The Instigator
C-Mach
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

Socialism Is A Very Bad Idea

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,911 times Debate No: 1405
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (32)

 

C-Mach

Pro

Socialism has ruined the lives of billions since its inception. Many of those billions have been killed in genocides (e.g., The Great Leap Forward). Now, he problem is getting worse. People's quality of life has been severely reduced by socialism. It only makes things worse, so why do mentally sane and people capable of reason & common sense still follow this ideology? It astounds me.
cody30228

Con

Socialism, defined by Webster's as:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

So I guess my question isn't going to be answered soon, so I will defend both sides and you can choose.

SOCIALISM IS A VERY GOOD IDEA
Socialism is very good for many reasons. One, all the bad examples you used don't apply. Why? Because this would be debated as an idea, and the effects it could have. As an idea, we simply argue if it makes sense or not.

So lets take socialism apart piece by piece

"collective or governmental ownership"
This means that land is used however is need. If 100 people live in a socialist society, only room for 100 or so houses or built. Land is not wasted, because it is used where needed.

"administration of the means of production"
this is the answer to an energy crisis. The government can dictate to companies, Hey you need to use alternative energy for this. Or hey, you need to employ more people and less robotics. This idea allows the government to more effectively help unemployment and energy consumption.

"distribution of goods"
This is the best part for the people. You need medicine. The government will get it to you. You need a transplant, the government will give it to you. You need surgery, the government will give it to you.

SOCIALISM IS GOOD
first, apply all my arguments above.
Now for evidence
Nazi Germany was mainly socialist. When Hitler controlled the companies,
unemployment decreased from 6 million to 302,000
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

China is socialist
These numbers are amazing.
https://www.cia.gov...
Basically, it says China has low unemployment, low percentage of poor people, high GDP, and low debts. A lot of exports. Amazing economy

China is the world's economic powerhouse.

Why wouldn't people want to live under a socialist economy?
Debate Round No. 1
C-Mach

Pro

Socialism is a bad idea:

Private Property:

People should have a right to own and do anything that isn't illegal on their property. Otherwise, people would feel deprived.

Means of Production:

The government telling other companies what to do would plunge them in to the ground.

Distribution of goods:

The distribution of goods. You might get it, but the problem is you have to wait FOREVER to get the services or goods. For example, I have a friend in England that had a broken jaw from a bar fight and he had to drive from hospital to hospital waiting to get surgery. Is that how you want it?

Socialism is Bad:

Prosperity is good, I admit it. But would you like severely reduced rights? Yes or No?

China is a fascist-state capitalist country. They just say their Communist. Otherwise, why would their economy be booming?

Your rebuttal?
cody30228

Con

So we are strictly talking ideas here? that's fine. So no examples of real-world countries

private property
"People should have a right to own and do anything that isn't illegal on their property. Otherwise, people would feel deprived."
Not true.
1. John Locke, the real founder of our unalienable rights described life, liberty, and property. But Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers disagreed with property and changed it to pursuit of happiness. Why? Because we do not NEED property.
2. People wouldn't feel deprived.
http://two.not2.org...
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Property is no where on there. We do not need it. We do not feel deprived

means of production
"The government telling other companies what to do would plunge them in to the ground."
Why? Where is your logic. They could operate at a loss and the government would still support them. The government would supply materials they need.
Tell me why they would be hurt.

Socialism is bad
"But would you like severely reduced rights? Yes or No?

China is a fascist-state capitalist country. They just say their Communist. Otherwise, why would their economy be booming?"

Which rights are severely reduced? Property. Like I said, property is not a right. Describe to me why we need property.

China China China. Like you said up above, we are debating ideas. So please no use of countries. If you want to debate in actuality that is fine. But so far we have only used ideas. So I will ignore my China and Germany examples.

