The Instigator
Ryanemge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Capitalism is more moral than socialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
GoOrDin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 61876
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Ryanemge

Pro

Resolved:

Capitalism is more moral than socialism

Definitions:
Capitalism: is a free market economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship. The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in socialism) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see law of supply and demand).

Socialism: advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttal
Round 5: Closing statements

If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinely want a great debate here.
GoOrDin

Con

Ryan I am glad to take this challenge.
A society where money talks louder than words is arguably, and so I argue that, it is less moral to be pro Capitalism than pro Socialism.

In a socialist society, although the government has complete control, the same amount of natural resources are available for production and for sale, as well as to work with as there are in a capitalist society. However in a capitalist society the needs and necessities of the whole populous are over looked in favor of income profits, which are not relevant to the providing or producing of provisions for the people.

In a capitalist society, the thesis is a stock market measures the success of a country, but factually the stock market is based on speculative evaluation, and does not actually take people into consideration.

Justly I will gladly take up this challenge to defend socialism vs Capitalism.
Debate Round No. 1
Ryanemge

Pro

To start, I acknowledge the good intentions of socialism, however good intentions are not enough when dealing with people"s lives; therefore I focus on the outcomes of political philosophies rather than intentions. Additionally I recognize that Capitalism is not a perfect system, but I argue that it is a better and more moral than socialistic system.

P1.Capitalism respects individual rights more than socialism. It does this by allowing individuals to decide for themselves how to run their business, what they can produce to bring to the market place and how much they want to charge for their service. Socialism in contrast allows a minority of people (bureaucrats), whom were elected by a majority to create "laws" that force individual"s to make certain decisions regarding their business, who they work for or what occupation they must work.
Example: Can you understand why an individual would want to paint a painting by herself rather than paint it collectively? If so maybe then you can understand why someone might want to start a coffee shop by themselves without government planning or involvement. People own themselves, and their right to pursue their dreams should be respected regardless of what the collective majority think is best for them or their situation.
P2.Socialism requires the use of force (violence) and/or coercion in order to execute its philosophy. Forcing someone to do something they do not want to do is immoral.
P3.Socialism makes the poor even more poor. Consider any country or place that has unleashed socialism into their government, it always results in lower consumer consumption and less options. Detroit is a perfect example of what socialism can do to a city. It was the greatest capitalist city in the country before 1960, but after the socialist democrats took over they ran most businesses out of town and turned it into a place that resembles a 3rd world country. Consider Hong Kong that was nearly completely laissez faire capitalist, and how that economy grew to be one of the best economies in the world.
P4.Socialism's wealth redistribution is theft. Citizens generally speaking do not pay taxes with a heart of charity, but rather in response to the penalty or coercion that they are threatened with by the government if they do not pay. It is not a voluntary system, so therefore it is a shakedown and then redistributed to others whom may or may not deserve it.
GoOrDin

Con

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ryanemge

Pro

Ryanemge forfeited this round.
GoOrDin

Con

True socialism acknowledges that a man who works hard needs reward.

Capitalism rewards the man who does the least. (the boss)

Socialism, protects the elderly, the youth, and the workers equally.

Capitalism only protects the individuals who are of a benefit to the employer, are requires no communal contribution.

Socialism does not overprice products for selfish gains.

Capitalism siphons the money from the community for no communal need.
Debate Round No. 3
Ryanemge

Pro

Ryanemge forfeited this round.
GoOrDin

Con

wealth redistribution is not a viable debate response.
when considering two parties one cannot claim on is less because of how the transition would take place.

Capitalism requires an equal amount of force to enforce it's policies.

Socialism cannot make the poor poorer unless the functioning country is inactive. in which case this is not a legitimate example of socialism. Socialism fails when the country is not unified.

In socialism any party can choose how to run their business if they consider the well being of the populous. I suggest that to indicate this is immoral: to not allow them to be selfish and privatized whilst disregarding the general populous is an error in judgment.

In socialism the laws are subject to change, and the bureaucrats can be revoked*

In all logical regards, if the country were to convert into socialism, it would take a extreme effort, and could not be taken rashly, hastily or without great consideration for all parties.

I think it is clear to state that regardless of the poor conduct of the wealthy populous, their property, which should become as much public domain as anything else should still be under their authority. and anyone who attempts to destroy it or remove them aught to be charged, fined, and imprisoned. *

and in additions, while redistributing wealth, no money should be taken away until all earnings and holdings have been evaluated and processed rationally by a collective non biased comity that did not push for socialism, but represent the people within the country. This is to say, neither the middle class nor rich should immediately be effected, giving them time to distribute their funds appropriately, before the rich are reproved and it is given as commonly accepted knowledge the worth of their time is not equal to their capacities. meaning the evaluated value of their time, Holdings, must be revoked. or diminished (in balanced reductions of all parties) until the country is stable.

These funds should not rationally be distributed to the poor, but to the municipal governments to pay for schooling and work, as well as resources and enforcement.

It is clear a true socialism which ahs been given time to succeed is a clearly more moral society than a capitalist one.
the question here is clear, that the transition can be a very tedious and difficult process.

However, capitalism, when ravishing successful socialist government is a clearly less moral society.
Debate Round No. 4
Ryanemge

Pro

Ryanemge forfeited this round.
GoOrDin

Con

To support and verify my claim one more time:

no socialist government has succeeded, and thus the idealism cannot be disputed via examples. socialism can only be regarded as an ideal, and as such is a very very Moral governing system.

Socialism is in favor of the people, and factually does not put all individuals on par. Those who work are regarded as in need of being rewarded, and those who achieve deserve authority to continue economic growth. Those who have much, would only be reduced in holding to what they deserve, not to what they need. So there is no disrespect distributed to any citizen.

I hope we all enjoyed this debate. It is very seldom I am given the opportunity to express myself and my sensible Christian morality.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
my computer is not allowing me to post, insisting ti is not my turn to post an argument. In the event this continues, my arguements is such :

True socialism acknowledges that a man who works hard needs reward.

Capitalism rewards the man who does the least. (the boss)

Socialism, protects the elderly, the youth, and the workers equally.

Capitalism only protects the individuals who are of a benefit to the employer, are requires no communal contribution.

Socialism does not overprice products for selfish gains.

Capitalism siphons the money from the community for no communal need.

(I am working on posting it properly.)
Posted by Ryanemge 2 years ago
Ryanemge
Go ahead and post your rebuttal. I didn't post in order to make the debate even
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
woop. missed it. my bad. I'll be back for the next round.
make a point if u like. will help persuade me too see your way.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
@Fly.no doubt
Posted by Fly 3 years ago
Fly
Marx said, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." That idealistic view sounds pretty moral.

The cynical rewording for capitalism is "From each according to his gullibility; to each according to his greed."
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
No. Christian.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
I would argue with you Cheyenne. Are you an atheist?
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Socialism: the simple definition of is " a freeloader society."

Capitalism's definition is the one who takes the most risks gets the most money.
Posted by Ryanemge 3 years ago
Ryanemge
GoOrDin, dont worry about it. lets just move forward
Posted by Ryanemge 3 years ago
Ryanemge
GoOrDin, Thanks for accepting this debate. I look forward to it and hope we both can grow in our understanding of each side. -R
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
RyanemgeGoOrDinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture