The vaccine to polio that saved many lives was created and funded by private institutions and businesses. The government had little help in this innovation. Capitalism does allow the existence of rich and wealthy elites but, that is nothing new. ALL economic systems result in a certain group of rich echelons that can easily create/destroy jobs. Even fully socialist nations such as Vietnam, Cuba, China and the USSR had wealthy echelons of society.

Capitalism helps the working class since the wealthy elites are allowed to make more businesses by providing incentives. This increase in business leads to an increase in jobs, therefore billionaires aren"t the only people that gain from this system. While lots of people will just be working for these innovators of society, it is important to note that you are working. Jobs are not just created from thin air. As for your absurd claim, that capitalism allows corruption and bribery in elections is laughable. If, anyone has government and private corporations together, it is not capitalism but socialism. You have provided no evidence to back up your claims and even if the wealthy can fully control elections, what can we do? How can Democratic Socialism solve this problem? Why would Democratic Socialist governments and elections be so impervious to corruption?

You make a completely unjustified claim but you provide no solution to your made-up problem. I have addressed several problems with Democratic Socialism and I provide solutions but where is your solution? That"s like me going to a doctor and all the doctor can say is that I have the flu then go on a tangent about me having the flu. When I go to a doctor, I expect a solution to my problems. Capitalism does have a sense of individualism, but one must remember of it"s benefits due to it"s forced altruism. Individualism is not evil in any way and it might be beneficial as it drives a need to better oneself.

My opponent goes on to bring up environmental degradation, destruction of indigenous communities, colonialism, war and other forms of mass destruction. Environmental degradation is questionable and many statistics regarding human"s effect on the environment or global warming is questionable and no one really know how much is really "our" fault. In fact Capitalism might actually help the environment in some ways. If, you wish to talk about the environment, I would be glad to do so in another debate but this is a Capitalism vs Socialism debate regarding morality and efficiency.

As for the destruction of indigenous communities, colonialism, war and other forms of mass destruction, THESE were all sponsored by government and further discredits your argument about needing more government to ensure equality in countries.

My opponent then goes on and states that the top 0.1% has the same wealth as the bottom 90%. My opponent does not address as to why it is an issue and I have already stated in the last round about why income inequality exists and how it differs from inequity. It has nothing to do with people rigging the system but everything to do with cause and effect. First of all, the democratic socialist parties are not currently in power in the Nordic countries. Secondly the UK is relatively socialist with their labor party (35% of seats) which supports many of your democratic socialist views. The UK"s labor party was in power for several years but we have seen a decrease in popularity, not because UK citizens have suddenly become Capitalist pigs but have seen the inefficiencies of democratic socialism.

You then attempt to claim that the only reason why the USA"s economy is faring better than the Nordic countries is because of it"s population growth. However, I decided to do some mathematics and concluded that population growth is not the main reason for it"s growth. (USA GDP growth to pop. growth (2.2:0.81) or 2.71604938 is still higher than Sweden GDP to population growth(1.5:0.7) or 2.14285714). I have never attempted to claim that all Socialism is identical, I am only arguing that all instances of Socialism simply fall short in comparison to Capitalist nations. The Socialist government does steal from people as it uses compulsory force to take your income from workers. Denmark tax rate per individual can be 51.95%, Norway is 46.9%, Sweden is 59.7%. The USA"s tax rate on the other hand is 39.6% and Hong Kong is only 15% .

My opponent states this regarding my point to how Socialism steals labor and money due to wealth redistribution: "This is not stealing- it is merely changing the incomes".
In order to change people"s income without massive inflation is by forced wealth redistribution. You are to take away money earned by others. You just advocated the textbook definition of communism.

As for my analogy about how me and my friend vote to beat you up and steal your money, you have completely misunderstood the whole thing. I was saying about no matter how democratic your acts of stealing and violence is, it still does not justify the act. Socialism has everything to do with guns because it is about government and how it should have a role in people"s lives. When governments pass laws and bills, they must enforce them through governmental agencies. The government puts people at gunpoint at force them to follow the law as this is how societies and countries operate. While social ownership of the means of production might seem nice to you, just remember who has to enforce these regulations and this economic system.

My opponent then goes on and talks about how the Democratic Socialists of America has at times endorsed electoral candidates, notably including Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama. It is also worth noting how the Obama administration amassed $4.939T of debt and has barely created 269,319 jobs in a country with 318.86 million people. AND Bernie Sander has hardly created any jobs. On the other hand, capitalists like Ronald Reagan have created economic miracles and have seen many of their policies renew and strengthen our economy and job market. We see unemployment rates plummet and income wages rise for EVERYONE. We simply don"t need socialism.


The emphasis is on the currently there. The general political morale of far more happy and peaceful countries according to and leans slightly democratic socialist. They must be doing something right! Plus a lot of these countries have new officials and might be doing good for the economy (which is still bade regardless).

Let"s talk about GDP. The GDP per capita (PPP) of Norway, often called a socialist nation, is much higher than the US. The same can be said of Ireland.

If capitalism helps the whole society, then why is there massive income and wealth inequality for people who work long hours. These individuals put more effort in their jobs than those that were just born rich.
Be careful with a free market- too free of one can take jobs away. You seem to think I want to send all capitalists to camps, but this is not the case. I think, for a democratic socialist society, these people are beneficial and crucial. Mixed opinions, after all, are what make it DEMOCRATIC socialism.

Capitalism allows for massive inequality so that your vote does not matter, as the elites and establishment pick, not the people (Electoral College). Party leaders (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) can be biased in favor of the establishment candidate, and super PACs allow the 1% to contribute unfairly and disproportionately.

Democratic socialism solves that problem by not letting the party leader be related to or clearly biased for a candidate. It lets your vote count, and removes proportional voting. It lets your contributions, not super PACs affect the presidential race outcome, whereas with capitalism it is predetermined.

Collectivism ought to be preferred to individualism, as we can accomplish more together, as we will have and be on a more relatable basis with each other. Socialism is where we work together to solve the problems and can each contribute, but capitalism allows bias and corruption so a handful of people profit from pollution.
The problems were sponsored by *capitalist* governments.

Or maybe the UK thing is because Theresa May got elected and, oh yeah, Brexit happened. It is an issue as it allows people to buy the majority through ads and products. This means a few thousand people can control most of everything.

The governments don"t steal as it goes toward things the people like- single payer healthcare, and more.
This is why these countries are happier and more peaceful. Plus, 2 "socialist" countries have higher GDPs per capita than the US! So population does matter, 50% of the time.

Disagreeing is not advocating for. I don"t support massive wealth redistribution, but I do not think it is outright STEALING. Also, never mentions redistribution.

There was a recession due to Bush right at the beginning of Obama, inhibiting his economic ability. But the issue was well handled and is fixed now! George Bush according to added 5.849 trillion to the debt! He only added less than 1400 jobs! The reason Bernie did not create any jobs is because he was never President!!! Reagan had a 186% increase in debt, although he did add 16000 jobs.

So, democratic socialism is quite a necessity.
Debate Round No. 3


Democratic Socialism"s correlation with a country"s morale is virtually nonexistent. The situation between the Nordic countries and the rest of the world is very different. The Nordic countries are countries with the most homogeneous population with a CAPITALIST country paying for their entire defense budget. An important part of the answer is that members of small, homogeneous societies are much more willing to bear the burden of supporting their fellow citizens than members of large, diverse ones. I have listed all the countries with Democratic Socialists as their current governing party. You have not addressed the obviously "large", "massive" and "growing" economies such as the Philippines, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Greece, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Portugal, and Armenia that I have mentioned in the previous round.