SOCIALISM IS A GOOD IDEA
This are all the things my opponent ignored
1. Land is not wasted, because it is used where needed.
2. answer to an energy crisis
3. help unemployment
4. supplies medicine

Like I said, these were all ignored.
My opponent has no real reason why socialism is a bad idea.
I prove why socialism is a good idea
Debate Round No. 2
C-Mach

Pro

Sometimes, people take pride in something that is THEIR'S and no one else's, including land. The answer to the energy crisis... Could be, but WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE LIKE CRAP? I don't THINK SO!!! Unemployment. There is unemployment, AND LOW QUALITY OF LIFE WHILE BEING EMPLOYED!!! And back to the medicine problem. I'm tired of repeating myself, but YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER TO GET IT!!! Your rebuttal?
cody30228

Con

Let try to see what points you are trying to make
1. people have pride in land
2. i am right about energy
3. live like crap
4. there is unemployment
5. long medicine wait

I think the answer is obvious, but what is better
Land utilized to the fullest extent to have your food needs met
You have pride in land

Pride has never and never will be considered a need in any philosophy discussion. Why? Because the notion is absurd. Pride does not outweigh management of land.

Good, so we agree we could save our planet by being socialist. I think that makes it a GOOD idea, don't you?

You never give an reason why your life would be crap. Go to work. Get paid. Buy stuff. Have government provide your needs. The definition we have used for this round of socialism does not apply a decrease in quality of life. You just randomly bring that point up. I'm sorry this is the last round, but you have no warrant to that claim.

There is unemployment. Um, no. Have you bothered an attempt to understand a socialist work center? The government will give you a job. Unemployment is limited only to those mentally or physically handicapped. So your argument, which is little more than a simple claim, falls short of any meaning.

Where is your evidence for this? And don't say Canada. Because Canada is not an idea. We agreed to this. You want to break it? Look to China, very very low unemployment. Look to Socialist Germany (WWII) where unemployment dropped from 6 million to to somewhere in the thousands. Do not bring up examples we agreed not to use.

So this is the what we have coming from this round.
1. Socialism utilizes land to the fullest
2. Makes people have no pride in land
3. Saves the energy crisis
4. Little unemployment
5. Medicine supplied

All the other arguments in this round either relied on Socialism not simply being an idea, or made no sense, or had no reason why.

As you can see, 4 out of the 5 show why Socialism is a good idea. And all 4 of them alone outweigh his argument. It is clear from this that Socialism is a good idea.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The US is not capitalist.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
Sorry, I just want to respond to a WAY earlier comment that socialism and capitalism can not co exist

Easy, imagine USA how it is now. Now imagine the USA diverts say 1.2% of taxes into some buildings and buys some books and some computers and OMG the government is now running a library! And this library is PUBLIC, and this library is a civil service building (socialist) and this library is owned by the government.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Sooo... your professors are the only ones who know anything, you don't think for yourself?

And you can't "compromise" on a principle and call yourself logically consistent in that principle (in other words, if someone isn't extreme they aren't logically consistent). In any compromise between food and poison, death is the winner.

I should perhaps clarify my earlier phrase... extremity is implied by logical consistency, it is not in fact a guarantor of consistency however, sorry (takes a look at hitler :D).
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
I'm a political science and philosophy major.

I have never heard any of my professors say that 'extreme means logically consistent'.

Never.

Extreme really means "unwilling to compromise". That's something that you can take to the bank.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Extreme is just another word for logically consistent. So it is not that you can't reason with me, it is that if you regard "extreme" as a valid criticism, you simply won't reason. Argue first, label later.

Why would I tell other people you are weak? Whether you are weak, mistaken, or simply evil is not yet in evidence, and in any case I have nothing to gain from telling them such a thing :D
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
One last thing--your definitions are such that we can't have an intelligent debate. I'm not into this enough to actually care. Oh well.
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
I'm done arguing with you because you hold a non-negotiable extreme position.

Sorry I didn't recognize it earlier.

Go ahead and tell people I'm weak, but your positions are such that I don't see how I could try to reason with you. That helps you in debate, but mainly because you are not arguing the same as I am.

Good evening.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't hold the Constitution as the sacred document that most people do, so your ad authoritatem argument there won't help.

I have never heard of Topps Beef (looks it up, sees that it was in fact a voluntary recall, not one forced by the CSPC.). However, the world is NOT safe "from bad beef in the long term." Ever heard of mad cow? :D

And as a free market hasn't been tested, you have no evidence to counter the clear reasons people have to test their own beef- They lose business if they have poor quality, and they are liable for fraud if they claim a product is healthy and it isn't.

