[Short Debate]: This House Believes that Socialism is Superior to Capitalism
Debate Rounds (2)
This is only a two-round debate, with a maximum of 5000 characters per round. There should be no rebuttals to points in the first round, but you can bring up your own definitions that may conflict with ones that I bring up, as well refute points that you expect to hear in the round. Voting will be on a "Select Winner" basis, with open voting.
We are debating RESOLVED: SOCIALISM, ON BALANCE, IS SUPERIOR TO CAPITALISM, with me standing PRO and my opponent standing CON.
Contention One - Pure Capitalism Allows for the Abuse of Peoples and Society.
Back in the Progressive Era in the United States, (1890-1920 ), there were abuses by coorporations that are unimaginable today, all as an effect of having (nearly) pure capitalist ideas. By having absolute sovereignity from the government's codes and regulations, coorporations often abuses their workers by having: minimal wages, unsafe working conditions and massive unemployment. In 1911, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, and ended up killing over 140 workers . By allowing the companies that are in a "laissez faire" capitalist society to do whatever they want, it leads to the erosion of society. Also, during this same time frame (the Progressive Era), John D. Rockefeller was prosperous. By allowing him to accumulate over one sixty-fifth of the nation's gross domestic product and over $1.4B in that time's money , the United States Government is allowing the abuses of his coorporation to run rampant, since the average worker in the United States at this time only earned $8-$10 every week . This breaks not only society as a whole, but the majority of the individuals that make it up.
Contention Two - Benefits (This is sort of a contention, but moreso a list of benefits of socialism)
Thanks for being interested in this debate, if you decide to go ahead and take up this debate! Good luck and have fun, hopefully we can exchange some really good points.
: Google Definitions
For the sake of this debate, I will define Capitalism as: the economic system under which the ownership of goods and services are privately owned, and decisions concerning pricing, investments, and distribution are determined in a free market system, primarily on the basis of competition between businesses. 
Contention 1: Socialism in the past has never truly succeeded.
Capitalism is the only type of economic system that can truly succeed for long periods of time. Capitalism in countries like The United Kingdom, France, Spain, Etc. have been working since the mid 1700"s. Socialism is a relatively new concept when compared side by side to Capitalism. The big names in Socialism are Russia, China, and Cuba. All three of those countries have not been extremely successful in keeping a socialist economic system. Russia and China have only been socialist countries for around 60 years, where Capitalist countries have been around for thousands of years, and have been successful at it.
Contention 2: Secondly, capitalism is a better economic lifestyle because it limits the power of the government.
"In a socialistic economy, the government owns and controls almost everything, from the businesses to the means of production. Capitalism also has what is known as a free market economy, and with the free market economy come competition. Socialistic countries are the complete opposite, which means that their products are sold at prices set by the government and the idea of "individual or corporate profits" Some see the government controlling all the means of production and businesses as a wise and wonderful thing because they believe that being "divided from one another by inequalities of wealth" will give the power to control the economy to the most wealthy instead of to everyone, and they would rather the government control it instead of those elite and wealthy few. However, sometimes giving the government too much power and control can lead to communism. This is exactly what happened to Russia and several other countries. 'anytime, an individual will take advantage of the failing economy of a country and become a dictator, as Stalin did.
In Conclusion, Both capitalism and socialism have their high and low points, but on balance, a capitalistic economic structure is far more superior than a socialistic economic structure.
Hi, and thanks for such a quick reply! I'll go ahead and accept your definition of capitalism, since it's pretty similar to the one that I gave you. Keep in mind that this is the last round, so asking me questions won't really help, and new points shouldn't really be brought into play unless they refute the opponent's case! Alright, let's get into this.
For the reasons that I outlined in my case, as well as my refutations, vote PRO on RESOLVED: SOCIALISM, ON BALANCE, IS SUPERIOR TO CAPITALISM. Again, thanks to my opponent! I hope you had fun, since I did too!
My opponent stated that Russia and Cuba are not socialist countries, but in fact she is wrong. According to my source  , both Russia and Cuba are socialist countries.
Also, my opponent stated that a bunch of other countries that she felt were socialist. She was wrong in saying that. Only China, Russia, Cuba, Lao, and Vietnam are by definition socialist countries. I think where she went wrong was, she thought that those countries she listed were completely Socialist. She is wrong. Those countries have some aspects of their economic structure that are socialist, but are not completely socialist.
When my opponent attacked my second contention, she states that "when I implied that socialism leads to communism that I am wrong." My opponent has failed to look at current socialistic countries (examples: China, Russia, Cuba). The "President" of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is almost a dictator in some forms. I will define a dictator as a ruler with almost complete or total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. Vladimir Putin has obtained power through sending his opponents to prison, and bribing citizens, considering he's one of the richest people in the world. Now onto China. China's "President", Xi Jinping, has obtained power through family . He controls all of China's government with a board of members, who have little to no power over him. Now onto Cuba, which is COMPLETELY a communist and socialist state. Ra"l Castro, the leader of Cuba, has complete and utter power over every single aspect of his citizens. Cuba in 1940, was a socialistic state, but now since 1959, Cuba has become Communist . The link between socialism and communism is strong, compelling, and consistent through the 3 examples above. Why would someone think that this wouldn't happen to the United States if we switched to a socialistic government?
Now to attack my opponents case:
In my opponents first contention she outlined the Triangle Factory fire. I would like to add, that this, although killed 140, happened a long long time ago. Working conditions have changed, the minimal wage she stated has also changed. She can't provide any new sources, which shows a lack of research on her part.
Also in her first contention she stated that Laissez-Faire approach to capitalism erodes society. According to multiple Psychologists no human likes to be told what to do. A socialistic economic system would only erode society more, because people would become upset and try to attack the government. Like what happened in Cuba. Cubans tried to overthrow the government due to its socialistic ties, and Fidel Castro KILLED every single one of them. The links between this are also strong, compelling, and consistent.
In her second contention she said: "wage slavery." Most of the time, this wage slavery is due to the lack of education in the low class wage workers. You can't blame this in capitalism. You have to blame this one society itself, for not forcing people to actually get an education.
She also said: "Monopolies and Tyrannic Reign." She must not be aware, that the United States does not allow monopolies to occur, and saying that monopolies are tyrannic is simply outrageous. Tyrannies are like dictators. So saying that corporations are dictators is outrageous.
My opponent has failed to provide legitimate sources, and up to date knowledge. Therefore, I urge that you stick to my up to date knowledge and Vote that on balance, socialism is NOT superior to capitalism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides don't understand the differences between socialism and communism definition. Leaving me almost calling it a tie but Con never gave an argument on why capitalism was better. Con only gave rebuttals for pros BoP and didn't give a case for there own BoP.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.