The Instigator
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
PsychoScientist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: On balance, Socialism is superior to Capitalism.

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 5 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,941 times Debate No: 75999
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (5)

 

lannan13

Con

I'd like to thank
PsychoScientist for accepting this debate ahead of time.



Rules
Round 1 is rules and definitions for Con, Pro may begin his Constructive Case.
Round 2 Con may begin his Constructive Case (No Rebuttals), Pro will begin his rebuttals.
Round 3 Rebuttals (Pro may also post his conclusions)
Round 4 Rebuttals and Conclusion by Con. Pro will post "No round as agreed upon."
If Pro posts anything, but what is posted above then it is an automatic forfeiture.
No trolling.
No semantics.
No profanities.

On balance- With all things concidered.

Capitalism- Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. In a capitalist economy, personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. The concept of free enterprise is the cornerstone of capitalism, which believes that the laws of supply and demand with minimal government intervention is will ultimately maximize consumer welfare. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...) I will be using the Milton Friedman Capitalism version. Meaning that the only exception to the above is that there should be no monopolies public or private.

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. Moreover, The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet statecommunism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to theuntrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)



PsychoScientist

Pro

Hello, thank your for challenging me to this debate. Before we begin, I must clarify that I will be debating on the Con/For Socialism, but I'll be debating from the Marxist point of view of Socialism. Which is the one I've been studying for some years. Note: I am debating two debates of the same topic, please Pro, you will need your patience in this debate.
I now fully accept your debate, and as you said in your round organization, I shall start with my constructive arguments.

Communism is better for the People

Communism is a form of government that calls for a stateless and classless society, which is freed from oppression and scarcity. Firstly, communism is better for the people in security. Personally, I think Communism is another word for equality. Viewing the theory of Karl Marx as Marxism, which is the one I follow, is the theory that stands for equality. He viewed Communism as a place where everybody have the same things others have, but in this case, only the necessary things, which are, Water, Food, House, and Health. With this cause, there would be no crime for ownership. Capitalism encourages private ownership. How is private ownership acquired? Money. Money means Power in a Capitalist society. In Capitalism we can say that without money, there is no life. This is why Communism is better for the People. Also, since Capitalism encourages private ownership, you can create your own business. The problem with this, is that when making a company it is not necessary to answer to government regulations, this means that practically I can sell whatever I desire, such as inside of a can, when a completely different substance can be found within.

Communism is better for a Country

I explained that Communism is based on equality, but I didn't mention that if a Communist country has a government then it is not Communist. In a Communist country, it would always be neutral, it would have no relations with other governments whatsoever. Capitalism means war. Capitalism were the ones to mechanized weaponry, thus lowered the cost of entry to war. Such as the United States of America. United States is currently in war with ISIS, and they made a deal with Iran to give them $20B from the tax payers, they also actually made plans to commit acts of terrorism to their own people, the North Americans. The CIA had been illegally doing experiments on Americans with drugs, this was known when George Bush revealed and apologized to the American people for having done this terrible acts. Communism is an idea of peace.
This is why Communism is better for a Country.

Conclusion:
I have shown enough evidence that Communism is better than Capitalism as a theory. I have shown true facts and evidence.

Sources:
http://www.haaretz.com......
http://www.usnews.com......
http://foreignpolicy.com......
http://www.marxist.com......
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Con

Sorry that I have to rush here. I will be gone on the weekend and will be unable to respond. I ask my opponent to hold off arguments until Sunday. Thanks ahead of time.

Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives

P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care.

""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]

According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities.

“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]

We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3]

Contention 2: Individualism and the hard work.

There is no greater arguer of individualism than Alexis de Tocqueville who defines Individualism as fallows (yes I still accept Pro's definition, but this is part of my argument):

“a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself." (Translation by Lawrence, George (1969). Perennial Classics. Quotations are from Volume II, Part 2, Chapter 2-4. Page 506)

He later argues in his novel that America (in the 1800s) is great for it's individualism as we are willing to risk all of our personal fortunes and earning to take a chance in buisness or the great wilderness of the American fronteer. Unlike Europe at the time where people only past down land to the oldest in the family and that was it, in the US people took chances and defied society's discouragement to take chances to better the economy and better the world as expected by you in a democratic society.