My opponent then goes on and handpicks the socialist country of Norway and how it has a higher gdp per capita. I have also decided to handpick the capitalist country of Switzerland to counter his example.
United States " GDP per capita (current US$) $56,115.72 USD (2015)
Sweden " GDP per capita (current US$) $50,579.67 USD (2015)
Switzerland " GDP per capita (current US$) $80,945.08 USD (2015)
Norway " GDP per capita (current US$) $74,400.37 USD (2015)

My opponent then goes on about how there is massive income and wealth inequality for people who work long hours. There are two main problems with this point. Income is determined by your line of work and level of production in society. There is a reason why hobos do not earn billions of dollars and a reason why Bill Gates does not earn minimum wage. Capitalism helps everyone in society but just helps some people more than others. Some people in a capitalist society will become very efficient workers and will earn a reasonably high income but some people may become successful entrepreneurs and earn much more. Capitalism rewards risk and provides a strong incentive for everyone. No one just finds all this money, life is about cause and effect and people like you can"t just ignore half of the story. Hard work will get you far in life but ingenuity simply gets you much farther. The low-income families in the USA are living infinitely better lives than the people in DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST Bolivia for this reason.

I am not arguing that Capitalism is perfect in every sense but, it is simply the best economic system that we have today. The second problem is that you treat inequality and inequity as the same thing. Why is income inequality bad and what point would you consider the gap to be beneficial to society. If you argue for no gap, then that is not Democratic Socialism but COMMUNISM. If you do argue for a gap, then you are completely destroying your entire argument.

Inequality will always be in life because no one is born identical with identical environmental parameters. I am 5"10 so, I will likely never be able to play pro-basketball. Everyone is born differently and in different situations and there will always be a gap despite the government"s interference. We can see the USSR"s solution to the problem in order to close such a gap is by making everyone poor. Democratic Socialism is terrible as it"s regulations and high tax rates against entrepreneurs and wealthy people will discourage any economic growth. My opponent forgets that while most jobs are filled up by the working class, it is the capitalists that make them. Capitalists simply can"t improve society with the government "changing their incomes".

The recent election of 2016 completely destroys your entire argument. "The elites and establishment pick, not the people (Electoral College). Party leaders (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) can be biased in favor of the establishment candidate, and super PACs allow the 1% to contribute unfairly and disproportionately.". We have seen nearly every major news network, politicians, Party leaders and wealthy elites endorsing everyone BUT Donald Trump. Trump is hated by the establishment Republicans and Democrats but still managed to come out on top because our political system is still controlled by the people. Capitalism is about the individual unlike the hive-mindset behind Socialism. While money does a play in part in elections it is worth noting that Hillary Clinton spent 1.4 Billion dollars while the victorious Donald Trump only spent 957.6 Million dollars. This is clear proof that money is not the deciding force behind democratic elections despite being in a capitalist society. We don"t need Socialism to prevent your absurd claim of governmental corruption.

My opponent then goes on how Collectivism ought to be preferred to individualism. Obviously, he has never heard of history and how Collectivism never works. The Purges (1.2 million), Soviet caused famine in Volga (5 million), Great Leap Forward (600 million) were all caused in the name of collectivization. You constantly make unproven claims against Capitalism but where is your solution? How can Democratic Socialism prevent this? You have proven no points about how Democratic Socialism can help alleviate these "symptoms".

My opponent then goes on and tries to link pollution and Capitalism again for some reason? ("capitalism allows bias and corruption so a handful of people profit from pollution")

My opponent goes on to explain why the UK is currently no longer socialist but does not recognize that it actually helps reinforce my argument. The UK is abandoning Democratic Socialism despite decades of implementation. We see many other European countries starting to elect more conservative leaders this past decade for a reason. SOCIALISM IS FAILING!!! If your claims about the supposed "wonders" of Democratic Socialism are factually correct then, we would not have seen Brexit and we would not see all these conservative leaders gaining control.

Taxation is coercion whether you like it or not and people simply don"t like paying 60% of their income to the government. Sure, many socialist countries "provide" free healthcare but, it simply isn"t effective without any incentive for any people to become healthcare workers. That is why we see many Canadians going to USA"s hospitals when they need a medical procedure done.

"2 socialist countries have higher GDPs per capita than the US"
Sir, there are at least 50 current pseudo-Democratic socialist countries in the world. Having just two countries that barely beat the USA in terms of GDP per capita is downright pitiful.

You then go on to bring up Bush in order to justify Obama"s idiotic economic policies. Bush is a crony-capitalist and has little to do with a free market. In fact, Bush is more of a Democratic socialist if anything. He believed in governmental interference and regulations to help the economy. That is very un-capitalist like thinking. Bernie Sanders despite being the Senator for Vermont never really increased jobs. While Reagan did increase debt, he did provide a massive increase in jobs and boosted the economy. Obama"s debt is more than EVERY SINGLE OTHER US PRESIDENT COMBINED with a pitiful increase in the economy and jobs!

democratic socialism is not a necessity but a damaging force which hinders growth.



You know- all those SA countries you mentioned have had electioneering Murica intervened with, or have a refugee crisis. So what if Switzerland has a high GDP per capita? It is still higher than ours. Would you consider someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth a hard worker? NO. And most of the time it punishes risk.

What is so bad about communism?

Hogher tax rates for weathly people give more money. If our system was controlled by the people, why do we have the electoral college? Also, Trump IS the establishment. Actually, America voted for Hillary.

Imagine world war 2- if it was just the US fighting the Axis, we probably would have lost. but working together we are stronger.i can already tell you are a conservative.

What does Brexit have to do with the EU? 60% is too much and m
Ore than most countries in my opinion. Canada, no its because Murica is richer.

Name. Capitalist country that beats Norway or a Ireland. Baka debut is not true and Bernie is not president so he can't really do too much. Are you calling a bush a socialist? How conservative are you?
Sorry about the short argument- I wanted to get this in on time- pleasure debating, mate.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
I read it. Good job pro. I would force myself to vote on this but it looks like you will win and jonbobon has given you a similar RFD to what I would.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 11 months ago
I can't read all of this right now-
Posted by Jammie 11 months ago
My man qwzx has watched some Ben Shapiro
Posted by carloandreaguilar 11 months ago
I live in Peru, we are NOT democratically socialist. Not at all. There is a party that stands for that, but it is not in power. And it hasnt been in a long time. We are capitalist.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
By the way, I was considering awarding pro the debate because con didn't argue in favor of democratic socialism: they argued for social democracy. Democratic socialism isn't some middle ground between capitalism and socialism, it's not a mixture of the two. Democratic socialism is 100% socialism. Bernie Sanders called himself a democratic socialist by mistake. Social democracy is the mixture of socialism and capitalism.

However, I can't vote based off of that because that would be making my own arguments in this. Had pro made that argument that con didn't even argue for democratic socialism, I would have given them arguments hands down.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Also, if you want to try to convince me why I should award points to you, I suggest doing it through messages. I won't get any notifications if you post comments on this debate
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Pro wanted me to vote on this, but I personally think it is a tie, as I didn't find either side convincing. I'd be willing to vote if one of you think otherwise and can convince me why your argument was better than the other person's. That's why I'm not voting. If I voted and made it a tie, I wouldn't be able to change my vote. This way, I can still vote if one of you can convince me you won.
Posted by qwzx 11 months ago
"Are you calling a bush a socialist? How conservative are you?"

You do understand that almost no conservative libertarians support Bush right?

I am not going to give a rebuttal as the debate is over but just wanted to answer your personal question against me.
Posted by qwzx 11 months ago
Even then my argument still stands...
"The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment."-

The countries of which I cited such as the Nordic countries are Democratic socialist. I don't see why you specifically made this point. I am arguing that government should have little to no interference in the economy, healthcare, etc. while you are arguing for socialism. I have already provided the definition on the first round of the debate. Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. It is also worth noting that they clearly state that the way to achieve this is through governmental compulsion.
Posted by byaka2013 11 months ago
I will be advocating for democratic socialism, which IS different than regular socialism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD at this link: