The Instigator
one-2-won
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
weather
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Capitalism is better 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,193 times Debate No: 7167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

one-2-won

Pro

Capitalism is not wrong. Communism, may be seen by many to be a fairer system in which everyone is "equal." Life just does not work like that though. Nobody is born equal. I think Communism is regarded as an idealised situation, one that in practice, simply would not work. I believe that everyone should have the right to keep what they have earnt and that it should not be shared out amongst society.
weather

Con

So many people are incompetent and rather stupid. People who don't understand the situation may do the wrong thing that's why the government needs to be in charge, and face it, no one wants to work, so just let the government take care of it! One of those guys you don't want to help could be your reincarnated grandfather, or you friends mom, who cant go outside because they are afraid of the sun and they don't have a computer to work from home, if you give the government your money than can give the computer! its rely a good idea.
Debate Round No. 1
one-2-won

Pro

It's not a matter of "those guys I don't want to help," in an ideal situation everyone would be equal, it just does not work like that. I believe it would be "incompetent and rather stupid," (your wording) to assume that such an idealised situation, would in practice work. There always have to be "winners and losers," people will always be born with different statuses in society.

"socialism," your choice of term, meaning an organisation of society which, the community own and control. Is in essence, a good, fair idea if you are looking at the people who are worse off in the capitalist system. However, those, that have strived to earn their money and social status, and would be rewarded in a capitalist system by reaping the benefits of this would be worse off under socialism.

Also your suggestion of placing society under the sole control of the government, would only create problems as taxes would be raised and it would be the wealthiest people who would lose out the most. Surely this is equally as unfair, as the inequalities you have highlighted against the poorer people in a capitalist society? It's easy to push a controversial issue like this into the hands of the government for them to take care of but there is no outcome that would be a "win, win" situation.

Therefore, as politically incorrect as this may seem. I think Capitalism is the best situation, as it enables those who have worked hard to keep what they have earnt. I am not assuming that "lower classes," do not work as hard/are not as intelligent etc..not at all, but I do not believe that the wealthy (whether it be through their heritage or own merits) should be punished in an attempt to be "fair" to all.
weather

Con

Yes there are winners and losers, but we all hate to lose, and why not have someone there to make sure everyone wins, and why not that be the government? With socalisim those sad little people would be up with everyone else, and those who work hard should stop and help bring up the others. what makes the big man in a high rise better than a guy in a shack next to a creek in suburbia? Just because big man, has money doesn't mean he is better than little man. Little man could be a great guy with a good job, but walked in on a robbery and got pistol whipped, and became mentally unstable and he cant do or remember anything, bug man should help the poor little man an put him in a institution, and help pay his bills. If not that he can at leas let him stay in his high rise until he can find a hospital or something, you want the little man to die young in the cold? Or you can let the government put him in a hospital be full of days.

And its funny how it`s the simple things in life that mean the most, not where you live or what you drive or the price tag on your clothes, there`s no dollar sign on a piece of mind. Why should the wealthy care if they have the same everything else, and wealthiest people are the least happy. You said "I think Capitalism is the best situation, as it enables those who have worked hard to keep what they have earnt" this can lead to the lower class stuck with what they may have been borne into. Please lets not use regional dialect, not everyone knows what "earnt" means.
Debate Round No. 2
one-2-won

Pro

It is too idealistic, to have the government ensure that "everyone wins," and at that a highly impractical and impossible solution. For, in order to have winners, there must be a comparative loser. Similarly in order to have the rich, there needs to be the poor.

Nothing makes the "big guy," better than "a guy in a shack," as you put it. I just do not see it to be fair that the wealthiest people in society are the ones who are punished because of their social standing and financial position. In the same way socialists, pity the poorer people, attempting to achieve "equality" amongst all people. Why should anyone assume this system to be unfair. If someone is able to hold a job, irrespective of their upbringing and wealth, that should be congratulated, they should not be penalised for it. Although, perhaps at a disadvantage through their heritage, there is no reason why the "small guy" cannot strive to elevate himself to a better career or lifestyle.

Many capitalist societies offer numerous benefits to the people who are seen to be at a disadvantage. This is only fair to enable them to afford the cost of living and to allow them to live. Over and above that however, I do not think anything more is necessary. Not everybody needs, or indeed deserves to live a life of luxury. If everyone is treated equally however, then nobody will be able to lead lavish lifestyles, removing a right that the wealthy have obtained through hard work.

I think it is essential that every single person, without exception, has access to food, shelter, clothing, health care etc. All of life's necessities. But to drag everyone down to this level, seems to me, to be incredibly unfair.

Also, whilst you appear to want to make this issue the government's concern, I do not think that is right or fair. Freedom of speech is something everyone should be entitled to as is the opportunity to succeed. Why would you want such rights taken away, all so that the government can control this issue?! The fact is, nobody likes to be told what to do. Nobody wants to be controlled by a "nanny state," why place this issue under the government for them to dictate our lives?! George Orwell, was able to see the potential consequences of this in his novel, Nineteen Eighty Four.

I personally feel that it is about time that we took control of our own lives. That we look out for one another to the extent that we enable everyone to live, with life's essentials. Over and above this however, I believe to be frivolous and unnecessary. Whether we like it or not, not everyone is born equal, nor do they have the opportunity to lead equal lives. I think, it is problematic, that so many people are too idealistic. A "perfect" world does not exist, neither does "equality" so as humans, all we can do is our best. Let the wealthy keep their wealth, as long as the poor are able to survive.

I really don't wish to be had up on my spelling, it detracts from the argument if that is something you wish to hold against me. Especially when you consider that yours is not perfect either; take "borne" for instance.

Like I said, there is no such thing as the "perfect" world, even we can prove that, so let's stop pretending to achieve something unattainable.
weather

Con

A "everyone wins" situation is indeed possible, they just need a large computer to find a average wealth and than tax and give money until that is reached, and every payday just enough is made to sustain that goal, and than the leftover is used to help those who used more money.

Yes, there is a reason that the little man can't strive to elevate himself, if he is stuck in the projects of a bad city, and he nor his family can afford education, or their taxes, than they have a son who makes $7.50 an hour flipping burger at a McDonald's. yes there would be burger flippers, but they would get paid more and could live better.

Yes benefits are available, but they don't cover everybody fully. I believe you said it "Not everybody needs, or indeed deserves to live a life of luxury." If we don't need it the government can have it, and spread the wealth. One should be glad that they have worked hard to help others.

Yes there would be those who are dragged down, but there also will be those who are brought up it is unfair to sum but fair to others.

Yea the freedom of speech is a good thing, but few people listen. The government needs to take control because as I said before "So many people are incompetent" and can make the wrong choice, that is why a good ruler in important, if the ruler isn't good than eliminate him. No we don't like to be told what to do, but we need to be lead.

We can take control of our lives under the government, there are just limits, and nothing could go wrong and life will be good.

I didn't say spelling, I understand that in the UK though we all speak English we have different words, like you cay "earnt" we have words like "hecka" and "borne," you don't use the word borne?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
Communism is a whole lot closer to socialism than capitalism or anything else is. They both revolve around, in the end, the same basic fundamentals of everyone working together to achieve a common good, and that everyone is equal and comradery and all that good stuff. However, I believe that capitalism is just as good as communism or socialism, but communism and socialism are just one of those systems that only work if the leaders arent corrupt, like a monarchy. Communism will work best when it is run with a democratic government instead of a regime like government.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
That's alright. No big deal. It is just as easy to draw up another debate :)

If you do decide to draw one up, I suggest that you make an argument during your first round.
Posted by one-2-won 7 years ago
one-2-won
I'd be happy to have a debate with you if you wish, on the same topic, using the "correct," meaning of socialism. I hadn't realised that it was not you that I was debating with so I apologise.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Someone came and took the debate from me.

One-2-won:
Socialism and communism are not interchangeable terms. They are two very different ideologies and economic systems. You used socialism in your title and communism in your post, so I thought I would throw that out there.
Posted by one-2-won 7 years ago
one-2-won
"better," is a comparative that places Capitalism in a higher situation, but remains vague enough to let the debate go of on a number of tangents.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
What does "better" mean?
Posted by one-2-won 7 years ago
one-2-won
Okay, yes I'd be happy to! x
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
I would be willing to debate this with you if you rephrased it as a resolution. I would be arguing for socialism, not communism. Something along the lines of 'capitalism is fairer (or better, or whatever you want), than socialism'
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 month ago
Capitalistslave
one-2-wonweatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
one-2-wonweatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
one-2-wonweatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much differce
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
one-2-wonweatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mollyboo522 7 years ago
mollyboo522
one-2-wonweatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
one-2-wonweatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10