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

Government Prosperity

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 10113
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




By promoting capitalism through entrepreneurship and by empowering the individual, rather than creating costly government-funded programs, federal and local governments will prosper and continue to experience economic growth for years to come.

Although capitalism is often thought to be a source of inequality - which I concede is true in several cases - it has also been proven to be a tool by which economies can achieve tremendous results. The United States economy is a prime example of what capitalism has to offer. Yes, there are the obvious negatives to the United States economy. Unemployment is higher than it has been in decades and until just recently, the stock market had not been performing to expectations either. However, these events are merely cyclical and, according to historical trends, unemployment rates will drop and the stock market will inevitably rebound to prior levels.

Utilizing capitalism as the main economic system, the United States will be able to exceed our goals. Entrepreneurship, which is one of the main ideals within capitalism, enables small businesses to triumph in a market economy, thus creating jobs and lowering unemployment rates. Assuming a company begins to function at a high level and that there is enough demand for its product, a company may begin to bring money into our nation's economy.

Government-funded programs, on the other hand, are holding back individuals from excelling in their own right. They do provide sustenance for those who are otherwise unable to provide for themselves, but how well do they even do that? An article published by the Cato Institute in 2006 explained that although "the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty" in 2005, the poverty rate remained at 12.6 percent in 2006. It seems to be somewhat apparent that this money was either not used properly, or was just not sufficient to reduce the poverty rate. By providing just enough for those who are considered to be in poverty (average threshold for a family of four in 2008 was $22,025), the government is NOT providing these individuals with any way to get out of poverty but instead confirming the theory of cumulative disadvantage.

Definitions for this debate:
1. entrepreneur - A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture
2. empower - (a)to give power or authority to; authorize, esp. by legal or official means
(b)to enable or permit
3. capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth

*This debate is not meant to be about specific programs, although they may be brought up in the argument. The debate is intended to be an argument of differing views with regards to the general strategy for economic prosperity for both individuals and the government as a whole.


I think you need to think outside of the box. State Capitalism has many flaws but I dont think its very efficient. And I dont want to drive our species to extinction so here our some alternatives ^-^

1. The Zeitgeist Movement/ Venus Project

2. Anarcho primitivism
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has failed to address any of the ideas I presented in my first argument. Although she has provided some alternatives to capitalism, she has done little to nothing to explain why capitalism is not a good system to increase government prosperity.

She has also failed to provide any insight on her sources - in this case the videos - and has essentially done no arguing, aside from searching for capitalism alternatives on youtube.

If my opponent provides a strong argument next round, hopefully this will be somewhat of a worthwhile debate. Otherwise, I strongly suggest a vote for the pro side.
Debate Round No. 2


Again, my opponent has made no attempt to argue against my claims. I believe it is apparent that the pro side has won this argument, mainly because of lack of effort on the con side.

Essentially, my opponent has done nothing but waste my time. So be it.


Reas0n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Argument fail, Reas0n.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cwbaker2 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70