The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 478 times Debate No: 91682
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)




First round acceptance only and definitions.

Democratic Socialism: To avoid confusion, democratic socialism shall be interpreted as the collected group of economic/social policies that the country of Denmark currently has in effect. This means government-funded public college tuition and single-payer healthcare.

Capitalism: An economic system based upon the idea of a free market. Most or all goods and services are privatized, excepting things such as police departments, military and militia (National Guard) and education, as well as various safety-net social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.


I accept.

I am glad my opponent is willing to debate this topic and hopefully shed light on the universe we live in one debate at a time.

I respectfully disagree with your definitions. I find them arbitrary, and not considering all possibilities. In short they are near-sighted and suit your purposes for your arguments you will probably make. Therefore I propose different definitions.

Democratic Socialism: "a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government"

Better: "
more attractive, favorable, or commendable <in better circumstances> 4 : more advantageous or effective <a better solution> 5 : improved in accuracy or performance <building a better engine>"

Capitalism: "
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"

Now that all the key terms are defined in the resolution in a more fair way for both debaters, I eagerly await my opponents arguments!

Debate Round No. 1


I agree with your definitions. Mine were definitely not carefully thought through. Although I fail to see how they are arbitrary or biased, they do appear to be inaccurate, so I submit to the definitions you have provided.

Let's start with some statistics. Democratic socialist/social democratic welfare states such as Denmark, Norway, Canada, and Sweden have constant successes relating to economic/quality of life issues. Norway has the highest living standard in the world, graduated using the Human Development Index. In fourth place is Denmark, with a HDI of 0.923. Denmark is the happiest country in the world, closely followed by four other democratic socialist/quazi-socialist countries. Canada, Norway and Sweden are all in the top ten countries ranked by life expectancy.

Countries such as these are obviously some of the most successful in the world. It's because of socially democratic policies that protect equal opportunity so that all people have an equal chance of succeeding. The private sector has failed us by allowing corporate greed and carelessness to come before the needs of the people. Take Martin Shkreli, for example, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Overnight, he raised the price of a single pill used to combat HIV/AIDS from $13.50 to $750. Because he had a monopoly on the drug, he knowingly and willingly withheld the drug from people dying of AIDS who could not afford to pay $750 per pill. This is just plain wrong, and this is why we need socialized healthcare and college tuition, following the policies of the aforementioned countries.

Eagerly awaiting your response!


Let's kick this round off!

First of all, I want to point out that your statistics have two issues. A) They have no URL citations, or even name and date citations to back them up. I cannot attack your sources because of this failure. So due to no citations, these statistics are completely invalid. B) These statistics are neutral as of right now in the round. The reason for this is your failure to impact even one of these statistics back to the resolution in a meaningful way. If you wanted to show us how Denmark being the happiest country in the world helps your points, then tell us that. Don't just leave the statistic, and have us try to figure out why it matters. For that, you should lose points (voters take note please).

Now I am going to respond to your statistics anyway.

R1: Country figures.

You gave us many different figures on how certain "democratic socialist" countries are happy, have the highest living standards, and highest life expectancy. While all these traits may mean a country has succeeded, there are several problems.

You need to prove these countries are democratic socialist in nature. Remember that my definition states the socialism and share of resources must be a government and community combined effort. Please bring up proof how the countries you named are democratically socialist. Your say so is not good enough. And the burden of proof rests on you as Pro. Until you fulfill this burden, all these countries have to be considered possibly not even representing your side of the resolution.

First of all, happiness of countries is an arbitrary statistic. Furthermore you gave no source when you cited this statistic. As far as I am concerned for this debate, Denmark is not the happiest country in the world.

What about life expectancy? First of all, you apparently do not do research. Canada is by no means a democratic socialist country. It is a parliamentary free market society with workplace restrictions, almost exactly like the US but possibly a bit harsher. So Canada does not qualify. Norway may have a high life expectancy, but the life expectancy of people in the US is large as well. So I see this as a moot point. Same goes for Sweden. If people in those countries live just as long as in the capitalistic US, then capitalism and democratic socialism have no real advantage in terms of life expectancy.

Now living standard is trickier. You say that Norway is the best according to this study. But let me clarify a couple things for the voters. The study is a UN study, so the credibility could be doubtful because the UN has parts that are reliable, and parts that are not as reliable. Also the HDI of Norway is .944. But the HDI of the United States is .915 and while the difference may seem large, it actually is not. The HDI takes into account numerous factors (something you failed to mention) including: Health, Education, Income, Inequality, Gender, Poverty, Employment, Human Security, Trade, Mobility and Communication, Environmental sustainability, and Demography. While Norway may be better than the US at some of these, the US is definitely better than Norway on some of these. In a large respect, the most telling thing is that Norway's Inequality adjusted HDI is .893 while the US's is .760. This means that the US is more economically equal than Norway.

The main point that is proved is that your study you base this off of, which is linked here; Is literally considering numerous other factors than straight economics. Some of these factors have only marginal bearing on whether an economic system is beneficial or not. For instance Norway may distribute wealth more evenly, but the US has less of a pay gap than Norway. This study voters, must be taken with a grain of salt.

R2: Turing example.

You seem bent on using a recent example to justify why one economic system is better than the other. Sorry to inform you, but one example does not justify one entire economic system over another. This type of usage of examples is the same as if I was to claim that I saw a democratic socialist who tortured kids in a basement, and afterwards sold their bodies on the black market. So obviously, democratic socialism is wrong right? Absolutely not, not based on that one example that is. This is exactly why this point is ludicrous. Also let's keep in mind this is only one person, and one company. They may have made that very important drug, but cancer patients get ripped off by charities all the time, and this does not seem to bother you. Instead one time when a company messed up, suddenly equality in medical drugs becomes important. I get it.

Now I have some of my own arguments to make.

1. You get to keep all money you earn in a Capitalistic society.

When people put blood, sweat, and tears into their jobs, they expect to keep the majority of what they earn. In a truly capitalistic society (1800s America) there are little taxes so people keep almost all they earn. This means that whatever you make, it is yours under capitalism. This is the enticement for entrerpreneurs to start the businesses they start, and the enticement for people to seek jobs willingly. Under socialism, the government takes most of what you earn, if not all of it, in order to make themselves richer, and distribute the money "fairly." Obviously for anyone who has self-interest at stake when earning money, Capitalism is the more appealing option.

2. World Socialist Movement admits that Capitalism is all over the world.

Because you brought no proof that democratic socialist countries exist, I will bring proof that you are outnumbered, from the very people who think like you do. WSM says that "Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)"

The rest of the paragraph is kept for context, but focus on the first sentence. In it an admission is made that capitalism is a) more popular, b) more heavily tested, and c) has been the reason the global economy exists.

So I fail to see how Capitalism is bad. How is socialism going to fill these large shoes? You still have not answered that question.

3. Capitalism works best when uninhibited, and is the only way an economy can grow dynamically.

According to Columbia University "it has come to be argued that the corporatist economies of east Asia, which had achieved wonders when there was a yawning gap with the West, ran into trouble in the 1990s because state intervention in the corporate sector through permissions, subsidies and guarantees led ultimately to mass overinvestment and insolvency.2 On this thesis, private ownership is not sufficient for dynamism either: capitalism, in which capital is free to go in new directions without a green light from the state, becomes necessary at some point in economic development if dynamism is to continue."

This is arguing that east Asia economies when capitalistic and relatively free, experienced a significant boom. But when government stepped in, the boom fell apart. Also it is arguing that when capitalism works, it is the only way for economic development and growth to continue. This is because the thoughts and ideas that are new and encouraged, can advance society. The reason that all these assertions should be accepted as true, is because Columbia University is a very credible source on academic matters.

So capitalism has economically advanced society, and technologically advanced society, and benefitted individuals within society. This system is a beneficial one. As of yet, you have still given no reason or benefit to uphold your side of the resolution over mine. Doing so in the next round would be nice.

With these arguments, I await my opponents response!

Debate Round No. 2


I apologize for not providing sources for statistics. I was tired and burned out from a previous debate (I know that's a sorry excuse) and so did not provide any sources. So here they are.

Life expectancy:

HDI Index: (This is where I found the information; it is from a United Nations study, as you pointed out.)

Happiness: (This is a study done for the World Happiness Report Update 2016, carried out by the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network.)

First of all, I will attempt to probe that these Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) are democratic socialist. In the Socialist International (the world's main organization for forwarding democratic socialist ideals) Declaration of Principles, Section 57 of Article V, the Socialist Congress defines human rights: "Human rights include economic and social rights; the right to form trade unions and to strike; the right to social security and welfare for all, including the protection of mothers and children; the right to education, training and leisure; the right to decent housing in a livable environment, and the right to economic security. Crucially, there is the right to both full and useful employment in an adequately rewarded job. Unemployment undermines human dignity, threatens social stability and wastes the world's most valuable resource." Let's compare these core democratic socialist values to Scandinavian socialism. Trade unions? Yes. Social security and welfare for all? These countries all have strong social safety-net policies and free public college tuition as well as universal healthcare. Sweden, for example, spends 56.6% of its annual GDP on social welfare programs. Denmark spends 51.7% of theirs. This goes mostly to the aforementioned social programs as well as to the cost of running the government (38% of Denmark's workforce, for example, works in the public sector). Next is "the protection of mothers and children." Not only is public education extensively funded in these countries, all of these nations have a large amount of paid maternity/paternity leave. So I think we can both agree that these Scandinavian countries satisfy this tenet of democratic socialism. According to this Forbes article (, "In Norway the unemployed receive 87.6% of their previous salaries for 500 days and in Finland they receive 85.1% of their previous salaries for one year." So we have a strong unemployment safety net as well, as described in the Socialist International list of values. As for housing, all three countries have a very strong public housing network. And education--as mentioned before, these nations have free public college and fund K-12 education very well. The only one left is economic security. This is ensured by the safety-net programs that are mentioned above. So I have shown that the core values of democratic socialism are aligned with the policies of these Scandinavian/Northern European communities. Unless otherwise noted, all statistics and quotations are from here: Here's the Declaration of Principles, if you wanted to look through that as well:

As for the current neutrality of these statistics, here's how I interpret them. They in no way, of course, prove that socialism is best. They simply prove that socialism does not necessarily cause economic and political stagnation as many proponents of capitalism say it does.

Finally, about Canada: I agree it is not socialist. However, it follows many of the values and social policies proposed by the Socialist International.

I believe that all of the issues concerning my statistics have been cleared up. Now for the debate.

"When people put blood, sweat, and tears into their jobs, they expect to keep the majority of what they earn. In a truly capitalistic society (1800s America) there are little taxes so people keep almost all they earn. This means that whatever you make, it is yours under capitalism...Obviously for anyone who has self-interest at stake when earning money, Capitalism is the more appealing option." This makes sense. Getting to keep the money you earn is generally a good thing, until you are hospitalized for some disease or injury and can't do your job, and when you finally do get out of the hospital, they force upon you such a hugely overblown medical bill that you, now unemployed and still recovering, are forced out of your home. After that, without sufficient social safety-net policies, it's a downward spiral from there. When a social democratic government imposes higher taxes, it is to fund these social welfare policies.

Your second argument is a textbook example of the "Bandwagon Fallacy," or the "Argumentum ad Populum." When you say, "The rest of the paragraph is kept for context, but focus on the first sentence. In it an admission is made that capitalism is a) more popular, b) more heavily tested, and c) has been the reason the global economy exists," you are basically providing this "bandwagon" argument--that capitalism is good because it's more popular. As to your question about how will socialism take the place of capitalism, see the above statistics. I think it will work perfectly well as an alternative to capitalism.

Your third argument is funny--although I see where you are coming from, you used the same logic that you had accused me of using. "Sorry to inform you, but one example does not justify one entire economic system over another. This type of usage of examples is the same as if I was to claim that I saw a democratic socialist who tortured kids in a basement, and afterwards sold their bodies on the black market. So obviously, democratic socialism is wrong right?" And yet you're using a similar strategy when you use examples from one part of the world in one particular time to prove a point about economics. I'm not criticizing--I did exactly the same thing. But some consistency would be nice. The other amusing thing about this argument is that the economic powerhouse of East Asia is China, a communist country. (I'm not in any way advocating communism, but I would not by any stretch of the imagination call China "capitalistic and relatively free." The only country I can think of in which an economic downturn such as the one you described occurred is Japan. Although government regulation had some hand in the 90's stock market crash and resulting economic downturn, it was mostly because of the burst of a real estate and stock bubble, which was likely causing the "significant boom" that you describe. Also, I must make one thing clear. Government micromanagement/over regulation is not inherent or even specified in the ideology of democratic socialism, and I do not, in any way, endorse it.

You argue in this last part that " the only way an economy can grow dynamically." I disagree. A strong safety net creates a stronger workforce, which inevitably creates a stronger economy. When people are supported by their government and the community, they tend to contribute back to that community in a meaningful way--more so than they would in a community that is always trying to beat, outperform, cheat, con, or swindle them, as so often happens in capitalism. This creates a mutually beneficial society that helps all parties (workers, employers, families, government) progress to a brighter future.


I am not exiting the debate but I do not have the time to post a response right now. I will have a very large response to whatever you wish to add in the final round, along with your round 3 responses. Do not consider this a forfeit, but I do not have the time to respond.

Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

Eagerly awaiting your additional arguments!
Debate Round No. 3


Hillary4Prez forfeited this round.


So I understand that my opponent forfeited the last round. Because I myself did not forfeit the last round and had the willingness to continue the debate I would appreciated the voters handing conduct to me. I also want to provide responses to everything he talked about in his final rebuttal because I feel if I don't then I could have voters voting against me on arguments. So let me stall that now, and finish this debate. It deserves to be finished correctly.

Let's begin with sources. I appreciate you providing the sources for your arguments. However, sources should be delivered when the facts are delivered. That should go against you in this debate. I want to also point something out about these sources. They in no way match the sources that I was giving in this debate. CNN is a biased news source, and Wikipedia is not credible by itself in academia. Also does not seem very credible. But it might be. I on the other hand, provided definitions from a well known dictionary, actually provided a source my opponent did not include, and my source on it was not Wikipedia but the UN website itself. Also I had Columbia University as a source. All of these differences should give sources to me in this debate.

Now let's address your lengthy argument on Democratic Socialism.

I really appreciate the long quote that was sourced from the Socialist International. I do not appreciate that your affirmation of the way the countries are, has no real sources. In the beginning, after your first Socialist International quote, you have no sources to back up those facts. You bring in Forbes later, which I will accept, and Wikipedia which once again doesn't belong in academia.

1. Human Rights is not the only criteria that makes a country Democratic Socialist.

Your argument is large and obviously well thought out. But you are making a base assumption behind the entire argument. You are assuming that socio-economic principles are what makes a Democratic Socialist country. Let's revisit my definition in Round 1. It points out that to be Democratic Socialist, you have to distribute the wealth in such a way that the community at large has a say in it. In the countries you keep providing as examples, only the government, the central goverment, has any say in how the wealth is distributed.

First here is a quote from the Guardian on the issue. "This provides a challenge for all of us, but particularly for global businesses who operate in diverse contexts around the globe. In the case of the Scandinavian countries, it’s the way in which the redistribution of tax and wealth from business works that makes a lot of their success possible. Their free market system underpinned by high levels of state welfare is one model of government-business cooperation."

I just want to point out that you agreed through silence that free market systems equal capitalism according to my definition in Round 1. So if the Nordic system has capitalistic elements to it, then it is impossible for it to be fully socialist. This point should suffice to prove that the Nordic system has much of its wealth distribution coming from the state, and not from the community. So I will stress this, the Nordic system is NOT Democratically Socialist in nature.

2. The Nordic System matches some of the Socialist International criteria, but not all.

Obviously because the wealth in the Nordic system has large restrictions, you would think capitalism doesn't exist there. But capitalism is really just a system where the wealth can move at will. If any section of an economy holds true to this principle, then that section is capitalism. So when news sources repeatedly stress that billionaires are able to hold vast amounts of wealth in Sweden, then we need to see that as proof of capitalism being the system, but socialism being the restrictor.

According to Slate, "No single Swede comes close to the epic wealth of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett. But Stefan Persson, the chairman, main shareholder, and former longtime CEO of H&M, leads a roster of Swedish billionaires who outpace the U.S. (No. 14) on a per capita basis. In part this is just a bit of a funny coincidence—it’s a fairly small country, after all—but the fact that a famously left-wing country like Sweden can be so rich in billionaires is telling and important. That’s because a billionaire isn’t just a guy with a well-paying job. To reach that level of stratospheric riches, you probably either need to start a big, successful company or else inherit one from someone who did. And however much people care about inequality, almost every place on Earth would like to be the kind of place where successful new firms are born and raised. The good news about Sweden is that it’s exactly that kind of place. High taxes go to finance cheap health care and education, an excellent system of public transportation, and relatively generous subsidies to low-income households that keep the poverty rate and inequality low. But they haven’t stopped Swedish entrepreneurs from building giant firms like H&M, Ikea, and Tetra Pak."

I think this quote is self explanatory. It proves that the Nordic system while relying on some socialism is not actually a democratic socialist system. It is instead a mildly socialistic capitalism.

Let's move on to other arguments.

1. Neturality of Specifics.

I never actually said that socialism causes economic and political stagnation. Instead what I said, and you have failed to rebut statistically, is that when Capitalism is unimpeded, it works much better than socialism. That argument upholds my side of the resolution that Capitalism is better than Democratic Socialism.

As for Canada, see above as to why following some of Socialist International's ideas does not label you democratic socialist.

2. Keeping money you earn.

You just conceded the argument! You cannot say that it makes sense until an emergency. That is the same thing as saying that Democratic Socialism is only good as a fail safe, and is not better 95% of the time. That argument alone should be considered concession by the voters.

3. Logical fallacy.

I did not make those observations on my own. They were made for me by a quote from a highly liberal source that was making an admittance that Democratic Socialism is almost non-existent in our world.

If Capitalism is practiced by almost the entire world, that would indicate its popularity because that is common sense. Most of the world surprisingly disagrees with you on what makes a good economic system, and only Europe really agrees with your side. So you are fighting many large countries like China (which is capitalistic) and Russia (which also is) and claiming that they are not intelligent enough to like the system. Or something like that.

It's more heavily tested because it has been around for ages. Adam Smith defined Capitalism in the 1700s, but it had been the system of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece, even Ancient China and Old Russia. All these older civilizations used a Capitalistic system. Socialism has only been around since Marx brought light to Communism and people found that too radical and difficult to achieve.

Finally it is the only reason the global economy has existed, because it literally has been the economic system for centuries for the whole world.

I'm running out of characters so I'll keep the rest short.

4. The funny argument

You think that I am being logically inconsistent? I fail to see that. Here is why. Providing an example from a certain time period of how Capitalism worked is called using past human experience to show how economically the system works. On the other hand, your example was a very limited example of minor scale abuse in the grand scheme of things. the Turing example is the equivalent of my hypothetical because both have very little power of persuasion in the larger reality of the whole world. So when I bring up China's economic system for a whole decade as an example, that holds far more power than the Turing example.

Also China is a mix of Communism and Capitalism. It is Communistic because it regulates many aspects of the poorer country's economy, but it is capitalistic because it allows Hong Kong to exist, and it produces several million products for the world market and exchanges those for luxury items here in America. It does trade, something a truly communistic economy would not do on the scale that China has done it.

5. Dynamically.

Let's address something here. Socialism does provide a safety net that Capitalism does not have. But that is all that makes sense in this argument. When I said Capitalism grows an economy dynamically, for evidential proof look at the GDP of the US ever since the Industrial Revolution. You will see a constant growth upward, and some sagas of skyrocketing growth. Look at the GDP of the Nordic System, you see something that cannot compete. Economies actually grow under Capitalism because everyone is out to make a profit. Economies do not grow as fast under Socialism because most are out to do the bare minimum because they don't get to keep their profits.

In conclusion. The resolution, voters, required the debaters to provide why their system was better. The only one who has provided significant reason that one system is superior to the other is me. My defense of Capitalism has shown that. The only one who has provided sources of significant weight is me. The only one who has kept to conduct is me. The only one who has not forfeited arguments, is me. I believe my spelling and grammar has also been reasonably consistent. With all this in mind, I would encourage you to VOTE CON.

Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 5 months ago
Thank you for the informative vote Danielle! I will try to pursue more offensive arguments in the future :).

Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[[ RFD part 1 ]]

Pro's first argument is that countries that identify as "Democratic Socialists" tend to fare well, including Canada and several countries in Europe. He claims they are successful (happiness, high life expectancy, etc.) because those countries have worked to curb corporate greed. Con argues that factors like happiness are subjective and arbitrary, and challenges the supposition that some of Pro's presented countries are actually Democratic Socialists. Con also claims that one single source is not sufficient to back up a widespread claim. In defense of capitalism, Con points out that people get to keep their earnings. He claims that capitalism exists (and arguably thrives) around the world by socialist's own admission. Finally, he claims that unbridled capitalism works best of all.

