Capitalism is better than socialism
Debate Rounds (3)
Opponent must accept these terms.
Socialism-a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Capitalism-an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
In capitalism people can pursue happiness and have a better chance of success than any other economic system. Competition makes business, schools, and hospitals better because there all fighting for one thing: money. Competition results in lower prices and productivity.In socialism the government hands everything to you, a house, healthcare,education and this is were socialism goes wrong if you get everything handed to you what is the point of working. Care to explain? You notice how Haitians come to Florida (523 miles away) instead of Cuba (53 miles away), the Turks & Caicos(110 miles away), Jamaica (124 miles away) and the Cayman Islands (440 miles away). Because they know that in Americas capitalist society they have a better chance for a better life than any other leftist government.
C2: Welfare dosen't lift people from poverty.
In America during 1964 we declared war on poverty. In 1968 13% of Americans were in poverty. From 1968 to 1980 we increased welfare payments by 400% precent, the end result? 13% of Americans were still in poverty by 1980. Still believe in a welfare state?
C3: Capitalism is better for the Healthcare system.
A former soviet nation Estonia had a life expectancy age of 64 during soviet rule by 1994 just a few years later they had a life expectancy of 72.8 because they allowed the private investment of the healthcare sector.
== Competition for money makes people want to work. ==
Why is working a good thing? Aren't there better things in life than just working? What about things like volunteering (since you are certainly meaning "work" in the context of profit)? What about aiding family and friends with services like cleaning, cooking, child-care, errands, home repairs, driving, and various other activities which people need? Would you look at a 1950s housewife and tell her she needs to hire a baby-sitter and a cleaning crew so she can start a business and the family might as well stop at Burger King on the way home from work and school?
I am in agreement with you that capitalism makes us work (for profit) more, but the question is whether or not more work is really what we need. I would argue that many profit-driven occupations that could be strived for are not an overall benefit to society compared to other things people could be doing to help one another. Things like Food production, house construction, and production of basic needs like clothes and tools are absolutely vital, but as you get away from this crowd you reach secondary, tertiary, and finally luxury goods which are all debatable as far as their overall efficacy at improving human well-being.
== Competition makes business, schools, and hospitals better because there all fighting for one thing: money.==
That's rather unsubstantiated. I will simply say the opposite, unless you provide more evidence: cooperation makes the aforementioned better because they're all helping one another.
==if you get everything handed to you what is the point of working. Care to explain?==
Non-sequitur; if there aren't people to work to make the goods, then the goods wouldn't exist in the first place to be "handed" to people.
==Haitians come to Florida...Because they know that in Americas capitalist society they have a better chance for a better life than any other leftist government.==
According to Rutgers University:
"research on this subject suggests that the causes of immigration are often more complex and numerous than most assume. These include so-called "chain" or "network migration" in which a single initial immigrant can spur a chain of new arrivals from his or her family or community; the direct recruitment of skilled and unskilled workers by firms, governments, or job contractors in an increasingly transnational labor market; the capacity of natural disasters, environmental crises, overpopulation, wars and civil unrest to uproot and set in motion millions of people around the globe; and refugee and asylum policies that extend relief to some noncitizens fleeing political, ethnic, religious, and gender persecution. This is but a short list of the various micro- and macro-level catalysts to mass immigration to the United States today. Evaluating the causes of U.S. immigration can reveal a great deal about recent immigrants, their homelands, and America's image abroad." (1)
He's addressing your argument directly, trying to simplify immigration as simply people flocking towards capitalism. I doubt any immigrant surveyed would specifically list "capitalism" as the reason they are coming. Perhaps a few wealthy and ideologically-inclined ones, but most people are chasing things like social freedom, democracy, and wealth. Besides, isn't it much more likely that they would be chasing socialistic institutions?:
"39.68 million Americans are now on food stamps, which represents a new all-time record. But things look like they are going to get even worse. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011." (2)
If I were an immigrant, that would make much more sense to me than "capitalism."
==Poverty is rising==
Another from that link: "In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one." (2)
There's plenty of data to show beyond a reasonable doubt out there that the period you speak of was one of income being funneled up to to richest ~5% and away from the poor majority (3). If anything, welfare was just being implemented to offset these effects.
Pro's citation here is missing, which leaves him without any citations as of yet.
==A former soviet nation Estonia had a life expectancy age of 64 during soviet rule by 1994 just a few years later they had a life expectancy of 72.8 because they allowed the private investment of the healthcare sector.==
You can't just throw out a statement like that without reference. Are these data accurate? If yes, were there other factors possibly involved?
RebornPatriot forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: If pro had provided sources and had not forfeited a round, this debate would have been A LOT more interesting. But pro wins the arguments because con's rebuttals were either irrelevant to the topic at hand, or, his rebuttals were just stupid like "Why is working a good thing? Aren't there better things in life than just working?" That may be one of the stupidest statements regarding economics that I have ever heard. Con needs a course in economics. He is ignorant of economics.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.