The Instigator
OhLions
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Yamamoto
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

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...
Mr.Yamamoto
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 78016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

OhLions

Pro

One source predicts that one third of the jobs will be replaced by robots by 2025 [1].

It is almost undoubted that machines are capable of taking over human jobs.
Artificial intelligence has improved and it may reach the level of human intelligence soon.

Baxter the robot is capable of doing variety of jobs. It can still be developed and advanced. It operates tasks around 1/10 of a speed of a human would. https://www.youtube.com...
Although it doesn't function as fast as a human would, the cost of operation is much more smaller than the minimum wage. ($8 per hour compared to few cents for electricity)
With correct programming, machines would be more reliable, efficient than humans and will take over many human jobs since the Free Market says so. (assuming that all people are rational and would try to go for as much economic gains as possible)

And Many people would be unemployed.
Jobs such as telemarketers, cashiers, taxi drivers, bookkeepers, writers, journalists, and umpires are most likely going to by automated in 20 years. [2]
There are millions of people working in these fields, so it is not an individual problem.

Without jobs, the unemployed are not able to make money. The rich would get richer, and the poor would get more poor.
Although technology will have improved in the future, not all people will receive benefits from the advances because they would not have enough money. (free market economy predicts that people go for the most financial gains)

So who should solve this problem.....?
It is the government.

The (recent) government was created so people would face no or little inequality
It is the government's job to give people natural rights.
It is the government's job so that people in the worst situations still would have a decent standard of living.
It is the government's job to prevent any inequalities that may happen.
It is the government's job to achieve the highest standard of living for ALL citizens.

Socialism can provide a solution to the wealth disparity that may happen in the future.
Wealth redistribution will guarantee that all citizens will receive enough basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, for survival. (As long as there are enough resources, and there is and will most likely will be due to the Agricultural Revolution)

There will be more resources in the future with technological advances. Capitalism will likely thwart all citizens from benefiting from the technological advances (with growing wealth disparity). Socialism can prevent this problem and therefore governments should switch from capitalism to socialism in the future.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[2] http://www.npr.org...
Mr.Yamamoto

Con

1. I will assume that everyone in the socialism you have proposed is paid equally since no explanation is given. It is also common in socialist countries and even essential in this particular socialist model because robots alone are not enough to provide to the people who don't work (as some jobs simply cannot be done by robots)

I. SOCIALISM CANNOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED.

"It is the government"s job to give people natural rights."
Natural rights, are, according to Wikipedia, those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (as opposed to legal rights, which are bestowed onto a person by a given legal system) Therefore, I do not agree to your statement that "It is the government"s job to GIVE people natural rights," because natural rights are not contingent upon the government so socialist or not, it is impossible for them to be given by the government.

"It is the government's job to prevent any inequalities that may happen."
If robots do work for some people but not for others, isn"t that unequal to the people who do work? Even if you reward their work by paying them wages, standardised or not, isn"t that unequal to people who have jobs replaced by robots and don"t get paid? Also, the government itself is unequal. You basically have a small group of people with a lot of political power controlling a large group of people with little power. It is impossible and paradoxical to have a government and have absolute equality at the same time (or in your words, preventing any inequalities that may happen.)

"It is the government's job to achieve the highest standard of living for ALL citizens." However later you said, "Wealth redistribution [which I understand as an example of a phenomenon that occurs with a socialist government] will guarantee that all citizens will receive enough basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, for survival." The word "basic" suggests that wealth redistribution, which is what happens when there is a socialist government, does not meet the requirement you have previously set for your government which is to "achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens."

In short, socialism cannot serve three of the four purposes of the government you have pointed out initially. It is simply impossible for the government to give people natural rights and to prevent any inequalities that may happen. A socialist government cannot achieve the highest standard of living either. This leaves us with, "It is the government's job so that people in the worst situations still would have a decent standard of living." This can be done through many forms of government, including the Nordic model of capitalism, without the disadvantages of socialism which I will point out in my arguments later.