Pro spends a good amount of time in R3 (successfully) proving that countries in Europe are Democratic Socialists though he concedes that Canada is not. However he doesn't really address Con's point on happiness being arbitrary and subjective. Pro contends that while keeping your earnings is a good thing, not being able to afford medical care and other expenses is not a good thing. Pro also claims that Con is appealing to popular opinion by pointing out that capitalism is widespread. Next Pro mentions that some of the "capitalist" success cited by Con was actually the result of government regulation. Finally, Pro argues that a safety net is imperative to a strong economy.
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[[ RFD part 2 ]]

On conduct: both Pro and Con forfeited rounds which exhibits equal conduct. Con's repeated contentions against Pro's sources and conduct (when his wasn't necessarily any better) is unwarranted and actually exhibits poor conduct in and of itself. But I digress. I won't be voting on sources points though I agree Con makes some good points against Pro's citations.

Con does beat Pro's argument on happiness and other factors like higher life expectancy in Europe. He does this by correctly pointing out that Pro hasn't proven it was democratic socialism, specifically, that has led to those benefits. Con also suggests that the European countries in question "aren't really socialist" which I don't buy for the sake of this debate; that seems like a stretch as most people accept those countries as socialist, per Pro's statistics on the makeup of their economy.
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[[ RFD part 2 ]]

Con points out that the people in those countries are not as rich as people in non-socialist countries. Too bad Pro didn't get to respond to this point with, "So what?" Con followed this point up by noting just because emergencies are problematic, doesn't mean it isn't helpful to keep your earnings which Pro admits. Con also says that the reason capitalism is popular is specifically because it's good (in other words, it's not good BECAUSE it's popular). Finally, Con says that capitalism provides a better "safety net" for society because it produces growth, whereas socialism = stagnation and decline which isn't safe.

So ultimately, it comes down to judging whether or not Pro has fulfilled his burden. All of Pro's arguments were successfully refuted by Con with the exception of one (pretty significant) factor: when Pro suggests that the "capitalist" counties cited by Con were actually quite regulated. Con argues against himself by saying China is capitalist and then conceding that China is both capitalist and communist. Pro agrees that China is communist and therefore this isn't a great argument in favor of socialism.

Con did not emphasize the significance of capitalist growth or hindrance of socialist consumption, nor did Con give enough information on the historical failure of socialism. However Pro did not make any proactive arguments that Con was not able to refute. Con posits that the capitalistic aspects of China (and presumably other countries) is what makes them successful. He explains that Pro's measures for success are problematic, but does not offer a better standard. Con didn't do a great job defending capitalism, but Pro admits that keeping one's earnings is ideal and did not emphasize the importance or burden of financial hardship. In conclusion, I'll have to award arguments points to Con for Pro not fulfilling his burden.
Posted by TUF 6 months ago
Great Vote lannan!
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 6 months ago
Thanks for the well thought out vote lannan13!
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
RFD Part 5: Conclusion.

With Con winning all arguments in this debate, he wins the arguments points.

This vote has been brought to you in part by, the Voter's Union.
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
RFD Part 4: Free Markets

Con begins this argument in Round 2 by going into it showing that there is a greater economic growth under a Capitalist system. In doing this, he provides a few reasons as to what happens when the state intervenes in the economy and how that can be harmful. Pro's only response is an almost extension of his argument for the Socialist Movment admits Capitalism is everywhere rebuttal, where he argues that a this may be great, but we need a safety net to protect the average person. Con, in R4, does a similiar extension of rebuttals and uses China as an example.

This argument goes to Con.
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
RFD Part 3: Keeping Money as you Earn.

Con begins in the 2nd round by a comparrision of how, in a Capitalist society, that you get to keep what you earn, while in a Democratic Socialist society, you work for the greater good. He does this by the reflection in tax rates and how they are lower in Capitalist America, while in Socialist nations, they are a lot higher, though, he surprisingly doesn't source this after lamblasting Pro for doing similar in R2. He then moves on to say that the Socialist Movement has admitted that Capitalism is in every nation while claiming that Pro has yet to prove that Democrat Socialism actually exists. Pro counters in R2, by arguing that sure you may get to keep your money, but when you get injured or are unemployed, you'll be SOL and will want government assistance to help aid with some of the difficulties that you are going through. Con responds in R4 by showing how Pro's arguments on Social Programs are not able to fit under the definition provided in the debate and therefore irrelevent to the debate.

Con wins this argument.
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
RFD Part 2: Pro's Arguments (cont.)

the definitions provided by the 2, which were agreed upon, in R1. Pro has only really stated this one area and really fails to show just how Democratic Socialist nations are better than Capitalist ones with only the example of HDI.

Con wins this argument.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the Comment Section.
Vote Placed by lannan13 6 months ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the Comments section.
Vote Placed by ballpit 6 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is for the VU. RFD