The Instigator
Red.Bull
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dylwal92
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 34718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Red.Bull

Pro

Before I begin my debate, I'd like to offer some definitions.
Capitalism: A system in which all interactions between men are voluntary (Ayn Rand)
Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (Merriam Websters)
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (M&W)
Rights: The concept of a "right" pertains only to action"specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. (Ayn Rand)
Okay, my first contention: Socialism=theft
The basic principal of laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principal...No man may initiate force against another. In order to implement socialism, the government would have to take some of your stuff and redistribute it! It's like "gimme yo change o yur goin' to jail!" It is probably more eloquently stated, but in anything other than a laissez faire (voluntarist) society, if one does not surrender his goods to his "superiors" (in this case, the government), he usually goes to jail.
When stuff is taken by force or threat, it is stealing. All socialism is is government- ran theft.
Contention two: Capitalism offers more choices
When one company (Or the government) monopolizes the whole means of production/distribution, the townspeople are usually left with only that option. However, with capitalism, there are usually many choices. There are two general stores in town! Not just CommiesRus! With the government owning all the stores, it is often difficult for towns to have an option when it comes to shopping. With private individuals creating new products, people also get to choose from a variety of goods, not just Stalin's Spectacular Soda. What if one does not like Stalin's Spectacular Soda? What if they prefer Dr. Pepper or Mt. Dew? When the government owns the means of production and distribution, it is hard for the creators of new products to put their inventions on the market. Capitalism encourages that! Capitalism encourages creativity, while socialism keeps it trapped. This is just and good because people benefit from having more choices in life.
I know that I only have two contentions...I am now ready to hear my opponent's side.
dylwal92

Con

Before contending, I accept the argument and thank Pro for the opening statements and contentions. Also, I would like to point out that while Ayn Rand is an incredible author - in my personal opinion - we should not derive definitions from an individual in the case of possible confusion, but rather look at the definitions as it is truly defined.

Capitalism (Merriam-Webster): an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Right [n.] (Dictionary.com): a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral or adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority

(The definitions for "just" and "socialism" are properly defined by Pro from the afore mentioned sources)

I will first begin with refuting the give claims and then make claims of my own.


1. "The basic principal of laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principal...No man may initiate force against another."

The idiom laissez-faire in French means "to let people do as they please" and with the additive idea of capitalism attached to this idiom means to limit government interference in business matters and to keep government influence to a minimum. That said, laissez faire capitalism is not a "non-agression [principle]," for agression is not a part of a governmental embodiment in the first place, for that would assume the government is creating a force to hurt (in some form) "private or corporate owndership of capital goods" (referenced above). Thus, the idea that "no man may inititate force against another" is both unnecessary and fallaciously added.

2. "In order to implement socialism, the government would have to take some of your stuff and redistribute it! It's like 'gimme yo change o yur goin' to jail!' It is probably more eloquently stated, but in anything other than a laissez faire (voluntarist) society, if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors' (in this case, the government), he usually goes to jail.

The idea the governement would have to "take some of your stuff and redistribute it" is not how socialism works. Given the Merriam-Webster definition provided by Pro, there are several theories that entail various methods of the collectivity of "means of production" and "distribution of goods" such as the Marxist theory, evolutionary and institutional economics, role of state, etc., but the idea behind the government taking my "stuff and [redistributing] it" is an inaccurate statement describing implementation of socialism.

I have already spoken of the idea of laissez-faire and therefore, the statement that a laissez-faire society is a voluntarist society is inaccuarate and is also a contradiciton of the the previous statement that "laissez faire capitalism is the non agression [principle]." Even if such were true, and given the absolute statement "in anything other than a laissez faire (voluntarist) society...," the claim that "if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors'...he usually goes to jail." There are a few items inaccurately stated. The idea that "if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors'... he usually goes to jail" is false unless in the case of court action, or a reasonable search and seizure with proper paperwork. Also, using the absolute "other than" is fallacious, because then you are ruling every society non-consistent of a laissez-faire (not voluntarist) government. Even if the statement made is true, I would like to see the evidence behind such a claim.

3. "When stuff is taken by force or threat, it is stealing."

So when a person's house is taken by force from the government due to the building of highways, or a some other form of construction, is that stealing? While some would say "yes," that is incorrect because the government has the right to do just that using eminent domain.

4. "When one company (Or the government) monopolizes the whole means of production/distribution, the townspeople are usually left with only that option. However, with capitalism, there are usually many choices. There are two general stores in town! Not just CommiesRus! "

The reason behind the monopolization of a productive/distributive item can be beneficial. Take PG&E for example. Let's say there are fifteen different lines keeping your house operational and one of those lines catches fire and burns your house down. Who do you blame? In this case, all companies would have to reimburse. The example given of "two general stores" and "with capitalism, there are usually many choices" is incoherent. As for "CommiesRus," while I appreciate Pro's interest and deliberation on the topic, this statement is weakening the argument showing extreme bias.

5. "With the government owning all the stores, it is often difficult for towns to have an option when it comes to shopping. With private individuals creating new products, people also get to choose from a variety of goods, not just Stalin's Spectacular Soda... What if they prefer Dr. Pepper or Mt. Dew?

This entire statement is incredibly inaccurate. What about all the stores in New York, New York? Los Angeles, California? People have plenty of options to shop. Don't forget the online shopping that has become an incredible trend.

6. "Capitalism encourages creativity, while socialism keeps it trapped. This is just and good because people benefit from having more choices in life."

Creativity is encourage in any situation as long as it is kept to the creation of a greater good of some form (unless you are wanting to pursue destructive interests). This said, the second sentence is true, however it is incoherent to the former statement.


Contention
While many individuals would very well believe that socialism is equated to theft and/or capitalism offers more choices, as Pro does, it is my belief that the balance between the two ideas leads to a greater balance in a governmental system. On one hand you have a government desiring the accumulation of wealth through a competitive free market society dependant of various sources while on the other you have a government desiring to adopt all means of production and its distribution through these productive entities that are independent of themselves. Allowing for one to completely dominate a nation, historically speaking, has cause issues and problems. Even in a balanced nation there are issues and problems to be faced. However, as this deals with the idea and theory behind the creation of err, I will continue my contention. Before handing the debate over to Pro, I will say blatantly that I do not believe one is more justified than another, but a creation of both in a nation leads to a greater good and higher awareness of problems that have occurred, are occurring, and those that will occur.










Debate Round No. 1
Red.Bull

Pro

Thank you, opponent, for accepting my challenge. Before I build my own case back up and refute theirs, I'd like to clear up the definition confusion. It is perfectly acceptable to offer definitions given by individuals, especially those with good ethos. Ayn Rand is very knowledgeable about capitalism and her branch specifically says that in a capitalist society, all interactions between people that are voluntary are okay. The same goes with her definition of the word "right"...She developed a whole philosophy and has ethos.

Okay, so my opponent claims that bringing in the non-aggression principal is both unnecessary and fallacious. I do not see it this way. In Ayn Rand's branch, it is in fact the central principal of laissez faire! In any other system besides laissez faire, the government would have to use some amount of aggression against businesses, store owners, etc. Whether it is taxation, redistribution, or anything else, it is theft. My claim that laissez faire is the only system that is compatible with voluntaryism is not fallacious because it is true! With Communism or socialism, if one does not give his goods to the government to redistribute it, he is penalized. With fascism, the state can take and give as it pleased, at the expense of the business owner. With corporatism, the government takes tax money from people (If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail) and gives it to the rich corporations. Bottom line...Voluntarism can only co exist with capitalism.
On to my opponent's second refutation: Socialism does not require people to redistribute goods. It is very true that there are various forms of socialism and ways that it can be enacted. However, they all require some government control over the distribution of goods! The basic idea of socialism is that the government regulates or controls distribution and production! When one makes a product, it is their property by moral law. Onto the refutation saying that "'if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors'... he usually goes to jail' is false unless in the case of court action, or a reasonable search and seizure with proper paperwork"...The basic idea is that even if he does not go to jail right away and is given a fair trial, he is still being convicted of a victimless crime...The crime of not surrendering your property to the state.
My opponent's 3rd refutation: Socialism does not equate to theft. He provided an argument about government taking a house by force to make room for a highway. How is taking something by force not theft? Theft: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny." (Dictionary.com). Because the government may have a legal right to take the house does not mean it has a moral right. Never forget that what is legal does not always match up to what is moral. The morals that I uphold in this debate are Voluntarist morals...Anything (harmful) done to another person without their consent is immoral.
My opponent's 4th counter argument: "Monopolization is beneficial." He provided the argument that all powerlines would have to take the blame if a house burned down because of one. In a voluntarist society, if something like that were to happen, maybe the powerline CEO's and the homeowner could figure out a solution that would not require them to all reimburse. Besides, when offering services, they should know that there are risks to do so and the people being serviced should be aware of those risks as well. To clear up the confusion about "Two general stores Vs CommiesRus"...In a voluntarist society, it is easier to set up a store or business, make a profit and help people versus in a socialist society, where it can range from regulations (Making it harder to set up a store, service people, and make money) to the government monopolizing a particular market. It does not have to be general stores in particular, but anything. As for the "CommiesRus"...First of all, debate is supposed to be biased! Second of all, those of you that are tuned off by my childish jab...It may weaken my ethos, but the actual argument stays intact.
5th refutation to my arguments: Stalin's Spectacular Soda vs Mt Dew and Dr. Pepper. I was referring to an extreme socialistic/Communist situation. I understand that this is not the stance my opponent is taking However, my main point still stands...In a socialistic world, where it is difficult for people to get their products out there due to regulations, there are less options. I know that this would not be the case for something as unimportant as soda, but think Social Security, etc. Secondly, online shopping would be heavily regulated in a socialist world as well...Think about the internet tax that has been a topic of hot debate.
6th rebuttal: "Socialism does not trap creativity" I think it does because, like I stressed earlier, in a regulated economy, it is harder for innovators to get their product on the market, and they have trouble profiting from their creativity because the government takes away a lot of their money.
Okay, now onto my opponent's contention:
I do not see a clear contention other than that there should be a balance because if one dominates a nation, problems will arise. He cites no examples of when capitalism dominated the nation, (True, Voluntary, Capitalism never has) or the problems it has caused. (Yeah, I know some people are thinking "Great Depression". However, that is caused by Corporatism, The Federal Reserve, and the Smoot- Hawley Tariff act). He also mentions that with that balance, we can raise awareness of problems that have arisen. Again, no examples. As a whole, his one contention is pretty vague.
Vote Capitalism for voluntarism, creativity, and cash!
Once again, thank you Dywal.92 for engaging in this debate with me...I look forward to your response.

dylwal92

Con

First I would like to thank Pro for the quick response and for clearing a few things up that will help me greatly.

As I mentioned in R1, Ayn Rand was an amazing individual and very inspirational. It is acceptable to take a person's belief system and use it to make a point, but the debate being used is based on the governmental principles and embodiment of the views of capitalism and socialism, and proper terminology must be used rather than taking the ideologies of an individual. Regardless of whether or not Rand has "good ethos," or that "she developed a whole philosophy and has ethos," the fact remains that bringing her views into the account of pure principalia is a form of bias that I will later mention.

I would like to point out that I never said that the "non-agression principal is both unnecessary and fallacious." If you look at my first point in R1, you will see that I give the quote from Pro stating "the basic principal of laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principal...No man may initiate force against another." I then went on to explain how laissez faire is in no way the same idea as a "non-agression [principle]." (Take note between "principal" and "principle" for future reference.) The part I stated to be unecessary and fallacious was the additive phrase "no man may inititate force against another" due to the definition of laissez faire and the meaning behind the given phrase.

I never said that "socialism does not require people to redistribute goods," or anything of the sort. In R1 in my second point, I argued against the statement that "the government would have to take some of your stuff and redistribute it." As for the statement in this round by Pro, he claims that all forms of socialism "require some government control over the distribution of goods!" This is inaccurate given Marxian Socialism.

At this point I will delve into the idea behind morality and legality. While the ideas exist and can be a part of one another, they are not equal to each other. Morality and legality are two very different entities. Regardless of how immoral something is, it doesn't make it illegal. The example I gave of eminent domain is a legal principle that has been used for years and is a legal precedent. That said, it doesn't matter how immoral or wrong the law is, the law is the law and it isn't a "wrongful taking and carrying away of... personal goods or property of another" because it is legal and thus rightful in the eyes of the law.

To continue, with the example of the multiple powerlines and the burden upon all the companies for the example of monopolization was just that: an example. It was a statement to further my claim. Also, I stated that "monopolization can be beneficial," not "monopolization is beneficial." Those are two very different statements.

Let it be known that debate can contain bias, but a debate consistent of such weakens the argument of the user. Using bias in debate can allow for discontinuity in argument and, quite oftenly, bias goes unsupported. Bias is defined (from Dictionary.com) as "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

I would like to stop for a second to clarify a few items. Having read Pro's argument on the "non-agression principle" and "voluntaryism" and having done a little bit of background research on the subject, I now understand why Pro is making certain claims and assumptions. To allow people to understand a little more of the topic I will take some time to explain.

Voluntarysm is defined as (from Dictionary.com) "1. the principle of supporting churches, schools, and various other institutions by voluntary contributions rather than with state funds, or 2. any system based on this principle." This belief is a libertarian philosophy and is commonly used with the idea of the "non-aggression principle (NAP)." The term is also used synonomously with anarcho-capitalist and individualist anarchist philosophies. It has been justified by moral principles such as praxeological presupposition to support the NAP as well as rule utilitarianism and rule egoism. For those who are confused, a praxeological presupposition is the belief that a statement that uses an implicit assumption and utilizes a set of axioms based on the assumption. Rule utilitarianism holds the belief where an action is right if it takes the form of rules to be made of the highest good, and rule egoism is a doctrine under which an individual evaluates the optimal set of rules according to whether conformity to those rules bring the most benefit to himself (1). The followers and philosophers of such a belief system also use the justifications of natural rights and the ideas behind social contracts. With this said, I now understand why Pro is using the idea of morality as an equatable source for legality. However, whether or not this is what Pro believes is irrelevant. The idea behind stating this is that there is no justification to support the NAP to pure capitalistic society, nor is there a way for me to show to Pro that this is true, for the idea behind praxeological presupposition would lead to the utilitarinist and egoist persepectives of the argument. The information for these statements can be found in (2).

To continue the debate, my opponenet says "in a socialistic world, where it is difficult for people to get their products out there due to regulations, there are less options." This statement goes unsupported and is thus disregardable. Also Social Security is not a product, it is a mandatory regressive tax that all taxpayers have to pay (FICA I).

As for the 6th rebuttal, I will point out that Pro has misquoted me by saying "Socialism does not trap creativity." I stated the following: "Creativity is encouraged in any situation as long as it is kept to the creation of a greater good of some form (unless you are wanting to pursue destructive interests)." To whit, I was misquoted for a third time. Also, as mentioned earlier, a debate should be consistent without bias for a strong argument, and the idea behind that you "think [socialism does trap creativity]..." is irrelevant to the argument. As for the diffculty of production through the market, that depends on the company selling, the product, the demand for the product, etc.

To continue, I will admit that while I was reading Pro's views on my contention, I disagreed with his statement, but upon review after a day, I found his statement to be true. So to allow for a clear contention, there never has been a capitalist society that has dominated, but the Roman Empire, and (recently) Brazil have failed capitalistically. As for socialism, it is obvious that the Soviet Union was heavily socialistic and ended up failing and the same goes for Zimbabwe. As for the mixture of the two, there has never been a nation that has been a blatant combination of the two, but there has been recent talk on news stations such as HLN, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX as well as the Chicago Tribune and Huffington Post that have posited the existence of two co-existing. My contention is based off of these ideas and the possibility that such a system could coexist just like many others argue.
I will now hand over the argument to my opponent.


(1) Kagan, Shelly. 1998. Normative Ethics. Westview Press. p. 199
(2) http://oll.libertyfund.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Red.Bull

Pro

Okay, starting with the definition war...I am unsure what the official rules are for this website when it comes to definitions, and I know that different types of debates have different rules...I will let the voters decide if letting Ayn Rand define Capitalism is acceptable. I will add that coming to a conclusion is not a bias.

