The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 485 times Debate No: 56917
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Only 500 words per argument.

Socialism and Atheism should not mix. If nothing occurs after you die, then why do things for the 'greater good'?

Its more about the individual if your Capitalist, more about living your life in the best way you can, more about doing things for yourself, because you only have one chance to.

If your religious, it would make sense to be more giving and to work with Socialism, because when you die, everything is not over.


Thanks for the topic, Pro.

I. Morality Exists Outside of Religion
-Despite the diverse religious views and personal opinions of man, there exist common values and laws that must exist in a functioning society.

II. Equality Is Morally Desirable
-To suggest that the only reason that equality would be desirable is for rewards in some afterlife is incorrect. Equality is intrinsically desirable, to ensure quality of life during our existence on Earth.
Debate Round No. 1


You are basing your debate off of your perception of socialism and your perception of equality, therefore your response is invalid.

This debate will not be turned into a question of whether socialism is moral or not.

However, It's not. Haha.


As there were no given definitions. I assumed we would operate under the standard definitions of socialism and equality. Socialism, in its true form, intrinsically promotes equality. However, this debate is reduced to one of morality when my opponent says atheists should not support socialism. This implies that there is a difference between atheists and Christians which I contend that there is not on the basis of absolute morality.
Debate Round No. 2


Definitions from the book mean nothing. When it comes to ideology, everyone has their own definitions. I shouldn't have to point that out.

Now let us address what you were mentioning before. About morality and such. I agree, everyone has a sense of morality, but the way humans are naturally destroys that argument. People will always do what is best for them and their individual selves before they do things for others, this is why, for example, communist systems always fail.


I. Previous Failure Does Not Indicate A Faulty System Or The Negativity Of An Ideal
II. Despite Individual Interpretation Of Definition, Definition Is Necessary To Truly Debate (Argument goes both ways)
III. With Objective Morality Conceded, We Now Have Our Goal Established (Whether or not it is contrary to what feels natural)

-I wish this debate were a bit longer than 500 characters per round. An outline is the furthest I can go until then
Debate Round No. 3


1. I disagree with you. Hitler (National Socialist German Workers Party), Mao Ze-Dong, USSR leaders, and North Korean Leaders have managed to kill millions either through starvation or murder, all in communist countries. Can you name the same number of capitalist leaders who have killed the same number of people? Communism and extreme left socialism are flawed.

2. Are you implying that individual rights are immoral? Are you implying that prioritizing the group instead of yourself is more moral?


I. Again, past flaws are not indicative of a flaw in the ideal. They are simply lessons in flawed execution of said ideal.

II. Individual rights are vastly important. However, equality is a major factor. It is more moral (for instance) that every individual has the equal right to survival and shelter than any particular individual gains the right to a comfortable life at the expense of others.

Also, I still fail to see how you correlate atheism specifically to this.
Debate Round No. 4


Atheism gives incentive to do best you can before you die as after you die there is nothing left.

Socialism is based more off the well being of the group then individual rights.
Capitalism is based more off individual rights then the well being of the group.

It is clear that a system which promotes the rights of the group would not promote Atheism as atheism gives incentive to care more about yourself.

If I tried to kill someone, and got caught, would it not be a flawed attempt at murder?


I. I do not understand any logical implication that could come from my opponent's murder analogy.

II. The fundamental flaw in my opponent's case stems from one key misunderstanding: the confusion of atheism and humanism. I am an atheist because I do not believe there is a god. This, however, does not effect my objective moral compass. Humanism is the egotistical desire to gain power at the expense of others- not atheism. As my opponent misrepresents atheism, his contention is invalid.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
I agree. I believe I could of made better arguments with a larger character set. I wanted to try and make things quicker, and more difficult. Oh well.

May the best debater win! It looks like you have a good head start.
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
Interesting points from you as well. It's a topic I'd greatly like to explore in a debate that had a greater character allowance. And true, a flawed attempt is also possible of an intrinsically immoral thing. It's just induction vs. deduction and necessary (or unnecessary) correlation
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Good debate. My comment about murder was related to your comment; "Again, past flaws are not indicative of a flaw in the ideal. They are simply lessons in flawed execution of said ideal"

I mentioned: If I tried to kill someone, and got caught, would it not be a flawed attempt at murder?

Just because the attempt was flawed doesn't mean the premise isn't flawed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
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: Con rebuttals not significantly rebutted, Pro fell short of BOP. Socialisms failures DO indicate flaws. Hitler was NOT socialist.; fascism IS diff.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sourcing: Easy. None. Tied. Conduct: Vague framing by the Pro and then manipulation of said vague framing leads me to vote con on conduct. S/G: Pro has a greater number of and magnitude of errors. Vote goes Con. Arguments: Pro does not really fulfill BOP in my book and in any case does not defend against attacks by the Con. Overall a poor debate--not because of the Con, though. The framing of this debate is poor and the character count is a bad move by the Pro. Good luck all.