The Instigator
BicoulourOcean94
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kyleflanagan97
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Capitalism Vs. Socalism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 91325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

BicoulourOcean94

Pro

Capitalism is better than Socialism in many ways. First and foremost Capitalism gives power to the people and Socialism gives power to the Government. I hate the Idea of people living in poverty and going to bed hungry. Socialism is not the answer to these problems. The distribution of wealth does not work, it rewards people for minimum amounts of work, eventually you will run out of other people's money to use. Capitalism rewards the people for working hard. I like to think of these two ideals as a piece of pie in Socialism people believe that they are only allotted a certain piece of the pie. However they are unaware that Capitalism allows the pie to grow so everyone gets more of the pie. Another analogy is a simple classroom analogy representing Socialism The professor said that all grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings as no one would study any longer for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because under capitalism when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when the government levels the playing field and takes more of reward away; no one will try or want to succeed as much as before.
kyleflanagan97

Con

What you have to remember is that any time that you see a socialist movement come forward, it is because the government has had to step in because the capitalist market has not worked. If you look at how the United States was run, especially in the industrial revolution it becomes evident why these so called socialist programs came to be. Capitalism has never succeeded without great loss in human rights. When people talk about how the economy was booming in this country in the 1800's and 1900's, you have to consider that the millions and billions did not go to everyday people, it was going to the Vanderbilt's and Rockefeller's. I would say that there has never been a successful Capitalist state. Think of it like this, John Doe is born in Northern California to an upper middle class, he is encouraged to attend class everyday by his 2 parents living in the same house, he goes to college and graduates debt free. He gets an desk job at a private firm in Los Angeles and begins his life, this cycle repeats for this family for generations. Now you have Jane Doe, she is the child of a run away father, mom is working hourly at your local restaurant, no one tells Jane to go to school, no encouragement, she has no insurance so when she gets sick she just stays at home and does not get any better. She gets pregnant at 16, just like her mother did, and so she drops out of high school to raise her baby. Her mother is fortunate enough to get Jane a job at the same restaurant, no college, no desk job. This cycle also repeats. What you have hear is a world of no programs. It is not true that these so called "handouts" lead to laziness. They are just to support someone until they can support themselves. Now we have many socialist programs in effect in this country, and that means that Jane's child has a chance, a chance to go to the doctor, get help by going to college. And Jane gets the help she needs to take care of her daughter through other welfare programs. It is also not true that a persons drive to work goes down when they are taxed more for it. Are you saying that a person would rather make $55K a year so that they pay less in taxes than make $250K per year. The idea that higher taxes stunt the american dream is also false. People will always want to make more.
Debate Round No. 1
BicoulourOcean94

Pro

1. What you have to remember is that any time that you see a socialist movement come forward, it is because the government has had to step in because the capitalist market has not worked.

~When a government steps in it is because it wants power, and under socialism it gets the power that it wants.

2. Think of it like this, John Doe is born in Northern California to an upper middle class, he is encouraged to attend class everyday by his 2 parents living in the same house, he goes to college and graduates debt free. He gets an desk job at a private firm in Los Angeles and begins his life, this cycle repeats for this family for generations. Now you have Jane Doe, she is the child of a runaway father, mom is working hourly at your local restaurant, no one tells Jane to go to school, no encouragement, she has no insurance so when she gets sick she just stays at home and does not get any better. She gets pregnant at 16, just like her mother did, and so she drops out of high school to raise her baby. Her mother is fortunate enough to get Jane a job at the same restaurant, no college, no desk job. This cycle also repeats.

~Yes there is inequality in this world and some people get rougher starts than others and that is truly sad to me. The problem with the story is that under socialism is that people like Jane fall back and rely on the welfare program and although they might not abuse it many people do. Under Capitalism Jane would be rewarded for working hard. My father grew up in a poor family but he worked hard and didn't rely on welfare. With his hard work he was able to provide a good life for me to live. When people work that hard, does it seem fair for the government to give to the people that don't work as hard. It goes back to the analogy that I used earlier about the grades if some don't try hard but they get a good grade because of other peoples hard work more people stop working hard. With people like Jane in the story if they put a little bit of effort into trying to work and start a good life they would most likely succeed. In the story with jane it seems like she wants the welfare to provide for her. If she didn't go and get pregnant at 16 and she did her best to educate herself she wouldn't have to rely on the welfare system as much. I don't mind paying taxes for welfare but i think that there should be more limitations on it I don't mind paying for people with physical and mental disabilities that's great. I fell that with people like Jane in your story we should give them a small amount to get them back on their feet but don't continue to just give them money because if you do that they will never have drive to do anything or try hard.

Please don't see me as a heartless person I don't mind helping people get back onto their feet, that's what america is but when you continue to just give them money it ends up failing.
kyleflanagan97

Con

It's a common misconception that their is widespread abuse of welfare program, the idea that they use all their money for drugs is totally false. In a sample of Florida members of welfare programs it was found only 2.6% came back as failing the drug test. It is common of Republicans to make a huge issue out of something that there is no real problem, no system is perfect. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but the entire system is working. How is Jane rewarded under a capitalist society? She has no money, and their is no government programs to help her. She will never be able to go to school which is required for any decent paying job, you are suppressing to be in the lower class her entire life, while socialism can help lift her into the middle class.
Debate Round No. 2
BicoulourOcean94

Pro

First off let me say i never said anything about drugs so your point there is invalid. Jane would be rewarded under capitalism if she tried hard and used common sense and didn't get pregnant at 16. If she waited until she found a job found a reasonably stable job she could educate herself because there are tons of ways that you can do that. then she could raise a family. All i am saying is that under socialism, Jane here will have no push to educate herself and raise a family properly, and her kid will probably end up just like her. If Jane was smart she would have done what my father did. she would have worked hard to educate herself and try and find a job. My dad grew up poor and his parents were always at work but he found a way. From your story it sounds like jane is lazy and wants to rely on the welfare system.
kyleflanagan97

Con

My point is not invalid, because it is impossible to reject the presence of drugs in the areas where Jane would be living. And again I say it is a myth that welfare programs make people lazy, and it does not kill her drive to be successful. And it's not fair to call people who are less fortunate than your father lazy. While your father's story is truly inspiring, it is not the common story in society and it's not fair to say that if your dad can do it anyone can. And while yes a smart person doesn't get pregnant at 16, it is a fact of our society, it happens and we have to deal with. And saying that she should've not gotten pregnant does not fix the problem that she already is. And if there are not socialist programs that help her to raise a child there is no way she will ever have the time or money to go back to school and get a good job. Because yes there are ways to get an education outside of the primary youth k-12 program, but after that it is not free and it often happens at night. So if Jane works all day and gets her kid from school she cannot leave at night to go to class unless she can have someone watch her child, which she cannot afford because she is making minimum wage at $7.25, an amount that could be lower if the socialist program known as the minimum wage was not enacted. These businesses that only offer minimum wage to their employees prove that trickle down economics do not work, and they never have. These companies that pay minimum wage are not struggling to get by, their CEO's are still banking in millions. Walmart, which is the largest employer of low wage employees, their CEO made $35 Million dollars last year.
Debate Round No. 3
BicoulourOcean94

Pro

BicoulourOcean94 forfeited this round.
kyleflanagan97

Con

Since my opponent forfeited this round I really have no new point to make here since I would use this round to rebuttal their points.
Debate Round No. 4
BicoulourOcean94

Pro

BicoulourOcean94 forfeited this round.
kyleflanagan97

Con

By my opponent forfeiting two rounds it is clear that he concedes that Socialism is in fact better than Capitalism.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.