II. SOCIALISM LOWERS THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK - BECAUSE OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION YOU DON"T NEED TO WORK TO SURVIVE

"Wealth redistribution" in socialism, as you have said, means that people whose jobs got replaced by robots can receive the basic resources to live, for free. This is a problem because it greatly lowers the incentive for people who still have to work to work - they see others who don"t have to work (because their jobs are replaced by robots) being able to survive because they can obtain sustenance through wealth redistribution while they have to work hard and suffer but there is little to gain (because there is a standardised wage). How would you feel, if your neighbour who hadn"t worked hard at school and ended up getting a poorly paid jobs now gets to stay at home and receive food and resources from the government through wealth redistribution while you have to work hours and hours a day? This collective reluctance to work means that many jobs, such as doctors, childcare workers, teachers, lawyers that are fundamental to the normal function of our society but cannot be done by robots will be either left empty, left in the hands of people who are unwilling to work or are jealous and resentful of people who don"t have to work. Either these services cannot be provided to us or are provided to us poorly.
Debate Round No. 1
OhLions

Pro

Thank you for a great argument.
*I am sorry for not clearly defining the word "socialism" since I have a right wing view on capitalism. It was supposed to be "wealth redistribution" or any government similar to Norway and Sweden's. However, you can ignore the post and I will continue on the debate with the term "socialism".

1. Let me counter your definition of Capitalism by defining these terms : Capitalism, Socialism
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. [1]
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. [2] It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. [3]

2. Adam Smith is considered the father of modern free enterprise capitalism. [4]
Wealth of Nations, a book written by the "father" of capitalism and economics Adam Smith, focuses on laissez faire, an economic structure with minimum government intervention/taxation on market economy [3]. According to Adam Smith's definition, putting tax on gasoline would not mean capitalism as it influences the market economy. Also, giving free education counters the definition of Adam Smith's capitalism because tax (government intervention) is required to supply it (deficit spending without tax will cause bankruptcy, which would lead to government collapse). It also meets the characteristic of a socialist government according to [3], because the the citizens become dependent on the government for education (knowledge), a resource.
However, there are many people who believe U.S is a capitalist country despite the fact that the government violated the Adam Smith's definition of capitalism.

The same method is also used to define the word "socialism".
There are many possible governments that could be defined as socialist. Some may define Norway as a socialist country. Others may not. However, according to Adam Smith's definition, any government tax that is not minimal is not a characteristic of true capitalist government, and therefore Norway's high income taxation at over 40% and free health care services are closer to socialist government's characteristics than capitalist government's.
Therefore, my opponent's definition of socialism is invalid.

3. "it is impossible for them to be given by the government." from "It is the government"s job to give people natural rights."

What about those babies who were born as slaves when slavery was legal? They were not granted the natural rights. They did not have the choice to pursue happiness or have justice side with them. They did not own (John Locke's) "natural rights". The slaves only had natural rights when the laws changed that GAVE their (John Locke's) natural rights. Therefore, government, which is built to give liberty to citizens, GIVES the natural rights to its citizens.

4. "If robots do work for some people but not for others, isn't that unequal to the people who do work? "

Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people. Communism is NOT equal pay. Karl Marx, the father of Communism states that the pay is based upon abilities and necessities [5]. This means that people who will work (similar to "people with more abilities") when jobs are automated will receive extra pay according to Karl Marx.

The reason that many believe that Communism = Equal pay is because the previous Communist/Socialist government failed and did not have enough resources to distribute (since people did not wish to work). However, with robots taking over majority of the human work force within next decades (estimated 1/3 job force will be replaced in 20 years, more later), there will likely be a profusion of resources (since robots don't have incentives) so people wouldn't starve (like in Cuba, USSR, China during Cold War).

5. "The word "basic" suggests that wealth redistribution, which is what happens when there is a socialist government, does not meet the requirement you have previously set for your government which is to "achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens.""

The word "basic" in "basic needs" means fundamental needs. Therefore this argument is invalid. I am sorry if you had troubles understanding what the word "basic" meant (since there are so many definitions).