I understand that my opponent never said the NAP (Non-aggression Principle) is unnecessary and fallacious in and of itself...it just was not needed in the debate. I never said he said that...If you look closely, I refuted it by saying "Bringing in the NAP..." (And I used the wrong form of "principle". Okay...don't see how it affects the actual substance of my arguments). I continued to relate to how Capitalism is the only system compatible with the NAP.

My opponent said that Marxian Socialism does not require the government to control distribution/production...I do not see how it could! To transform a country socialist...The government would have to take action, therefore violating the NAP.

Just because something is rightful in the eyes of the law does not make it just. My definition of just (to which my opponent agreed to) is " acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (Merriam Webster’s)", not "Acting in conformity of the law". What Stalin and Mao did was righteous in their eyes as well.

Again, the whole point of debate is to pick a side...Bias will happen. It may weaken my ethos, but to say that because I am biased, my arguments themselves are invalid or weak is fallacious.

There is a good reason to support the NAP in capitalism...the NAP is what makes capitalism possible! Inversely, Capitalism should be respected and supported in relation to the NAP because no other system is compatible with it!

The refutation to point about people not getting their products on the market...It is supported because in any controlled economy, getting products on the market is more difficult that with Laissez Faire Capitalism. I hope I do not have to explain it any further.

6th rebuttal: I never said that he said "Socialism does not trap creativity." I was simply tag lining and paraphrasing it (Same with me saying that that he said "Monopolization is beneficial"), not quoting verbatim. I think I have explained why too.


There has never been a laissez faire system anywhere. A lot of the times, the plutocracies and corporatist governments fail economically, but never because of following the NAP. Also, his contention as a whole (The two can co-exist) goes unsupported, so it falls. All he sites is some news channels saying it might work...almost a bandwagon fallacy.

I believe I have won the debate because
1: His one contention falls
2: He did not refute fallaciously my first contention that Socialism=theft. There is no way socialism can be implemented on a national level besides taxes and redistribution...AKA government ran theft. So that contention still stands.
3: My second contention still stands because in capitalism, where there is less government getting in the way of people putting their products on the market, there are more choices in everyday life.
He tried to refute it by saying that is not always true, but think about it...The less regulation, the easier it is to create.

He may have better spelling and smoother sentences. I’ll admit that. But I think I won on logic and reason. Thank you opponent and I now will let you have the last word before the voting begins.

dylwal92

Con

I would like to first thank Pro for the debate.

Second, I would like to point out that Pro did not refute the premise of Voluntaryism and the ideas behind it. It is thus that I will point out that R3 was the only round where Pro did not use the term "voluntarysim" or "voluntarist," but rather used the premises and ideas behind its existence in order to divert attention to a more abstract and obscure existence of "laissez faire capitalism" and its "basic principle... the non aggression principle."

I make the point of an abstract and obscure existence of such due to Pro's claim that "there has never been a laissez faire system anywhere [and] a lot of the times, the plutocracies and corporatist governments fail economically, but never because of following the NAP." So I ask this: what evidence supports your claim given that "there has never been a laissez faire system"? What evidence supports that governments who have used the NAP (an arbitrary concept) and have succeeded economically? Even if plutocracies and corporatist governments have failed economically, can you provide examples of where and why that happened? You have asked to support my contention (which I will delve into later), but your entire argument that attempts to prove that capitalism is a more just system than socialism based on the idea "the basic principle of laissez faire capitalism {NAP}," and you have not supported your claims once, but rather refute my argument (with even greater unsupported claims) and make no justification to your own. This is exactly what I mentioned upon describing voluntaryism and the its belief system. The entites I mentioned in that section (R2, P.9), is exactly what Pro is using to create an effect that seem beneficial to the majority (rule utilitarianism) by using unsupported claims that sound proper to a society (rule egoist). This same argument goes for the statement that "the government would have to to take action... to transform a country socialist [socialist country?]... therefore violating the NAP," as well as the later claim that "getting products on the market is more difficult that with Laissez Faire Capitalism."

That said, I never stated that coming to a conclusion was a bias. I made the point that adding an individual's views can weaken the argument based because the beliefs of that person (no matter how well-intentioned) can bring a basis of bias, for not everyone agrees with a single individual due to their belief system. Also, I have not seen you support your claims regarding Ayn Rand's beliefs. You base your "definitions" of a subject based on unsupported claims. Even if it is true, how am I to know where these truths are and that they exist?

Also, I never argued against the idea of "bringing in the NAP," I defined laissez faire to prove that the latter half of the statement made previously is contradictory to a fallacious claim stating that "laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principle." Also, the reason I placed the correct form of "principle" was to merely inform you for future reference. I in no way, shape, or form meant for this to be ad hominem.

To continue, I agree that "just because something is rightful in the eyes of the law does not make it just." However, that was not the point I was making. I will reiterate my claim by saying that no matter how unjustified an act is, no matter how immoral, wrong, or deafening an act from an individual, or a multitude of people, if what they did is legal (by means of their constituency), then there is next to nothing to be done to revert it.

As a tangent to these statements, I never made the claim that "because [you] are biased, that [your] arguments themselves are invalid or weak." Pro claimed that "debate is supposed to be biased!" and I was thus refuting the point in R2, P.7.

I would like to add that the term paraphrase means "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording (Dictionary.com)."
I never made any sort of claim remotely similar to "socialism does not trap creativity." For the second time I will re-iterate my point that is being misconstrued: I said "Creativity is encouraged in any situation as long as it is kept to the creation of a greater good of some form (unless you are wanting to pursue destructive interests)." How Pro "paraphrased" that "socialism does not trap creativity" is beyond me. The same goes for my statement and example behind monopolization. While the misquotation was by one word, I will point out that there remains a major difference between "is" and "can be."

The same goes for another misquotation where "the two {meaning capitalism and socialism} can co-exist" is different than what I originally said ("the two could co-exist"). The term "can" is an absolute, whereas the term "could" is variable among other things.

Also, where Pro said "almost a bandwagon fallacy," is improper. The bandwagon fallacy is based on the idea of an object or item in existence and a group of constituents agree/disagree upon the object or item at hand and followers "join the bandwagon." The idea that the combination of the two entities does not exist fore frontal ipso facto removes your argument that my belief upon such subject is bandwagon.

As for my contention, I did argue against your contentions, however it was indirect. I used a series of arguments to lessen your claim so as to build up momentum (this is how I personally approach arguments). (Also, if I didn't argue against your contention, then why do you have a heading stating "My opponent's 3rd refutation: Socialism does not equate to theft"?) I first argued against the idea that the NAP is not the basic principle of laissez faire economics as well as show the declining factor of adding individualistic beliefs to a pure principalia debate. It is there that the argument came to an end entirely due to that being your ultimate premise. However, I later argued against the implementation of socialism and the ideas behind voluntaryism; the former went unsupported while the latter was entirely ignored in R3. It was then that made the claim that morality does not equate to legality (to which rule egoism took place, yet again). I then delved into the idea behind monopolization and its effects on socalism v. capitalsim, to whit your claim "The refutation to point about people not getting their products on the market...It is supported because in any controlled economy, getting products on the market is more difficult that with Laissez Faire Capitalism," went unsupported.

The two main items that occurred on Pro's behalf was miswording my statments to an extent that they go almost unnoticed as well as the lack of support from not only his claims throught his argument, but the argument itself as a point out in the beginning of this text.

As for my contention, I never said that a society has ever existed where capitalism and socialism have co-existed, nor did I believe that a society of such would do well/bad and prosper/weaken as time continues. I base my claims off of a conglomerate of sources that have contrasting and even similar views at points. Whether or not this would be in the best interest of society - needless to say a nation - is a notion that even if made and truthful, would be undetermined until such events were to actually happen. There is no evidence to support this claim, nor is there evidence to refute this claim.

With all said and done, I say thank you to Pro for a very intense argument of such nature, for I learned more than I believed to learn, and I always enjoy a challenge of sorts.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Guy_D 4 years ago
Guy_D
It appears that when I copy from Word, it changes all the apostrophes to ? when I paste to vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 4 years ago
Guy_D
Red.Bulldylwal92Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Using Ayn Rand?s definitions for laissez faire capitalism isn?t a problem, but I would have used someone like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, or someone versed in Austrian economics. Sources get a tie, largely because there was such a lack of them. ?So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.? Milton Friedman