The Instigator
Ariesx
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism vs 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...
Ariesx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 75575
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Ariesx

Pro

Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2- Cases, Round 3- Rebuttals, Round 4- Defense
I will be proving that Capitalism is the most politically successful model, and that Socialism is inferior. Note(Their is a difference between Capitalism and Conservatism).
blackkid

Con

Go for it. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Pro

In this debate, I will be proving that capitalism is the most successful political model that we have seen.

Capitalism Definition- Capitalism is an economic system and a mode of production in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned. Such private firms and proprietorships are usually operated for profit, but may be operated as private nonprofit organizations. A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between venders and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. So, as you read, Capitalism implies that the power will usually go to the people. Capitalism has been very successful in America because it has allowed competition.

Competition- If my opponent believes in this ideal, and I am sure that every socialist does. But, during the ages in when humans were evolving. Competition was a necessity in aiding mankind's evolution. Capitalism has made this possible for humanity having the government being in charge of protecting its people, and Its people doing what they want to do. Now, I will give examples of things that capitalism has made possible for us.
:
Cars- Back in times before capitalism, people used to ride horses to get where they needed to go. Today, it is unimaginable that we would get on our horses and get to where we needed to go. But, in the 20th century during the industrial revolution, cars started booming. Henry Ford had the idea that people would drive cars if they were cheaper. Usually the rich would drive cars while the poor would get horses. But, Henry Ford made cars cheaper. He made it at the right price. American people started to buy cars, and the horsing industry quickly disappeared. This is an example of the Free Market. The people get whatever they need. And if a business is not doing well to serve its people, another business will take over.http://simple.wikipedia.org...
Here is a list of the top ten best car companies
BMW
Ford
Nissan
Toyota
Honda
Jaguar
Suzuki
Audi
Bentley Motors
Cadillac
These businesses are competing for profit. Now, lets just say that everyone of these companies are selfish, and money driven. They are all competing to also provide the best services. They are all competing for our money. http://www.carsflow.com...
In addition to the free market getting better everyday, Google is releasing their own car. They are trying to create a self-driving car. We all know this but Google is now worried that Apple is going to get involved. If Apple gets involved than that is going to force Google to make their car better.http://www.carsflow.com...
These are all examples of the free market making life better.

Food- As we all know food is a necessity to human life. As the free market gradually progressed, Food became but better.
:
McDonalds- As we all know McDonalds is the world's largest hamburger chain. The business started in the 1940s, when White Castle was the burger joint everybody went to. The business started to grow in the 60s, because people started to realize that this food was good. Gradually more and more people went to McDonalds, and replaced White Castle. Another example of a small business replacing a large corporation.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Burger King- Burger King started out in 1954. After Insta-Burger King ran into financial difficulties in 1954, its two Miami-based franchisees, David Edgerton and James McLamore, purchased the company and renamed it Burger King. Over the next half century, the company would change hands four times, with its third set of owners, a partnership of TPG Capital, Bain Capital, and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, taking it public in 2002. In late 2010, 3G Capital of Brazil acquired a majority stake in BK in a deal valued at US$3.26 billion. The new owners promptly initiated a restructuring of the company to reverse its fortunes. 3G, along with partner Berkshire Hathaway, eventually merged the company with Canadian-based doughnut chain Tim Hortons under the auspices of a new Canadian-based parent company.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wendy's- Wendy's is an American international fast food chain restaurant founded by Dave Thomas on November 15, 1969, in Columbus, Ohio, United States. The company moved its headquarters to Dublin, Ohio, on January 29, 2006. As of March 1999, Wendy's was the world's third largest hamburger fast food chain with approximately 6,650 locations, following Burger King's 12,000+ locations and McDonald's' 31,000+ locations.[3][4][5] On April 24, 2008, the company announced a merger with Triarc, the parent company of Arby's. Despite the new ownership, Wendy's headquarters remained in Dublin.[6] Previously, Wendy's had rejected more than two buyout offers from Triarc Companies Inc. Following the merger, Triarc became known as Wendy's/Arby's Group (now The Wendy's Company), a publicly traded company. Approximately 85% of Wendy's restaurants are franchised, all of which are located in North America. Wendy's and its affiliates employ more than 47,000 people in its global operations. In fiscal year 2006, the firm had $2.469 billion (USD) in total sales.
This is another example of where the free market makes life better.

