The Instigator
Abominminded
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Socialism could take down capitalism in an economic race.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Buckethead31594
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 734 times Debate No: 46672
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Abominminded

Pro

If just one country gave up capitalism and switched even their motivations and intentions to providing for all of their citizens they would grow accelerated in technology all their cave men would have the wheel again and on to something else! They could even do this without ending their capitalism just a common welfare status for their country and all countries. I'm a optimist! If I think It can be done the only reason it's not , war for territory
Buckethead31594

Con

My opponent has not provided any sources to support his opinions. Therefore, I will assume that this round is merely for purpose of acceptance. In which case, I accept and wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Abominminded

Pro

Abominminded forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

My opponent has forfeited. I am at a loss of content to reply to, so I will simply address my opponent's opinions from round one:


May we arrive at truth.



"If just one country gave up capitalism and switched even their motivations and intentions to providing for all of their citizens they would grow accelerated in technology all their cave men would have the wheel again and on to something else! They could even do this without ending their capitalism just a common welfare status for their country and all countries. I'm a optimist! If I think It can be done the only reason it's not , war for territory"

Such a bold claim can only be supported with solid evidence. Nonetheless, there is logical evidence to suggest the contrary, that capitalist countries advance faster than socialist countries because of the innate lust for 'more.' It is this very drive for competition that forces corporations to think 'outside the box,' and create innovations for the future. Although socialist countries probably have their share of technological advances, they are more likely to create practical applications that work for everyone. This is not a negative quality, but a positive quality- as such motives are forged in generosity, rather than greed. Yet when it comes to technology, capitalism wins the race because of its very nature. I would ask my opponent to consider the fact that most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world. For all the Occupy Wall Street talk about the "1%," if someone makes $34,000 a year after taxes, they are part of the worldwide 1% and Americans make up half of the total 1% on the planet. This is due to the technological growth created by capitalism. Even nations like China have made this connection, and have seen their economies lift off by moving towards capitalism. If China keeps at it long enough, eventually the hundreds of millions of Chinese who're still living in huts and shacks will be able to have the sort of lives and technology even the American poor take for granted[1]. Not to mention that producing new products is often time consuming, expensive and hit or miss. Nine ideas may fail before that tenth one takes off. The less the creative people behind these ideas are allowed to benefit, the less time, money and effort they'll put into developing new concepts and inventions. Put another way, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward has to be to convince people to take it. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers makers only a parade of bureaucratic leeches who want to take advantage of their "good fortune[2]." And, therefore, capitalism wins the economic race.

In conclusion, I have nothing more to say, since I do not hold the burden of proof.


On to Pro.







[1] http://townhall.com...
[2] http://townhall.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Abominminded

Pro

Abominminded forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

My opponent has forfeited the debate, and thus: I urge the viewers to vote Con. It would seem, at least as of now, that capitalism would take down socialism in an economic race.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
It's cool. It's first come first serve after all!
Posted by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
Buckethead31594
Sorry, Defro!
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Man.....Buckethead accepted before me. Anyways good luck both of you. I will be following this debate.
Posted by Abominminded 3 years ago
Abominminded
They could have the public employees or hired officials grab a accountant move a few tax dollars around set up some food fields for the public and cattle. This is just to stabilize a common ground of basic necessities to keep their country men , country boys . Go ahead sit around in a teepee and breed all day ! I could build a pretty big ship with an ant army. O'h yeah and feel free to keep ur' riches I'm kinds thinking you might just drop them them in the mechanism when you start to see what cool stuff my scientists start to cook up. ! I meant this can be done under the corporations nose by the Government with just a little support from the people , someone mast I mean debate my buns fisssss
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
And are you debating complete socialism vs complete capitalism?
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
What do you mean when you say: "They could even do this without ending their capitalism?"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
AbominmindedBuckethead31594Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
AbominmindedBuckethead31594Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro results in Con winning conduct. S&G goes to Con for minor grammatical errors by Pro (run on sentences/lack of comma usage). Arguments and sources go to Con as well for having viable arguments with sources to back up their evidence. Pro did not fulfill the BoP.