6. "SOCIALISM LOWERS THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK - BECAUSE OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION YOU DON"T NEED TO WORK TO SURVIVE"

As I stated in my response to no.4, Communism, which is basically stronger socialism, is also about distributing goods based on ability, and therefore, There will be incentive for people to work since the pays will be different.

Brief summary of arguments

Definition of socialism is different to everyone; to right wing Adam Smith believers, Nordic states have a government that is similar to socialism then capitalism, and therefore some of my opponent's arguments are invalid

Communism, which is stronger socialism, also has incentives; Karl Marx , the father of Communism, stated that wealth will be distributed based on abilities and needs. This means that Communism doesn't mean equal pay.

[1] - https://www.google.com... (definition from google) July, 2015
[2] - https://www.google.com... (definition from google) July, 2015
[3] http://www.investopedia.com...
[4] http://www.investopedia.com...
[5] http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Mr.Yamamoto

Con

First, I will give the definition of Communism

Communism: A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership (while private property is abolished) and the absence of class. (http://www.investopedia.com...)


1. In your argument, you have defined socialism as

‘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. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care.’

Yet later you defined communism as a stronger version of socialism.

‘Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people.’
‘Communism, which is stronger socialism.’

so I will understand that you are defining socialism as a less strong version of communism as well. Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class. No matter what socialism will look like as a less strong form of communism, it will be fundamentally different to his first definition of socialism, which does not involve any absence of class on any degree.

My opponent is inconsistent in his definition of socialism. This suggests that he is unclear about what exactly he is advocating which I think voters should take into account.


2. In response to point 2 of your argument

Adam Smith’s definition of capitalism is irrelevant to this debate and of no concern to us. In this debate the definition of capitalism is

‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are 1. controlled by private owners 2. for profit, rather than by the state.’

1. Private companies do have control in Norway’s trade and industry. 2. The objective for these private companies was to earn money for profit. Under this definition, it is perfectly safe to say that Norway is a capitalist country. Therefore, my opponents’ analogy of using Norway as a socialist country is inappropriate.

3. In response to point 3 of your argument

In the Declaration of Independence (United States) it is written that:

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men'

It is clearly stated that natural rights are NOT GIVEN by the government and cannot be given by our government they are given by our Creator (God). They are simply SECURED by the government. When slaves are emancipated, natural rights are not GIVEN to them. They are simply included in the protection of their natural rights by the government. My point still stands that your definition of the roles of government is not correct.

4. In response to point for of your argument

No, communism ≠ equal pay pardon my ignorance in the previous round. Yes, Karl Marx did say once, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ in his Critique of the Gotha Program. However, you have overlooked my next sentence ‘Even if you reward their work by paying them wages, standardised or not, isn't that unequal to people who have jobs replaced by robots and don"t get paid?’ I have addressed both equal and unequal pay as I have said ‘standardised or not’ My point here is to show that either way, some form of inequality exists. On one hand, some people have to work while others don’t – this is unequal. On the other hand, people who work get paid while others don’t. Inevitably, some form of inequality exists. Furthermore, the government itself is an inequality with some people being more powerful than others. My point that it is impossible to prevent any inequalities and therefore it is not a job of the government still stands.

5. In response to point 5 of your argument

What I meant was saying by providing ‘basic’, few essential needs your government is not fulfilling its duty to ‘achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens’ and cater to many more extravagant and unnecessary needs. In this case, the socialist government DOES NOT meet the requirement and my point still stands.

Well, of course you can say that by providing the basic needs you are already providing your citizens with the highest standard of living, In this case, my point IS INVALID. But, IF YOUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT EQUATES BASIC NEEDS TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING, it shows us the poor standard of living in as a result of socialism and it gives us another reason not to switch to it.

Either way, it favours my side that governments should not switch from capitalism to socialism.

6. In response to point 6 of your argument

‘As I stated in my response to no.4 Communism, which is basically stronger socialism, is also about distributing goods based on ability, and therefore, there will be incentive for people to work since the pays will be different.’

Yes, it is true that the pay is based upon abilities and necessities. However, you seem to confusing which is which. (But, as you said, the concept of these ideologies is misunderstood by many people.) Goods are not DIStributed based on ability. Goods are CONtributed based on ability and DIStributed based on necessity. This is clearly shown in Karl Marx’s famous quote from ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ (and also on the business dictionary website of which the link you have provided at the end of your own round 2 argument):

‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’

Secondly, in response to ‘there will be incentive for people to work’, I will say that I never stated that there wouldn’t be an incentive; what I am saying is: Yes, there will be incentive for people to work. It is simply lowered because of SOCIALISM.

In conclusion, my opponent’s rebuttal is invalid because 1. My opponent has misunderstood the concept of how resources are distributed in socialism and because 2. My opponent’s rebuttal does not even challenge my point.


Because of the following reasons, I maintain that the government should not switch from capitalism to socialism
:

I. I will further elaborate my point on how socialism lowers the incentive for people to work.

1. Taking based on necessity is a low incentive for people to work.

Knowing that we can only take what is necessary under socialism, knowing that our desire for extra material possessions (that are more than the basic needs to sustain life) cannot be in any way fulfilled, it will be very likely that we will not even try to fulfil this desire. This results in a lack of motivation to fulfil our desire for these extra material possessions through working. Since there is no way you can get more than what you need for subsistence no matter how long or how hard you work because socialism prevents you to do so, you will merely work long enough or hard enough to earn the basic needs. In other words socialism lowers the incentive for people to work.

2. Adam Smith once said ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.’ (The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2) A person naturally cares for himself more than for others. Similarly, one naturally works harder if he is working for himself (capitalism) rather than for the state from which he takes only a portion of what he produced in his work back (socialism). In other words, one naturally has a higher incentive in capitalism and a lower incentive in socialism.

Therefore, my point that socialism lowers the incentive for people to work still stands.

I've reached the character limit and the rest of it is in the links. I don't know if this is against the rules or not, but I hope you won't mind for the sake of having a good debate.

http://i.imgur.com...
http://i.imgur.com...

303734-5271-5w7ub-a.jpg

303734-5271-snnhr-a.jpg

Debate Round No. 2
OhLions

Pro

Rebuttals and Conclusions only this round please. No new arguments.

Before I start my argument, I will give the definition of "contribution" and "quality/quantity of work", which are used interchangeably in my argument.
Ex. If Bob bakes 100 tasty bread while Joe bakes 100 burnt, terrible bread, Bob earns more money. (Since Joe's quality of work would be near zero)
Ex. If Bob bakes 100 tasty bread while Joe bakes 150 tasty bread, Bob earns $100 while Joe earns $150.

1. "Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class."
I would like to EMPHASIZE that the Communism's 2 key features aren't communal ownership and the absence of class.

In order to find what is the key feature of Communism, we are supposed to look at the reason Communism was created.

Karl Marx, the creator of socialism and Communism, was born in 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution. During these days, money was not DISTRIBUTED based on how hard or effectively people worked. The peasants (and some child workers) worked 16 hours a day under grim working conditions (mining accidents could lead to death and accident on Spinning Jenny could chop some fingers), lived in an overcrowded apartment full of disease, while the rich did not have to work and could just earn money by using their capital to gain access to limited resources (machinery, coal, etc.). And the capital most of the rich people received were inherited from ancestors. Under these circumstances, would a peasant worker not find their situation (and the government) unjust and unfair?

Communal ownership and absence of class is ONLY used so workers can get paid based on the contributions (according to Karl Marx). The key feature of Socialism and Communism is justice/equality/impartiality.

I would like to say that the quote "Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class" is a generalization; a government could be Socialist/Communist with legalized private ownership if the government intervenes so people could be paid based on Contributions (socialism) or Contributions + Necessities (Communism).
Saying Communism is about public ownership is like saying a rectangle is a square because square is a rectangle.

2. "My opponent is inconsistent in his definition of socialism. This suggests that he is unclear about what exactly he is advocating which I think voters should take into account."
Socialism and Communism is Different; I would like to state that my opponent is using another generalization to make a false conjecture.
It is true that Socialism and Communism has similarities.
"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning."[1] I would also like to add that the public ownership is only used to achieve more impartial distribution than capitalism.

