The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

President Obama is a welfare state liberal not a socialist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,238 times Debate No: 59801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

kasmic

Pro

Resolve: President Obama is a welfare state liberal not a socialist

Clarification: This debate is not about support for or criticism of the President, just as the resolve states this debate is about whether or not President Obama fits the definition of welfare state liberal as opposed to Socialist.

Pro will argue that President Obama is a Welfare State Liberal
Con will argue that President Obama is a Socialist.

Burden of proof will be shared.

I will provide some definitions. Con is free to provide definitions within their arguments; the purpose of these definitions is to be clear as to what is meant by Socialism and Welfare State.

Definitions:

Socialism: : "A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"

Socialist: ": a person who believes in socialism"(2)

Welfare State: " concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization." (3)

Liberalism: "Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government."(4)

Format
Round 1: Acceptance and definitions
Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals and new arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements, No new arguments.

(1): http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2): http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3): http://www.britannica.com....
(4): http://www.merriam-webster.com...
ChosenWolff

Con

I'm actually deactivating my account, because I have an unhealthy addiction to this site. I need to enjoy the rest of my summer, so I aks my opponent to respectfully tie this debate, and give consent to having it deleted by a moderator. If he wishes otherwise, then I respect that. Farewell!
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

my opponent deactivated his account.
ChosenWolff

Con

ChosenWolff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

my opponent deactivated his account.
ChosenWolff

Con

ChosenWolff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

My opponent deactivated his account.
ChosenWolff

Con

ChosenWolff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
We are using ownership.... Since to you they mean the same and to me they don't.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
That doesn't apply in this scenario. Control and ownership mean the same thing here. Words mean different things in different context's.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
I could rent, borrow, steal a something and then control it, none of that implies ownership.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Simple I can contol a car but not own it....
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
If it is the same, let's use ownership as six definitions do.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
What is the difference between control and ownership? They mean the same thing, and my contention will be the same with either one. It is simply easier to explain if I say control and not ownership.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
It would be a huge compromise on my part as ownership is, as I have shown the definition of socialism. Ownership of the means of production by the public is socialism. Not merely regulation, or controlling. Ownership.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Can we change ownership to control? That's a huge compromise.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Well as I have found plenty of sources that claim ownership is core to socialism, we will not use one definition that does not.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Alright, how about we change the word ownership to control?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
kasmicChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie.