Devil's Advocate Debate: Socialism is an overall a better system than Capitalism (rematch)
The same rules apply in this debate as it had in the previous one but to reclarify here are the rules:
- Both sides are playing the role of "Devil's Adovcate"
- Burden of Proof is held by both sides (Both sides must prove that overall the system they argue for is better then the one that their opponent argues for)
-Format of debate:
R1: Acceptance of Terms (If terms are found unreasonable or innacurate to con then they may alter them but with only a reason as to why)
R2: Opening Arguments
R4: Counter-rebuttals/Closing Arguments
Overall: With multiple factors being taken into account.
Socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled mostly by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Better: Comparably good or well.
Capitalism and Technological innovation.
Capitalism has encouraged technological innovation over the past several decades. The nature of Capitalism is what facilitates this. In a deregulated economy companies are left to fend for themselves (economically speaking), this leads to various companies faltering however the most innovative of the said companies often end up as dominant.
Competitions between companies tend to value the ones that are the most innovative or most desirable to the consumer (whom usually make the majority of the population and hence make the company desirable by the population). In a Socialist society however such form of innovation do not tend to happen as companies lack much incentive or deterrent to do so.
Capitalism and its appeal to human nature.
Capitalism creates and values productivity, the economic "dog eat dog world" environment created by Capitalist policies give citezens a detterent and incentive to work harder. Comparable to my previous argument except applied to the mass population in general. The other appeal to human nature made is the desire for competition which could be seen in most levels of society in a capitalist economy, While this mentality may seem selfish at first, through individualist ambitions end up inadvertently benefitting society as a whole.
Capitalism and Economic Development.
Economic development in a Capitalist society tend to be more effect then in a socialist society. A graph to so for example of a country that went from Socialistic policies to economic deregulation; China in the late 70"s.
In 1976 Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung died, leaving Chinese statesman Deng Xiaoping as the new chairman of China. China under Mao saw the coming of immense economic centralization and regulation. Mao"s reign lasted from the end of the Second Sino-Japanese war in May of 1950 until his aforementioned death in 1976. As seen in the graph above from the time period that Mao was Chairman, China saw very little economic growth under Mao"s socialistic policies. Under Deng however there was an immense deregulation of the economy that Mao left, from the period that farms were privatized to 1990, China began to experience more than twice the growth in a decade then they had in Mao"s entire reign.
Capitalism for the reasons mentioned in the previous arguments is a system that is very strong at economic development. As companies are forced compete, prices drop down. As prices drop down, products that used to be inaccessible to low-income citizens become more easily affordable.
Hello, thanks for offering me this debate. Let's begin:
Capitalism and Technological innovation.
A.) "In a deregulated economy companies are left to fend for themselves (economically speaking), this leads to various companies faltering however the most innovative of the said companies often end up as dominant."
B.) "In a Socialist society however such form of innovation do not tend to happen as companies lack much incentive or deterrent to do so."
1.) Con must prove statement B true. He hasnt provided a proper explanation to this conclusion
2.) I Will disprove the statement that socialism decreases motivation and thus economic activity later, remember we arent talking about communism
3,)Capitalism is only surviving now because of socialist integrations, even the place you later cite, China, had to be communist to be succesful in that case, no? Looking back in history we can see that pure capitalism fails, resulting in monopolies and thus the elite and the super poor. This was the case during the depresion: "In the late 1920s, the top 10 percent of Americans possessed 84 percent of the country's wealth". It is only because FDR began socializing the US that the economy even made it through the great depression. Our nation has many socialized institutions that the country rests on today.
A.) "Capitalism creates and values productivity, the economic "dog eat dog world" environment created by Capitalist policies give citezens a detterent and incentive to work harder."
B.) "The other appeal to human nature made is the desire for competition which could be seen in most levels of society in a capitalist economy"
1.)Even if this argument is true and capitalism does increase moral that does not mean socialism does not, and you have not proven other wise
2.) I disagree that capitalism is good simply because it apeals to human nature, many things do, such as murder, it is instinctual but not good
3.) How can you been happy if you are dirt poor in a capitalist society you can never succed in because monopolys have driven away the entire free market, as it always does?
5.) Empirics prove otherwise, see next argument.
Capitalism and Economic Development.
1.) False cause fallacy, your graph doesn't actually prove anything and relys on a false cause. Your argument is a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event."
I would simply like to demonstrate that even if the opponent is right and capitalism lead to increases in economic output in china, it doesn’t mean socialism doesn’t work, it just means the Chinese were doing it the wrong way. Here is a list of successful and modern socialist countries:
has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world, Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.
has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely.
Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations
The country has a cushy 11% budget surplus, zero national debt, and an economy that grew 3% last year while Uncle Sam was dancing a jig into a 12.9% deficit, $11 trillion in debt, and the Recession we now all know and love.
Around 25 percent of Ireland’s GDP goes towards paying for the welfare system
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger. This also disproves con’s statements on motivation. We can empirically see that this claim doesn’t hold true in good socialist societies.
Note that I will be referring to the graph a lot for my first few rebuttals so here it is for convience sake:
"Con must prove statement B true. He hasn't provided a proper explanation to this conclusion"
I will take my previous analogy with China's economic growth to apply in this argument.;
The human capital of China was greatly reduced following Mao's rise to power, his persecution of the upper class , the "bourgeoisie" and professional workers resulted in the faltering of China's growth, this correlation can be seen on the graph above.
"Capitalism is only surviving now because of socialist integrations, even the place you later cite, China, had to be communist to be successful in that case, no?."
However under Mao and under his various economic "five year plans" and the "Great Leap Forward" China's economy faltered greatly. In fact the Great Leap Forward resulted in one of the worst famines in Chinese History, even the most conservative estimates point the death toll to being at least 15 million. The human capital within China at the time was also greatly reduced as many professional workers or wealthy land owners lost their profits and were sent to "Labour Re-Education" camps.
To compensate for this loss of human capital Mao had infamously ordered citizens to produce steel furnaces in their homes to increase steel productivity, this failed greatly.
The correlation between the economic stagnation of Mao's reign and the economic growth of Deng's reforms could be seen in my previous mentioned graph.
"I would simply like to demonstrate that even if the opponent is right and capitalism lead to increases in economic output in china, it doesn't mean socialism doesn't work, it just means the Chinese were doing it the wrong way."
That argument however is an example of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy in which an individual distances their perceptions from unpleasant acts done as a result of them claiming that not "true" or "proper" member of said perceptions would have done said actions, this can be seen when you said that " it doesn't mean socialism doesn't work, it just means the Chinese were doing it the wrong way."
"Here is a list of successful and modern socialist countries:
has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world, Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less."
However this contradicts your previous claim in which you said that China was not practising Socialism properly.
Moving to the rebuttals of Pro's main arguments (my rebuttals to the previous arguments were short as they were meant as rebuttals to rebuttals hence was not my main priority)
"Although its prescriptions for the problem " things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and shared ownership of productive assets " are trickier to deliver than they assume, socialism is far superior to capitalism in telling us that a member of the electorate is being left behind and that a gap in the wealth distribution is widening. This is natural " capitalism puts a premium on unbridled freedom rather than egalitarian equality."
However prescriptions such as raising minimum wage, nationalizing healthcare etc result in the raising taxes, the more social programs correlates to more taxes on both wealthy and poor. This puts a burden on citizens, individuals pay taxes to help others against their will. While Welfare may help the poorest few it financially burdens the majority whom do not depend on welfare. Said welfare may result in the removal of incentive for the lower-class individual to work themselves out of their situation.
Your argument on China: Abuse.
So this is just a rematch, and I expected that we would operate on the same rules. In fact at the top of this debate you state that: “The same rules apply in this debate as it had in the previous one”….One of the rules you mandated and I accepted last debate, was:
“The variant of Socialism that my opponent debates for is up to them as long as it does not touch on Communism (since most arguments against communism are exclusive to communism and cannot be melded as to be the same as ones argument against Socialism)”
In this argument he clearly states that arguments against communism are exclusive to communism. Yet what is his main contention about, China. And is China socialist, or communist? Very, very communist. Specifically the era that he talks about comes from Mao, who based his government off of Stalin. Note Mao’s same use of “5-year plans” just as Stalin did. Because of this I must request all voters to throw this argument out.
1.) Con concedes that capitalism logically and empirically requires socialist integrations in order to function, socialism can, as we can empirically see and thus the resolution cannot be negated.
2.) Con concedes my evidence that capitalism leads inextricably to monopolies and the creation of huge wage gaps as a result of culmination of power and recourse to the top of the food chain. Thus socialism is preferable to pure capitalism.
3.) Con concedes that even if he is right in believing that capitalism leads to increased work morale, my point that this argument doesn’t means socialism does the opposite, is true. Thus this argument musn’t be considered against me.
4.) Con concedes that his ‘appeal to human nature’ contention does not mean that capitalism is better than socialism, because many things appeal to human nature and are evil.
5.) Con concedes my point that an individual cannot be happy and productive in a capitalistic society because according to my evidence they or their children will end up being suppressed by big business monopolies and wealth/education gaps.
6.) My opponent concedes my evidence from “Philosophy and Economy of Market Capitalsm: A Critical Study” which posits that motivation exists prevalently in socialist societies while also giving people their basic needs which I then claims means capitalism is not preferable. These statements are conceded and thus are accepted to be true. Being that they are accepted to be true, socialism must logically be preferable to capitalism.
7.) Con concedes the entire argument that empirically there are Many successful socialist nations, most of which are actually doing better in every area of their governments and economies whether it be in education, happiness of the people or over all freedom. This entire point is conceded and thus con has admitted that empirically, socialism leads to better outcomes. This can also be used to discredit his China argument which has been discredited many other ways in any case.
8.) Con concedes contention 2 of my last round which declares that capitalism empirically fails because it creates corruption and ultimately leads to monopolies. Thus being that this statement is conceded, con agrees and the resolution cannot be negated.
Con’s point on innovation in socialist countries
1.) Con states that during Mao’s reign the economy fell sharply, however, the graph presented shows no slip in the economy, it shows a very steady and then a very rapid rise, but no sharp decreases. Thus his contention isn’t supported by his own evidence
2.) Con does not show why innovation in business fundamentally makes capitalism and overall better system than socialism. In fact, I will posit that it does not, being that I have proven that the bigger the businesses get, the more of a monopoly will form. Monopolies suppress rights and increase the wage gap and thus, innovation doesn’t mean cap is better than soc. This is an impact turn, so even if we accept his argument to be true, it only goes against him.
3.) You also do not recognize the fallacy in attributing the rise of capitalism in China with increased economic output. You must prove and not assume this link. However, being that next round is a rebuttal, I’m pretty sure no new arguments can be made and thus you cannot support this claim, rendering it void.
4.) Finally, you simply have no citations to affirm the claim that capitalism in China lead to increased output. This is key.
5.) This argument is abusive.
Capitalism alive because of socialism
1.) None of you argument in this section actually refute the claim you intended or seemed to be intending to refute. Instead he talks about china again, when he is supposed to be talking about my evidence about capitalism needing socialistic support.
2.) The failure of the Communist Chinese state does not reflect the ultimate outcome of Socialist states around the world, it is only one instance and it ist even the same system.
“No true scottsman”
1.) This is not a fallacy at all. You are simply straw-manning my argument. The argument is that you cannot claim that just because of 1 error that something will be erroneous every time. Remember that this isn’t even socialism, its communism.
List of countries
1.) The ‘contradiction’ in my argument: No, my argument is that China was using communism the wrong way and that is why their economy collapsed. Not that China Is currently doing communism wrong…Also, communism no= socialism.
1.) Whether taxes are high or low in a socialistic society is irrelevant. All that matters is that the burden can be handled, which it can. Secondly, people are forced to pay taxes against their will even in capitalistic America, if you were not aware.
2.) Tax money is not immoral. Tax money is used to uphold rights and make the public world function and thus taking it is justifiable. Its not like it goes into the pockets of some dictator.
3.) The claims in there about freedom in socialistic society, go unchallenged.
For this round I shall proceed to with my conclusive argument by summarizing my opening arguments.
1. In my first argument I argued that Capitalism encourages scientific innovation through competition between companies, resulting inadvertently in the benefit of the consumer.
2. In my second argument I argued that Capitalism was in line with human nature, hence a more natural system for people due to it's appeal to competition and it's appeals to peoples ambition as a result of such.
3. In my third argument I argued that Capitalism facilitated economic growth, this argument was done through a contrast between the Economic development of China during Mao's period of socialistic policies and Deng Xiaoping's period of economic reform. Hence showing the correlation between Capitalism and economic development.
I thank Con for an interesting and thought provoking debate,
TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.