However, it also has differences, making Socialism and Communism distinct.
"Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism."[1]
"The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds" that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical"it is an ultimate goal" [1]
According to this quote , Socialism is about distributing goods based on the contributions. Communism is about distributing goods based on necessities and contributions.
Socialism's characteristic of distributing goods based just on contributions are that is similar to Capitalism than Communism, giving individuals chances to work for themselves.
It can be also said that Socialism is more impartial than Capitalism given that Capitalism is about letting people earn money in any method (with no restrictions against monopolies, inelastic demands, and uneven resource distribution) in HOPES that it will distribute money/goods/services based on quality/quantity of work.

I am sorry for not mentioning this because I lacked time.

3. "Adam Smith"s definition of capitalism is irrelevant to this debate and of no concern to us. In this debate the definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are 1. controlled by private owners 2. for profit, rather than by the state." "
Firstly, I would like to state that there were no agreements on the definition of capitalism in the beginning of the debate and therefore Adam Smith's definition is valid.
Secondly, the definition of of capitalism has changed over time. There is a discrepancy between the dictionary's definition of capitalism and Adam Smith's definition. Like how the word "myriad" meant 10,000 in old times while it means "an extremely great number" in current days, the definition of "capitalism" also changed. Capitalism meant no or little gov. intervention to Adam Smith, but it now means "private ownership" because private ownership was formed BECAUSE there was little/(no major) government (which declared themselves capitalist) .
Lastly, Adam Smith is the CREATOR of capitalism. He knows the intentions and purpose of capitalism.

4."It is clearly stated that natural rights are NOT GIVEN by the government and cannot be given by our government they are given by our Creator (God). They are simply SECURED by the government. "
I would like to state that this argument has little relevance to the topic AND the word "give" can also be used figuratively so it would mean "grant" or "secure". I apologize again if you had a different definition of the word "give".

5. "IF YOUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT EQUATES BASIC NEEDS TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING, it shows us the poor standard of living in as a result of socialism and it gives us another reason not to switch to it."
With robots (which will be capable to take over one third of work force while being able to work without incentives), there WILL be superfluous resources so that the basic needs won't be the highest standard of meaning.
I would like to let voters know that my opponent had not responded to "robots leads to more resources" argument from the bottom of no. 4 argument, and will like to declare that my opponent also agrees on robots creating more resources.

6. "IF YOUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT EQUATES BASIC NEEDS TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING, it shows us the poor standard of living in as a result of socialism and it gives us another reason not to switch to it."
"1. Taking based on necessity is a low incentive for people to work"
"V. Socialist System of distributing resources is flawed or impractical"

Firstly, Socialism distributes wealth based on the quality and mount of work (no.2 of my argument). You are talking about Communism. The discussion is about Socialism, not Communism.
Secondly, giving necessity based pay isn't that bad either. Many Nordic country citizens have high standard of living although health care is need based. (free health care if sick, not free if not)

I admit that it is my mistake to describe Communism as "a stronger version of Socialism". However, my opponent also used generalization to describe Socialism and Communism (socialism also has characteristics of capitalism) . My FINAL Definition of Socialism and Communism is posted above.

Since I am running low on space, I will only briefly counter the other arguments

"Capitalism High Productivity, Socialism Low Productivity"
Socialism has higher incentives than Capitalism because Socialism is only about the quality and quantity of work being done. In Capitalism, Capitals (resources) also bring money so those with more resources earn more than the quality/quantity of work done.

"Capitalism Innovative, Socialism Stays Same"
Socialism distributes goods based on quality/quantity of work and innovations also count.

Vote Pro!

1 http://www.marxmail.org...
Mr.Yamamoto

Con

Notice how this motion is phrased

‘Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances’

Pro is representing the side changing the status quo. He has to convince you governments should switch from capitalism TO SOCIALISM. You should not vote for him if he fails to do this

Con (Mr.Yamamoto), on the other hand, does not have to do this. I do not have to convince you governments should STAY as capitalism. All I have to convince you is governments should NOT switch from capitalism to socialism. There is a difference between these two.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In response to the whole round 3 argument of my opponent

My opponent repeatedly claims that ‘Communal ownership and absence of class is ONLY used so workers can get paid based on the contributions (according to Karl Marx).’ However, he has failed to give evidence on when or where he says so.

On the contrary what Karl Marx said was From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. People are not paid based on their contributions, but based on their necessities. You can even see it in line 10-11 of the website in the 5th link my opponent has provided himself in his first argument.

In case voters you think I am evasive,

EVEN IF I accept ‘workers can get paid based on contributions’, I can still prove how socialism is worse than capitalism.

Remember how this debate started? Remember the premise of this debate?
The premise is that many people would be unemployed because robots are replacing humans as workers. Scroll up and reread Pro’s round 1 and 2 arguments.

Pro says at the very beginning of this debate.

‘One source predicts that one third of the jobs will be replaced by robots by 2025’

If we are paying workers based on contributions, 1/3 of the people who are unemployed WON’T GET PAID AT ALL. The reason Pro has instigated this debate is to solve this problem. However, switching to socialism where resources are distributed based on contribution won’t change the situation at all. In terms of wealth distribution, socialism is just as bad as capitalism. Why switch to socialism then? Why change the status quo and risk stability or peace? Why spend government’s resources to decide the contribution of a person when the market can decide it for us?

Either way, socialism is worse than capitalism
In socialism:

You pay by necessities?
It is hard to decide what a person’s needs are. You have low incentives, low productivity, few innovations. (as proven in my round 2 argument)

You pay by contribution?
You risk stability and peace during the transition to socialism. You have to figure out how the government can decide the contribution of a person.

Now I will move on to rebuttals of other less important issues in this debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ‘However, it also has differences, making Socialism and Communism distinct.’

‘Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people.’

‘As I stated in my response to no.4, Communism, which is basically stronger socialism’

Above are all quotes taken from my opponent in this very debate. One moment he says that socialism and communism have differences, making them distinct; Next he says that their only difference is the extent policies are implemented. If you put them into context, you will understand how inconsistent my opponent has been. My point still stands.

3. My opponent declared the definition of Capitalism to be ‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state,’ at the start of his round 2 debate, before giving Adam Smith’s definition.

The definition of capitalism he has given first is the sole definition of Capitalism in this debate. Adam Smith’s definition, whether he is the creator of capitalism, or which definition is more accurate are of no concern in this debate. My opponent has made a mistake in this debate and he is just trying to cover it up.

4. (For the sake of responding.)

‘Therefore, government, which is built to give liberty to citizens, GIVES the natural rights to its citizens.’

Here, you are using it in the form of ‘give…to…’ which means to hand something to somebody. Figurative definitions of ‘give’ exist but that was not how you used the word. And, as you said, this has little relevance to our debate.

5. It is indeed true that I have failed to response to his assumption of robots creating more resources. Though voters please keep in mind that this is hypothetical.

6. The example of ‘free health care’ is invalid. 1.‘Free health care’ is not a form a payment. 2. My opponent is cherry-picking an exception when taking beyond necessity is not considered beneficial.

7. I have not generalised in this debate.

8. "Capitalism Innovative, Socialism Stays Same" "Capitalism High Productivity, Socialism Low Productivity" Again, the premise for Pro’s rebuttals is his claim that resources in socialism are distributed through ‘contribution’ which he has failed to provide evidence for. Therefore, these 2 points still stand.

Conclusion

1. My opponents failed to provide evidence to support his claim that distributing resources based on each person’s contribution is socialist. Therefore, in this debate, this should not be accepted as a method of resource distribution of socialism.

Voters, please remember that in other words, my opponent is NOT ADVOCATING socialism where resource is distributed based contribution. (and 1/3 of the people don't get paid) Instead, he is advocating socialism where it is distributed based on necessity, where there is low incentive to work, low productivity and few innovations.

Instead, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ should be accepted because I have shown its link to socialism by showing that it was said by Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

2. Even if we accept the statement ‘workers can get paid based on contributions’. Pro has stressed many times in his arguments that 1/3 of the jobs will be replaced by robots in 2025. (which is also the premise of the argument and what pro means by ‘technological advances’ in his motion) Therefore, If you pay by contribution, 1/3 of the unemployed people replaced by robots won’t get a penny at all! In terms of wealth distribution, socialism is just as bad as capitalism. Why switch to socialism then? Why change the status quo and risk stability or peace? Why spend government’s resources to decide the contribution of a person when the market can decide it for us?

Pro is representing the side changing the status quo. He has to convince you governments should switch from capitalism TO SOCIALISM. You should not vote for him if he fails to do this.

Con (Mr.Yamamoto), on the other hand, does not have to do this. I do not have to convince you governments should STAY as capitalism. All I have to convince you is governments should NOT switch from capitalism to socialism and I have exposed the reasons socialism is worse than capitalism(it can be summarised into):


In socialism:

You pay by necessities?

It is hard to decide what a person’s needs are. You have low incentives, low productivity, fewer innovations. (as proven in my round 2 argument)

You pay by contribution?

1/3 don't get paid AT ALL You risk stability and peace during the transition to socialism. You have to figure out how the government can decide the contribution of a person.

By rebutting my points concerning incentives, productivity and innovation using 'people are paid by contribution' Pro only dug himself a deeper hole to fall into.

Furthermore, in my round 2 argument I have mentioned how capitalism is more SUITABLE for humans because humans tend to be selfish.

Therefore please vote Con in this debate.
Also, Thank You Pro for this wonderful debate.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mr.Yamamoto 1 year ago
Mr.Yamamoto
Thank You! I've learnt a lot too through this debate.
I am sure I would have lost if we had gone into great detail in economics...(not that I would win because we hadn't)

It's true that Pro is in a lot more difficult position. But you did a great job!
Posted by Mr.Yamamoto 1 year ago
Mr.Yamamoto
Thank You! I've learnt a lot too through this debate.
I am sure I would have lost if we had gone into great detail in economics...(not that I would win because we hadn't)

It's true that Pro is in a lot more difficult position. But you did a great job!
Posted by OhLions 1 year ago
OhLions
Nice arguments Mr. Yamamoto! You caught ALL of my mistakes! I am certain that you won without a doubt! Thank you for catching my mistakes and helping me learn! I am glad the debate is over.

P.S. It was so hard to speak in favor of socialism when I am a right wing on economics....
Posted by OhLions 1 year ago
OhLions
I would like to thank Mr. Yamamoto for this debate.
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
jamccartney
I am on the con side. I could win the capitalism vs socialism debate with a simple function:

function economics(){
if (capitalism > socialism){
freedom > enslavement;
}
else if (socialism > capitalism){
enslavement > freedom;
}
}
Posted by EricPage 1 year ago
EricPage
never say never
Posted by Mr.Yamamoto 1 year ago
Mr.Yamamoto
Ha it's kind of ironic too that I am advocating capitalism seeing as I am Chinese. As for me I'm practising debating to prepare for school in Sep.
Posted by OhLions 1 year ago
OhLions
It is my first debate too! By the way, I am not actually socialist, I just wanted to speak in their point of view.
Posted by Mr.Yamamoto 1 year ago
Mr.Yamamoto
This is my first ever formal debate >_<
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
OhLionsMr.YamamotoTied
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: Argument goes to Con as Pro was being extremely idealistic. On a jobs level, there can be no automation of "writers" or "umpires", and robots are going to be manufactured and designed by separate companies that will make money off of such a business. Additionally, the cost of products will go down drastically as there will be no wage profits lost by companies such as Walmart or Target. Robots will replace jobs, and already have begun to do so, especially in cities such as Los Angeles where they have raised the minimum wage to $15. Only minimum wage jobs will be lost, which in the future will not be important in the first place. Nevertheless, I must give the point of argument to Con, as Mr.Yamamoto was able to craft a mindful argument with emphasis on the economy, which Pro's argument will destroy if it becomes applied.