Video Games- I love vide games. The video game industry started to boom in the early 80s. In the 60s, the arcade carried games like space invaders, and pac man. The free market made it possible for all places that wanted a play room for kids could purchase one from the arcade businesses. Atari came and introduced the idea of home consoles. They brought classical games such as space invaders and pac man to the home screen. Nintendo came and replaced Atari with its classical Mario games. Sega came and also tried to cash in on the video game market with its sonic the hedgehog. Gradually in the early 2000s Xbox and Sony came and released 3Dimentional games to home consoles. Xbox gave its visionary online service which transformed games forever. If you are a true gamer you know that you cannot live without the online service. Thank capitalism for this.

Tech Industries- Technology has also progressed thanks to Capitalism. While video games were progressing, computers were also progressing.
:
Apple-Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers. Its best-known hardware products are the Mac line of computers, the iPod media player, the iPhone smartphone, the iPad tablet computer, and the Apple Watch smartwatch. Its online services include iCloud, the iTunes Store, and the App Store. Apple's consumer software includes the OS X and iOS operating systems, the iTunes media browser, the Safari web browser, and the iLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites. Apple had the visionary idea in the 80s that they could put a graphical user interface on a computer. The theory was successful. Apple had a visionary idea about putting music in a little device. That was called the IPod. Apple had another idea of making the phone multitouch. That theory was transformed the world with the IPhone.http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Free Market has transformed a lot of things and has made life better. Regulation of free enterprise will not solve anything.
blackkid

Con

To begin I would like to make three statements:

1. What pro defines as "better" doesn't have an actual outlook for the populace; when pro says that cars have been made better through competition the first thing that comes to mind is how we have technologically created guided missiles and drone systems (http://www.tfcbooks.com...) over 50 years ago the "guided car" or self-driving and self-navigational systems are very modern technology and an exciting idea. This troubles me as Con however since even GPS is old enough to really question why "better" doesn't equate "more advanced". I would say that instead of stating that companies are more interested in advancement they are more interested in maintaining base R&D costs per dollar profit.

Capitalism is, in fact, one of the major stagnating forces to research ( http://monthlyreview.org... ) and furthermore does not drive innovation:

"While capitalism does promote a certain kind of rapid technological change, the above
account has serious flaws. The pursuit of profit does not play such a big role at the important
invention stage of innovation. Studies show that a large majority of economically important
inventions come from university scientists, government researchers, and independent inventors,
for whom pecuniary considerations are not typically dominant.6"

(http://people.umass.edu...)

As a matter of fact Capitalism has two flaws, beyond that one there is another which is money, the driving force, loses value after one achieves a certain income (http://www.livescience.com...) which is essentially because "The Easterlin Paradox" exists for humans in which money, as a tool, has value but beyond it's existence as a tool it is worthless. The easiest way to understand money as a tool is to think of a screwdriver; if you have screws then it's invaluable because you need a screwdriver to work with screws however if you have anything else, say bolts, a screwdriver is worthless; money is only as valuable as necessary just like any other tool in the arsenal so when you have enough it loses almost all value since excess resources are simply excess.

2. Because Innovation is not "born" of Capitalism the claim to innovation is false by Pro. The entirety of pro's current argument is that capitalism makes life better however innovation is not driven mainly by money which Capitalism is and as shown above Capitalism is again driven by profits and therefore more inclined to avoid unnecessary and exploratory R&D with many programs such as NASA (http://www.nasa.gov...) being non-profit because for profit models would not work as investments would easily be dwindled with stockholders expecting returns that are not coming any lifetime soon due to high R&D costs. Most governmental programs also follow the same route of non-profit or specifically governmental-funded programs.

3. Fast food is horrendous for the body (http://www.latimes.com...) and if Capitalism breeds unhealthy and inefficient delivery systems by, instead of having large cities invest in high tech monorail systems such as those used in Japan for greener and cheaper transportation outdated and economically / environmentally nonviable equipment ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk... ) simply because the price tag of the Capitalist manufacturer is cheaper.

That all said two points.

1. The Markets are built entirely on horrible toxins or non-progressive ideals. The car economy for instance uses oil which is essentially always an environmental disaster in the making due to things like fracking (http://www.bbc.com...) and transportation (http://www.forbes.com...) yet "The World Runs on Oil" (http://www.businessinsider.com...) which brings me to question the reality of progression and innovation as well as whether or not a Capitalist firm really wants to push beyond this except as a pet project despite it's harmful side-effects in getting, transporting, and even using oil and oil-based fuels. As for computers things like RAM have not improved in years (http://www.gamersnexus.net...) and do not get cheaper regardless; this isn't a gross oversight but instead a general reality for why computers are getting cheaper yet top-of-the-line materials that are not greatly improving are getting even more ridiculously expensive (http://www.pcworld.com...) simply because like any tool the utility is there but the ability to continuously push that envelop while maintaining viability as a for-profit and dividend or share generating entity is just not there.

2. Money doesn't work. (https://hbr.org...)

"As for productivity, at least two dozen studies over the last three decades have conclusively shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task or for doing that task successfully simply do not perform as well as those who expect no reward at all. These studies examined rewards for children and adults, males and females, and included tasks ranging from memorizing facts to creative problem-solving to designing collages. In general, the more cognitive sophistication and open-ended thinking that was required, the worse people performed when working for a reward. Interestingly enough, the researchers themselves were often taken by surprise. They assumed that rewards would produce better work but discovered otherwise."

Take this in for a moment. Time and time again people who do tasks for rewards, which Capitalism is built entirely off of, do worse than their counterparts who are doing their best for no reward whatsoever. Compensation does not drive success! For-profit behavior on the individual level doesn't work so the concept that for-profit behavior on the the national level as a cultural driving force seems misguided. A common statement is that socialism breeds laziness which f course is untrue (http://www.financialsamurai.com...) and one real question that comes to mind is that instead of worrying that you are making an equivalent amount than a person shouldn't you be worrying that you are contributing as a citizen to your society in the career that you've chosen?

This rhetorical question aside the idea of a country where everyone has basic needs met does not seem unruly, the idea that ambition is unrewarded simply because your neighbor won't starve to death is madness, and the proposition that "competition" versus "cooperation" breeds innovation is, as shown, completely false not only on a corporate level but even down to the individual. The flaws in Capitalism are glaring and where the flaws lie Socialism picks up the slack; it takes care of people, it seeks to by definition cooperate and spread the wealth, and it prevents the stagnation of modern technology incorporated with a rise in prices for less performance based solely on novelty and newness.
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Pro

My opponent has not created a case but a rebuttal. He has not only argued my contentions line by line, but he has not created an effective case for socialism.(Judges Note)

My opponent attacks my case with first a outdated source. If you click on his monthlyreview.org, you will find that his source is based in the early 2000s when the economic crash happened. This source is irrelevant because it is outdated and did not see the free market boom with the IPhone. He quotes Studies show that a large majority of economically important inventions come from university scientists, government researchers, and independent inventors,
for whom pecuniary considerations are not typically dominant.6". One question I have to ask my opponent is who sold these items. Who sold the IPhone? Who sold the car. Who sold the computers. Businesses. If the government provided food, Food would not get better because the government doesn't have a reason to get involved in that. If the government provided cars, than we would not have alternatives because the government doesn't need to improve itself. By God, I hope this would never happen, but if the government was in charge of our tech industries we would still be looking at gloomy IBM computers. By the way, I would note that the government did create the internet, but if our government decided it would also provide all the search engines. We would have the same slow internet.

My opponent also attacks me by giving two flaws for capitalism. The problem with his argument is that he is giving me no other alternative. He is just challenging the idea of money making you happy. Now, lets take this to a philosophical stage because happiness is itself very philosophical. Say I live in communist Russia. I work. Say I live in the UK. I am going to work. Say I live in Saudi Arabia, I am going to work. Say I live in America, I am going to work. The only thing unique about America is that it provides opportunity to build for yourself. To make power for yourself. It is your choice if you are willing to put yourself through the education that will make you successful.

In his second argument, he argues that since capitalism is more inclined to profits their not going to support things like NASA. If you every read a page of video game history you would also note that video games manipulated the joysticks NASA used. Also the government created the Internet. Who exploited it for profit? Microsoft. What are we using right now. A thing made from capitalism.

He attacks my fast food arguments by saying that these foods are extremely unhealthy. That wasn't m point. The point is that markets can make food better. And look the sources that my opponents are using are products of how the free market work. I purposefully put the fast food argument not because I am an ideot, but I knew my opponent would take the bait. This was an argument that I wanted to put on my case, but I couldn't. Since we have combined capitalism with freedom, reporters are free to report on fast food chains that destroy human health. Lets just say that the government was in charge of food. If a reporter found out that the government was providing food like that, than the reporter would not be able to say that because the government would be forced into having to change their process. Fast Foods are an example. Thank you.

Okay, My opponent has some leverage on how the car economy uses oil for their supply. But my opponent has not given an alternative. Sure you can criticize a system all you want but if you can't come up with a model yourself than you shouldn't come at all. China is number one in renewable energy. But, people there have only sacrificed their freedom over "cooperation".
My opponent also attacks the idea of money, but he does not bring an alternative. He fails to bring an alternative to the century old idea of currency. Capitalism is the best we have. It is the progression of humanity. It has brought us to the golden age of internet which will continue. My opponent says that socialistic countries take care of you. All my opponent is asking for is a secure future. James Madison once said "If you value security over liberty you deserve none". How true is this quote. My opponents ideas are ideal. When ever a countries governments starts to intervene it becomes corrupt. We can see this in China, Russia, and Cuba. These countries valued security and sacrificed liberty.
blackkid

Con

"My opponent has not created a case but a rebuttal. He has not only argued my contentions line by line, but he has not created an effective case for socialism." As socialism is shown through multiple sources to cover the failures of your proposed successes which have been disproved the case for Socialism is solidified by using the same basis you make for Capitalism and literally taking your points away from you and adding them to my own.

"My opponent attacks my case with first a outdated source. If you click on his monthlyreview.org, you will find that his source is based in the early 2000s when the economic crash happened.", except the economic crash was in the late 2000's (http://www.investopedia.com...) specifically starting in 2007. Pro may want to check his knowledge of history history. All said in relation to this about the iPhone is wo/ source and since the dating is wrong irrelevant anyway.

Also note that source dating for studies goes back about 20 years in normal debates.

"If the government provided food, Food would not get better because the government doesn't have a reason to get involved in that." not only is this again without a source but it's completely untrue as (http://www.usda.gov...) the United States Department of Agriculture (for example) gives out millions in grants for everything from starting a ranch to research projects for preventing malnutrition by increasing ease of access to people for personal farms in Food Deserts (http://www.usda.gov...) so I have no idea where pro gets his information. Perhaps he did not take a moment to even look?

"By God, I hope this would never happen, but if the government was in charge of our tech industries we would still be looking at gloomy IBM computers." (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) Pro again fails to answer for the fact that the government is building quantum computers while pro is likely sitting at, at best, an x64. Governmental and military technology has a long history of being the best in the world and most innovative (http://www.forbes.com...) of all sectors esp. when compared to private sector [home computing] machinery.

"The problem with his argument is that he is giving me no other alternative.", that is a shift of burden of proof.

"Now, lets take this to a philosophical stage because happiness is itself very philosophical.", no it's not (http://insights.som.yale.edu...) and as a matter of fact it's highly tangible. Human happiness is quite measurable and furthermore as it is studied even more predictable with stronger correlations between various criteria being made over time as research continues in Economics.

"It is your choice if you are willing to put yourself through the education that will make you successful." Yet 80% of college graduates in 2015 are reported to be outside of their field (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) so there's that idea too.

"In his second argument, he argues that since capitalism is more inclined to profits their not going to support things like NASA. If you every read a page of video game history you would also note that video games manipulated the joysticks NASA used. Also the government created the Internet. Who exploited it for profit? Microsoft. What are we using right now. A thing made from capitalism."

1. This isn't actually a counterproof since NASA has never been supported by capitalism as NASA isn't receiving any for-profit treatment or preferences from anyone including those "joystick creators" (contractors? uncited.).
2. Microsoft doesn't "exploit the internet" and actually is a computer OS manufacturer.
3. Internet is a telephony service and thus telephone companies exploit the internet for profit.

... Pro, have you ever actually taken even two seconds to look up any of this? Not to offend but ... This is Common Knowledge to the extreme degree.

"He attacks my fast food arguments by saying that these foods are extremely unhealthy. That wasn't m point. The point is that markets can make food better." But I cannot see how unhealthy food would be considered "better". The problem here is that you outright lied (which is a fallacy: http://www.iep.utm.edu...) not that you're delusional. Though I am starting to wonder ... I kid, I kid. It's better than being 100% serious, is it not?

"Since we have combined capitalism with freedom, reporters are free to report on fast food chains that destroy human health." This really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Particularly because, " Lets just say that the government was in charge of food. If a reporter found out that the government was providing food like that, than the reporter would not be able to say that because the government would be forced into having to change their process." actually the government is in charge of food. They are the ones who specifically rate and review the nutritional value of all items that are considered consumable relating to the food industry. Local, State, and Federal government standards do have to be met (http://www.fsis.usda.gov...) so again whatever point was trying to be proven I cannot see how it worked.

"Okay, My opponent has some leverage on how the car economy uses oil for their supply. But my opponent has not given an alternative.", I did not mention mag-lev trains in Japan for my health. Advanced technologies such as those on the chart that was in the source given relating to the energy consumption and "green"ness of transportation show pretty clearly that electric cars are far cleaner than oil burning anything and the same with mass transit with mag-lev trains having a very low footprint versus standard common Amtrak machinery.

"My opponent also attacks the idea of money, but he does not bring an alternative.", if one sees the sources one notes that because money is not the best driver but instead personal achievement is one would note that there doesn't need to be an alternative. Doing good and inventing out of the love of invention and doing good is sufficient; reward based systems fail time and time again and have consistently provided the same exact result no matter how many times one marks the changes in experimentation or group. Behavioral economics has smashed the argument of tradition relating to the value of coin.


"Capitalism is the best we have.", so far that has not only been dismantled but has been shown to be without a paddle. Stating it is so does not make it so, but oh only if it did, no?

"My opponent says that socialistic countries take care of you. All my opponent is asking for is a secure future.", I do admit there must be something wrong with me to eliminate poverty, educate the populace, and grant access to healthcare to the common man. These are all, by the way, things the United States does not do well: (https://www.cia.gov...), (https://www.cia.gov...), (https://www.cia.gov...)

Do not take note of countries with developing and strong Socialism. You may feel shame.


Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Pro

He still has not created a case for socialism. Has my opponent even created a case for socialism. You say "As socialism is shown through multiple sources to cover the failures of your proposed successes which have been disproved the case for Socialism is solidified by using the same basis you make for Capitalism and literally taking your points away from you and adding them to my own." He has not shown any, but criticize capitalistic failures. He has not represented a form of government therefore making his case just a rebuttal. He has not even defined socialism. Did he even bother to study socialism.
"My opponent attacks my case with first a outdated source. If you click on his monthlyreview.org, you will find that his source is based in the early 2000s when the economic crash happened.", except the economic crash was in the "late 2000's" (http://www.investopedia.com......) specifically starting in 2007. Pro may want to check his knowledge of history history. All said in relation to this about the iPhone is wo/ source and since the dating is wrong irrelevant anyway. I am sincerely sorry that I did not say early 2000s, but late 2000s. Yes, I must check my history because the difference between early and late 2000 makes me historically inaccurate.
"Also note that source dating for studies goes back about 20 years in normal debates." Cite the studies?

"If the government provided food, Food would not get better because the government doesn't have a reason to get involved in that." not only is this again without a source but it's completely untrue as (http://www.usda.gov......) the United States Department of Agriculture (for example) gives out millions in grants for everything from starting a ranch to research projects for preventing malnutrition by increasing ease of access to people for personal farms in Food Deserts (http://www.usda.gov......) so I have no idea where pro gets his information. Perhaps he did not take a moment to even look?
Millions of our tax payer money is going to the government. I looked at his source. His source comes from the government. I'm curious. Was my opponent really that desperate that his only source for the government improving food was from the government. That's like asking Fox News if they have bias. Even if my opponent's argument is valid, than explain how dealing with malnutrition has anything to do with my argument on making food taste better. Did my opponent even bother to read. I am okay with the government investing in malnutrition research, but that has nothing to do with getting food to taste better. My opponent's argument is irrelevant because it only attacks an anarchist.

I am beginning to wonder if my opponent knows what a market is. I will give you the definition because this argument is entirely irrelevant to anything I am saying. Market: a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale and usually not by auction. I said that the government should not be in charge of the tech markets or industries. I was simply saying that if the government was in charge of this, we would have not progressed as much as we had. Who made the IPhone? Not the government. Who made Windows? Not the government. Who made Xbox? Not the government. Who made GTA 5? Not the government. Who is selling us our technology? Not the government. The government can research anything it wants, but that is not going to stop corporations into translating this technology into products we deem dearly such as GTA 5. My opponent did not attack my argument, because he fails to know what an economy is and what a market is.

"Now, lets take this to a philosophical stage because happiness is itself very philosophical.", no it's not (http://insights.som.yale.edu......) and as a matter of fact it's highly tangible. Human happiness is quite measurable and furthermore as it is studied even more predictable with stronger correlations between various criteria being made over time as research continues in Economics.
Did he really just say happiness is not philosophical and cited a source for it. My opponent says happiness is given through economy, but did not write how. Burden of Proof.

"In his second argument, he argues that since capitalism is more inclined to profits their not going to support things like NASA. If you every read a page of video game history you would also note that video games manipulated the joysticks NASA used. Also the government created the Internet. Who exploited it for profit? Microsoft. What are we using right now. A thing made from capitalism."

1. This isn't actually a counterproof since NASA has never been supported by capitalism as NASA isn't receiving any for-profit treatment or preferences from anyone including those "joystick creators" (contractors? uncited.).
2. Microsoft doesn't "exploit the internet" and actually is a computer OS manufacturer.
3. Internet is a telephony service and thus telephone companies exploit the internet for profit.

1. Did I say capitalism supported NASA. NO! I said they got the technology from NASA, and translated it into neat things like arcade.
2. Who owns Internet Explorer? Is it a telephone company.
3. WHO GIVES INTERNET AS A SERVICE. My opponent thinks that it is common knowledge that you should know that Internet Explorer is made my AT&T.

"He attacks my fast food arguments by saying that these foods are extremely unhealthy. That wasn't m point. The point is that markets can make food better." But I cannot see how unhealthy food would be considered "better". The problem here is that you outright lied (which is a fallacy: http://www.iep.utm.edu......) not that you're delusional. Though I am starting to wonder ... I kid, I kid. It's better than being 100% serious, is it not? Read the full argument before you critique.
Oh my God. I am convinced that my opponent does not know anything about how markets work. He literally said that the government is in charge of food and rate nutritional value of all items. Its not like the Washington Herald, the Telegraph, or CNN have ever done it. I don't even think that you realize that you took my bait, and now I am starting to feel bad about your incapacity to read an argument. http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., I did the fast food argument because it is a representation when the free market goes bad, than the newspapers are all over it. See. Go to any news site, they will say that this food is unhealthy.

You didn't say anything in your case about an alternative.

In Conclusion, if I have not convinced you that capitalism does not work, consider this.
1. Did we not just forget our brothers and sisters in Russia? The people of Russia had to read what the state allowed, see what the state allowed and listen to what the state allowed. The state"s control of the media was total. Those who attempted to listen, read etc. anything else were severely punished. Everybody knew of the labour camps and that was enough of a deterrent.Education was strictly controlled by the state. In 1932, a rigid programme of discipline and education was introduced. Exams, banned under Lenin, were reintroduced. The way subjects were taught was laid down by the government - especially History where Stalin"s part in the 1917 Revolution and his relationship with Lenin was overplayed. Books were strictly censored by the state and Stalin ordered the writing of a new book called "A short history of the USSR" which had to be used in schools. We live here in America enjoying the free life of America while people in Russia starve. We enjoy our education system while the Russian people enjoy censored education. If we commit a crime we would be just scared of crime while others would be scared of being thrown into a camp. I am not saying that all socialist regimes are like this, but they are very similar. China and Cuba could have been examples, but failed and caused oppression. Power Corrupts.
blackkid

Con

"He still has not created a case for socialism." In essence socialism does everything you say Capitalism does only better. Hows that for a case? :p Citations included.

