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

Do socialist policies make people selfish?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 248 times Debate No: 94721
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




All the time, I hear that capitalism and the free market create people whose only preoccupation is themselves, while socialism teaches people to rely on each other and hold each other up. Well the point of this debate is for me to prove that logic wrong, and show that the opposite is true, and that capitalism creates self reliant, caring people, and that socialism creates selfishness and self entitlement.

To begin my side of the argument, I would like to talk about something US president Barrack Obama did in 2010, he told to an audience of young adults that they can remain reliant on their parents health insurance until they are 26. Instead of finding this demeaning that the government had no faith in them to survive on their own, they cheered, they were happy that they didn't have to survive on their own, but this still didn't make them happy. I guarantee that many of those same people who cheered for that are the same people advocating for free health care paid for by the government. It wasn't enough that they didn't have to take care of their own health care for a good third of their life, but they wanted more. In a capitalist society, when people would learn to rely on themselves for health care on where never taught that it was ok to be so self entitled that this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion, but it is. Our country (United States) is being taught to want more. No matter how much society gets, people want more.

You see, what the welfare state gives us, they teach us to think of as entitlements, something they MUST give us, so why would we be thankful. When you were a kid, how often did you thank your parents for giving you food or providing you with a bed, almost never right. In some cases, you may have even complained that you didn't like the food or that your room was to hot or cold. In any way, this is a problem with society. In the same way that a kid can grow up spoiled and find it ok to reject meals that don't meet their standards, people of the welfare state will always demand more from their government.

Now, on to the topic of capitalism, many think that because people who are part of the free market care for themselves that that means they are selfish, and don't care about the well being of others, well lets refer to my previous analogy of kids who are picky eaters. Let's say that a kid grows up poor, and instead of being given food every night, he is in charge of making his own meals off of his own allowance, which means he goes to the store and picks out food for the month, and he has to follow a budget. Do you think that kid will act the same as the spoiled child, no. He will be happy with what he can afford, and this will teach him a very valuable lesson.

This is why we teach kids to say thank you when we give them something, when we pay children for doing chores, they are often thankful for the opportunity to make a profit. But if parents give children $10 a week for doing nothing, the kid grows up relying on his parents, and finds it unfair when he is an adult that he has to care for himself, and that there is no one else to sustain his lifestyle for him.

So, in short, capitalism, because it teaches people to rely on themselves and to be thankful for what they receive and to work hard for what they receive, produces selfless and caring people. While socialism, because it teaches people that they are entitled to what they receive, and don't need to work for it, produces selfish people whose only preoccupation becomes themselves.


Now, you claim that capitalism creates selfless, compassionate people? How is that even possible? Take a look at all these selfless upper class citizens and you will see my point. If they actually cared then they would do something, right? How has capitalism made them compassionate people? You see, the point of socialism isn't to make people more caring, we care about showing to the struggling class that people actually care for them, which we do. And socialism has a way higher chance of making compassionate people then capitalism does. You say the free market will teach people to rely on themselves, which in turn will somehow make them more caring. If you were to put 8 animals into a cage with no food, will they help each other survive or kill each other for food? Your answer proves my point.

And your point of the whole "Why would anyone be thankful for a entitlement" thing is wrong. Of course they would be, because to them it isn't an entitlement, these are the people that have been homeless half of there life, so they have no reason to think of anything as something they should always have, because they grew up in a harsh capitalistic society that left them in the dust.

And your entire comparison to children is wrong, as we are not children, and again, thanks to capitalism, they don't have any entitlements, because the capitalistic society just leaves most people to rot.
Debate Round No. 1


You have just stated the following but not in the same words. "Because of capitalism, people think they are entitled to less" This does not support your argument, it supports mine.

And you have failed to address most of my viable arguments, instead you attacked various parts and left out my evidence. And your evaluation of my child comparison is unwarranted and immature. You took a logical analogy and simply said it was ridiculous. Not reasonable.

And no, you simply pointing out one group of people who are stereotypes as not compassionate does not constitute for an argument. There are many people from all walks of life who are plenty compassionate. And research shows that capitalists donate far more to poverty charities then socialists do.

Thanks for reading.


What I had said was that because of capitalism causing poverty to society, no one will be so selfish as to bankrupt the socialist government because they know the negative to the alternate choice.

And what do you mean I failed to address your viable arguments, I simply took your primary argument and proved it wrong. And you call me immature for pointing out that the child comparison is wrong, that ridiculous claim was never right to begin with, so I was right to prove it wrong.

Now, I would lie you to answer something for ME, how in the world could a society where people rely on each other cause selfishness. Capitalism does nothing but teach our children that no one will help them in their time of need. Explain to me how that is wrong.
Debate Round No. 2


I will start by answering your first question. You see, a socialist society doesn't teach people to rely on each other, it teaches them to want from each other. When some one works hard to get extra money, the socialist society wants more out of them to use for their own budget, money that rarely make it to the people. Also, with socialist policies, you don't affect the CEOs that you think you are, you are actually affecting and hurting the people starting a business and whose business is going well. This in turn hurts the private sector.

And you never "proved" my child thing wrong, you just said it was wrong.

Thanks for reading.


I have no response cause the voters will see for themselves the flaws in your logic.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
>Reported vote: make_war_not_peace// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The problem with YatesUni arguments was capitalism makes people obedient "rely on themselves" (i.e only care about themselves).

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. In this case, the voter appears to favor an argument made by Con, but never assesses Pro's arguments nor explains why this argument was convincing. Both are necessary to be sufficient.
Posted by lannan13 2 months ago
I'll probably end up voting on this. The one vote that's cast on this debate is a Vote bomb.
Posted by make_war_not_peace 2 months ago
@TheDebaytDood vote now!!
Posted by TheDebaytDood 2 months ago
I'm an American Communist and I support MarxLeninLaw's side in the debate!

Hail the Revolution!
Posted by MarxLeninLaw 2 months ago
Your arguments are all ridiculous.
No votes have been placed for this debate.