The Instigator
Sitara
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
Weiler
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points

Opposites debate: socialism.

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 604 times Debate No: 38715
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Sitara

Con

Okay, this debate is simple: I am a socialist, and my oponant is not. We have challenged each other to properly debate against our own beliefs. I have taken the con position to debate against socialism, my own belief. My opponant will take the pro position against his antisocialist beliefs. Pro has the opening statement, then rebuttals and such. Be prepared for warfare! Dun, dun, dun. >:)
Weiler

Pro

I accept this challenge and look forward to a spirited exchange.

Socialism, despite the negative connotation of the word in the modern American press, is the fairest, and most humane form of government. Unfortunately the word is sometimes abused, for instance the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (the NAZIs) mixed socialist ideals with eugenic and nationalistic ideologies, resulting in the obscenity of the Holocaust.

"So what," the thoughtful reader will ask "is the socialist ideal?". Unfortunately we have no pure example of socialism in modern times. If we did, the negative stigma would fall away almost immediately.

The Socialist ideal:

1. Workers become more productive because they work for themselves.

Unlike the American capitalist system workers would reap the full rewards of their labor, rather than the paltry share allotted them by big business.

2. All provided for regardless of ability.

In a Socialist society, no person is cast off because of a legitimate inability to contribute to the collective. In fact, Socialism is the purest example of loving and caring for others as yourself. Each person shares in the success of his/her nation and therefore contributes what they can, and is provided for according to their need.

3. The elimination of a ruling class.

Socialism reinforces a "we are all in this together" mentality. Because resources are equally divided amongst the populace, no person exercises privilege of class or status over another. We truly are a brotherhood of man. In the deepest sense of Christian ideals we are our brothers keeper.

I await my worthy opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Sitara

Con

Pro says: 1. Workers become more productive because they work for themselves.
I say: this is true in some cases, but often not the cases. In giving the government the power to decide who pays what taxes, we allow them to over reach in other ways too. For instance: socialized medicine: the government has too much control over healthcare. They decide the who what where and such. I am using this example to show the fallacies of socialism.
Pro says: Unlike the American capitalist system workers would reap the full rewards of their labor, rather than the paltry share allotted them by big business.
I say: This is often not the case. In many socialist countries, overtaxation happens which drives up the cost of everything and creates a perpetual welfare state because as people are taxed more, and more, they can afford less and less, and eventually need welfare just to survive. It is a never ending cycle.
Pro says: 2. All provided for regardless of ability.
I say: a lofty ideal, and I do support some level of welfare for those who truely need it, but only in that sitaution, and not another. If drug testing and contraception were required for welfare recipients, as well as job training, that would go a long way. There are no promises made in life and making people dependent on welfare as a career as well as extending too much to illegal immigrants creates a poor system for everyone. Notice that I have no problem with legal immigrants and asylum seekers who's lives are in danger.
Pro says: In a Socialist society, no person is cast off because of a legitimate inability to contribute to the collective. In fact, Socialism is the purest example of loving and caring for others as yourself. Each person shares in the success of his/her nation and therefore contributes what they can, and is provided for according to their need.
I say: many socialist societies are now having economic troubles. Think Spain, Greece, South American countries. We need to take another look at how to do things.
Pro says: 3. The elimination of a ruling class.
I say: not so. In giving the government too much control, the government becomes the ruling class. Or rather, the official government, because the people are the government.
Pro says: Socialism reinforces a "we are all in this together" mentality. Because resources are equally divided amongst the populace, no person exercises privilege of class or status over another. We truly are a brotherhood of man. In the deepest sense of Christian ideals we are our brothers keeper.
I say: i totally concur on being my brother's keeper: that is why I want him to be as independent as possible, because I will not always be there to help him. This is why we need to look at building families, not the federal government, because a loving Christian family lasts forever, not the federal government. As a disabled woman, I am terrified at being dependant on the government. I feel out of control. While minarchy and anarchy are not my cups of tea, neither is statism. There has to be a check and balance.
Weiler

Pro

I stated in my opening that there are no purely socialistic countries right now, and therefore, examples given by my opponent of dysfunctional socialist regimes are moot.

Socialism does not engage in "welfare" as my opponent calls it. It is a redistributional ideology. All contribute as they can, and all receive as they need. What could be more Christian or family-like?
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
They need to allow more time for debates. I am so sorry. I have been sick.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
SitaraWeilerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's final round was less than enthusiastic. Conduct to Con. Con had better arguments, though her examples, as Pro noted, are not necessarily applicable. Pro's formatting was also better, so S/G to him.
Vote Placed by Murphy348834 3 years ago
Murphy348834
SitaraWeilerTied
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: This really was close. the arguments were ALMOST equal. Just barely went for pro.