"He has not represented a form of government therefore making his case just a rebuttal. He has not even defined socialism. Did he even bother to study socialism." Should I have to define it? I assert "Common Knowledge". For instance your "definition" of capitalism actually not correct and one you made up; here's the correct definition:

"A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit." (http://www.investopedia.com...) Note that only the first two sentences actually correlate in Con's definition and that "Free Market" which is not an inherent aspect of Capitalism and so forth and so on are tagged on. A centralized market is completely possible with Capitalism it's just not widely used but the very notion of "regulation" is that centralization incarnate.

"Yes, I must check my history because the difference between early and late 2000 makes me historically inaccurate." Actually it does because the event you referred to for the iPhone didn't occur at the time you referred to it but alas it's just you so ... It's a given that you didn't connect the temporal error as being critical to your argument. I wish I could get away with saying "The tech bubble burst in the early 1990s" but I am positive I'd hav people down my throat instantly; by the way the iPhone incident you do refer to is attached to the tech bubble not the last recession just FYI. Take it with you; you'll be better for it.

""Also note that source dating for studies goes back about 20 years in normal debates." Cite the studies?"; you mean "regulations" or "standards" since the studies were already cited... You commented on it's age. Maybe this isn't for you. Anyway, in order for the standard to fail you have to show that the actual source is, due to it's age, outdated (https://www.e-education.psu.edu...) which you did not.

"Millions of our tax payer money is going to the government. I looked at his source. His source comes from the government." Do I have to finish this paragraph? Alright, alright, I will, "I'm curious. Was my opponent really that desperate that his only source for the government improving food was from the government. That's like asking Fox News if they have bias. Even if my opponent's argument is valid, than explain how dealing with malnutrition has anything to do with my argument on making food taste better. Did my opponent even bother to read. I am okay with the government investing in malnutrition research, but that has nothing to do with getting food to taste better. My opponent's argument is irrelevant because it only attacks an anarchist." Okay, I did it, I read it and quoted it and I am hoping you're happy I did because my eyes now bleed. Thank Hades this is the last round; first and foremost I would think that giving grants to schools to manage lunches, giving grants to colleges to better improve food through genetic research, and giving funding to programs for better enticing the nation to healthier food would all be described as "better" and mind you I offer better on an objective front since there's no way comparing McDonald's to a top culinary resturaunt would be considered at all the goal of making food better whether in taste, price per item, nutrition value, or any other quantifiable manner. This amuses me at best as I wipe away the bloody tears.

"I am beginning to wonder if my opponent knows what a market is." Considering everything you've said thus far the only thing you've gotten right is that taxes exist. That's about it.

" Market: a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale and usually not by auction." I can't imagine what corner of your room you pulled this one out of. Let's try again:

"A medium that allows buyers and sellers of a specific good or service to interact in order to facilitate an exchange. The price that individuals pay during the transaction may be determined by a number of factors, but price is often determined by the forces of supply and demand." (http://www.investopedia.com...)

Note the lack of anything about auctions. Also note that auctions are completely normal forms of market such as car and large property auctions. Because who knows why you bid on houses?

Let's just stop. Please vote for Pro. I hope you win out of pity.

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
Do you realize that your definition of market and my definition of market are the same thing
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
Do you realize that your definition of market and my definition of market are the same thing
Posted by blackkid 1 year ago
blackkid
That was funny; I haven't laughed this hard in quite a while.

"I looked at his source..." (www.usda.gov/whatever) "and noted it was from the government."

Cracks me up. Good luck to you; may you win. I think you'll definitely get "conduct".
Posted by amVoiceofReason 1 year ago
amVoiceofReason
Wikipedia can barely be counted a tertiary source. Please demonstrate some effort to find an original source.

Same goes for sources a decade old.
Posted by blackkid 1 year ago
blackkid
What? Oh, dang. It's a trap.
Posted by Luharis 1 year ago
Luharis
You're doing this debate again?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
AriesxblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made arguments, while Con made only rebuttals.