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

Socialism is a horrible idea.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 72291
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Please present argument in 3 point style, no Rebuttles until second round and 3rd round for closing statements.
1. It promotes collectivism.
Collectivism is when the government wants to sacrifice the rights of the individual for the better of the whole. Hillary Clinton, Mao ze dong, and hitler all said it when they claimed we must stop worrying about the individual and about society as a whole. However that is the fundamental flaw with them all as the government is then able go oppress people in the name of helping the whole. Nazism, communism, and socialism all share this aspect.
2. Socialism is literally Nazism and Communism.
The only difference between these 3 is that socialism is pragmatic like nazism, and socialism is without a dictator.
3. It's proven to fail.
Mary Thatchet put it perfectly, "the liberals will soon tax all the money from the wealthy." Socialism wants large scale entitlement programs to put individuals into a circle of dependence on the government that they can't get out of. It ends up leading to the point of no incentive to work, no money, and the whole system collapses.


Thanks for the debate, Pro.
I'll present my opening arguments this round.
Note that I do not have to show that socialism is an especially good political/economic system; I just have to show that it is not a fundamentally horrible system, as Pro claims.

== CON CASE ==

1. Property rights don't exist

"In the state of nature land belonged to everyone. Everyone had infinite rights to everything, and it was in forming a society that some rights were surrendered to keep things stable. Since land was owned by no one in the state of nature, people claiming it for their own violates the rights of everyone else to use this land. Taxes are one way of penalizing individuals for stealing otherwise public land, and compensating everyone else for the loss of their rights. Properly understood, then, many forms of taxation are merely equalizers, not modes of theft" [1]. Thus, socialism is ethically justified-- in the absence of property rights, it provides a system which maximizes collective happiness.

I would leave it at that, but Pro says I need three arguments, so here are a couple other advantages of socialism:

2. Creates a social safety net, ensuring that all members of society have their basic needs fulfilled. In other words, it is the most humanitarian economic system, since it requires the government to look out for the well-being of the populace. This results in increased social stability and deceased income inequality, both of which translates to substantial pragmatic benefits [2].

3. Avoids the various externalities associated with a free enterprise system, such as capitalistic competition driving businesses to unethical practices which are not in the best interest in society. For example: law firms engaging in unnecessary litigation, doctors recommending unnecessary procedures, banks selling their clients faulty loans (i.e. the thing that led to the 2007-2008 recession), manufacturers moving their operations off-shore, and growing corporations engaging in practices which are harmful to the environment in order to develop further. Under socialism, since all companies are owned by the government, they can be far more consumer-centered, rather than profit-centered.


In conclusion, socialism is morally just and has major utilitarian benefits too.
It cannot reasonably be said to be "horrible", and thus the resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 1


1. For cons opening arguments he stated that there are no property rights, however he has only shown the philosophical idea of one person. The argument that there are no property rights is not proven as it is a very debatable subject and therefore that argument is invalid without hard evidence.
2. Social safety nets sound like a great idea but once again have been proven not to work as our very own social security is set to run out in 2022. Saftey nets, especially for retirement, don't work as the demographics are constantly changing so there could be a time with more retired people then working or a very close amount of each.


I concede the debate. You win.
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, good debate,


WillYouMarryMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Futurepresident2048 1 year ago
Property rights do exist, like everything in this world that's politics we has humans invented it. All in all nothing exists but we invented these ideas to keep a civil society.
Posted by amazinfly 1 year ago
Yes, I would most like to contribute to this debate.

I am not a socialist yet do agree with many of Marxist principles of an equality for all state.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
lolololol my debate arguments rarely represent my personal views :P
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Property rights don't exist? I'll remember that when you try to stop me from making love to a girlfriend of yours, or when I am taking your Atari game system.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
Note: Socialism is not *literally* Nazism and Communism, since the latter two are stronger versions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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: Concession