How is me not murdering someone a value to me? lol. Me not getting murdered is, but me not murdering someone, while on balance my preference, is not a value in itself so much as a lack of destruction of values.

Contract enforcement is something I'm all for, but it is not "regulation" as such, as regulation is the government making things fit specifications set by it.Contract enforcement is the government making sure no one else tries to "regulate" people by withholding the property of another, which became the property of another the moment the contract was signed. In short, I'm opposed to initiation of force and fraud, not retaliation.

And common law does not mean what you think it means (common law is law made by precedent rather than legislature). As for how you can get me to follow a law, it depends on the law. I don't murder innocents, because I have nothing to gain from it and all my rights and my status as a rational human being to lose from it. The same with any other initiation of force or fraud. Now if you are speaking of unjust laws (those that initiate force against me), you are correct, I will not follow those ever without a court being involved, and even then I'm likely to break them if I judge the benefits worth it. Why? Because I want to be free.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Yes, I oppose laws that restrict the right of children to pursue jobs if they so desire. A 6 year old generally won't, unless the alternative is worse.

I agree that parents that cannot afford their children should not be parents, but how do you intend to enforce that?

"
What? Child prostitutes are NOT THERE BY CHOICE. You think a 12 year old girl WANTS TO BE A PROSTITUTE? That's almost absurd. Parents put their children on the street. Parents solicit their children. Wow.
"

Ignoratio elenchi. Parents generally are not the direct cause of child prostitution, the cause is generally that they don't have parents, and since child labor laws are out there, it is a de facto choice between: either work illegally as a prostitute or go hungry. Without the child labor laws, these children are not stuck with that that dilemma.

"How aren't they? They are not government-run entities, but they are still watchdogs over economic conditions. Competing companies can't start extending the work week in order to get ahead of the competition. Unions tend to keep companies in line. They don't want scandals in the companies because a)as in Enron, that can mean the robbing of the pension funds and b) because then that is lost employment. Unions DEFINITELY act as watchdogs because they have an interest in the continued survival of the businesses that they watch over."

"Regulation" refers only to government actions. Unions are simply ways to help voluntarily coordinate workers so they can all agree when the time has come to stop granting sanction to their employer's actions by working for them.

And unions don't generally stop the work week from being extended right now (perhaps they would in a free country), laws do. Considering how increased hours don't generally increase productivity though, the market punishes that just as well :D
(continued)
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
"...and has yet to demonstrate any serious long-term increase of safety over what a market in which businesses were simply held liable for their actions (the mere existence of a commission causes laziness in the business due to the fact that if the regulatory agency lets it through, the business is not liable)."

Uhhh...have you heard of Topps beef? The recall (found by the CPSC) SHUT DOWN THE COMPANY. Now, we are 'long-term safe' from bad beef. Yay.

And companies survive recalls all the time. All the time. All the time.

But the CSPC is a vehicle for safety. Long term. Remember, preventing deaths is preventing a 'long-term' illness.

AND THE LAST THING:
"I do not appreciate "values" caused by a gun in my face, and all regulation amounts to a gun in my face or someone else's."

Hmm...well you have the value of not murdering someone because if you do, there's more than a few guns pointed in your face. You are confusing things ontologically, so I will skip that.

Basically, an aspect of regulation that even JOHN LOCKE, the king of free markets, believed in was CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT.
Regulation is needed to maintain the market in the 'long term'.

The fact is that when it comes to extremists like you, the only way we can get you to follow the law is by using the threat of common law, which says you don't follow the rules, you have to have your day in court. And remember, you're getting a fair trial because law-abiding citizens fought for reform.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 4 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
C-Machcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 8 years ago
GaryBacon
C-Machcody30228Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
C-Machcody30228Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Mikedapimp 9 years ago
Mikedapimp
C-Machcody30228Tied
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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
C-Machcody30228Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
C-Machcody30228Tied
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 
Vote Placed by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
C-Machcody30228Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Orson 9 years ago
Orson
C-Machcody30228Tied
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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
C-Machcody30228Tied
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 
Vote Placed by johngalt 9 years ago
johngalt
C-Machcody30228Tied
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:30