As social equality spreads there are more and more people who, though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over others, have gained and kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine their whole destiny is in their own hands” (Same source as above page 508).

Tocqueville argues that this is necessary to be individualistic in order to maintain an independence and not being able to have to expect society to have to support you Ralph Waldo Emmerson agrees with this theory in his essay Self-Reliance, where he argues that it is the upmost importance that one must live by their own instint, because it is important that one stays independent. He also goes on to argue that one growth is dettermined by their independence from society and that one's own abilities to choose for one's self and make your own decissions make it important.

The system my opponent is purposing is a form of price Control and price controls can harm a buisness for one of two reasons.

1. That the Government sets the price to high and the public buys less and less of the product and as a result this harms the buisness and the economy and it shows that the people do not want said product. This product's price then raises again in order to make up for the lack of growth forcing the government out of buisness.
2. The governemtn sets the price to low and people will buy the product out and there will be a shortage of said product. [4]

Many people state the rising premiums is due to the collusion of the private industry, but one can see that this isn't due to the collution of the Private Companies, but this is more or less the collecting and merging of Private Industry in this industry. We can see the lack of Competition harms the pricing and option as with more competition there are more companies competitng for lower prices to get custumors who try to get a better deal. We can see that this merging has harmed the economy and that Nationalization will harm it even more. [5] Furthering we just need to look at the Yugos which is a car from the former Yugoslavia. Due to the industry being Nationalized we can see that the quality of the car never improved due to no incentive to improve buisness due to the lack of the market competition. The same thing can and will happen to the health care if you nationalize it.

Sources
1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. ( Commanding Heights the Battle for the World Economy. 2004.)
5. Paul, Rand. Taking a Stand. N.p.: Center Street, n.d. Print.

PsychoScientist

Pro

PsychoScientist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Con

I'll pass my rebuttals to next round in hopes that my opponent will respond.

All points extended.
PsychoScientist

Pro

PsychoScientist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Con

My opponent has argued for the wrong system. Communism is a political system of which the government has been abolished, so that actually nullfies his second contention as it is the very foundations of Communism. Since he has NOT argued for Socialism his arguments are off topic and irrelivant to this debate.

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con!
PsychoScientist

Pro

PsychoScientist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
Thats Not true Socialism!

Praise Juche!
Posted by PsychoScientist 1 year ago
PsychoScientist
@Discipulus, I didn't see if he was Con, forgive my ignorance. I've been very busy lately and assuming things. Normally, I see the first person as the one in favor or just say, Pro/For. Excuse my ignorance voters, hopefully I may get focused after some rest.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
Im pretty sure pro missed the fact socialism, while it has characteristics of communism and Marxism, is not the same and thus he must argue that socialism is better, not the alternatives, because it wont fill BOP
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
That moment when you realise someone is stupid because they dont know how to differentiate marxism (no need for government, people provide) and Socialism (Government that provides)
Posted by FullMetal.Alchemist 1 year ago
FullMetal.Alchemist
I will accept.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
@PsychoScientist

The instigator is con on this proposal. Do you know what con means? It means he disagrees with the proposal.

Con= disagree
Pro= agree

It's quite simple really.
Posted by PsychoScientist 1 year ago
PsychoScientist
I just had to come and say that I agree with your opinion. Socialism is indeed superior than Capitalism. Let's just simply say that socialism is based on a government concentrated in their people, while Capitalism is based on selfishness and greed. If someone is brave enough to debate you in this topic, I only wish him good luck.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
V You could just argue the one that absolutely is better than capitalism.
Posted by bjartur 1 year ago
bjartur
Can we define a specific version of socialism we're advocating for? Can we define a specific sense of superiority? 'On the balance' is still a bit too broad.
Posted by themoreyouknow 1 year ago
themoreyouknow
I'd like to accept the chalenge out of a "the best for everybody" perspective (meaning con)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
lannan13PsychoScientistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times. This is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
lannan13PsychoScientistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
lannan13PsychoScientistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: La FF
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 1 year ago
Logical-Master
lannan13PsychoScientistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits. Conduct to Con. PRO did nothing overcome CON's contentions that socialism is harmful to business and innovation. The dual forfeits did not help this. As such, I am forced to conclude that capitalism is superior! Arguments to CON!
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
lannan13PsychoScientistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits.