The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Socialism is a step backwards in human evolution

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 8 votes the winner is...
JBlake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,192 times Debate No: 7205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (8)

 

sadolite

Pro

It is taught that evolution is how life started and that god and religion are just archaic ways of thinking. With evolution now established as fact in our schools, I thought it be a most logical argument that socialism is a step backwards in human evolution. Socialism has been tried and tried over hundreds of years and history has proved that it brings all human life to the least common denominator as it requires in the end that everyone have no more or no less than the next person in order to be fair. There are no examples of socialist countries that can even come close to the prosperity of a capitalist society. Even poor people in capitalist societies are 10 times to 100 times richer than poor people in socialist or communist societies. America has elected a govt that is taking this countries population a step back on the ladder of human evolution. A step back from a wildly prosperous capitalist society to a begging from the govt, dependent on the govt weak and helpless existence.
JBlake

Con

Before I advance my argument I will provide some basic definitions for the benefit of the readership and (especially) for the benefit of my opponent, Sadolite.

Socialism: An economic system in which the most important goal is to provide a high-quality, relatively equal standard of living for all. Two major variations are Marxist-Leninist socialism and democratic socialism. (Danzinger, 488)

Communism: An economic system closely associated with the command political economy. The key to communism is the socialization of of resources - the notion that the state must maintain control of society's land, labor, and capital. It also emphaizes an ideological commitment to economic and social equality among all of its citizens. (Danzinger, 483)

Capitalism: An economic system that corresponds loosely to a market economy. In this system, private economic actors are generally free from state constraints. (Danzinger, 482)

Command Economy: A type of political economy in which the state assumes total control of virtually all significant factors of production. The state replaces or eliminates the role of private owners of land, labor, and capital; makes all production decisions; and determines the value of all goods. (Danzinger, 483)

Market Economy: A type of political economy in which there is near-total private control of land, labor, and capital. Every actor has direct control over his or her own factors of production, and production decisions are essentially the sum of all private actors' decisions. The exchange value of goods is decided by the market. (Danzinger, 486)

Mixed Economy: A political economy that attempts to combine the strengths of both market and command economies while also minimizing their shortcomings. Control of the means of production is shared between the state and private actors.

---------------------

What Socialism is and is not:
There is no specific socialist ideology because socialists vary widely on how much central planning is ideal. For instance, Democratic Socialists desire worker control of the means of production, not private owners OR the state. Social Democrats, on the other hand, support a mixed economy in which the state regulates some key institutions such as education, the police force, and others. Market Socialists advocate government control of production, but operate it on the principle of supply and demand, not equal distribution. There are many more forms of socialist ideologies than the three mentioned.
As you can see by the definitions above, socialism is not communism. The terms are not interchangeable as my opponent, Sadolite, is known to do.
The more moderate forms of socialism are perfectly combatible with capitalism.
Moderate forms of Socialism are not in favor of a complete equality among citizens. Some will be rich, some will be poor.

--------------

I affirm:
The more moderate forms of socialism are a step forward in human evolution.

MINIMIZES SHORTCOMINGS OF CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
CAPITALISM
Capitalism creates an unstable society when the gap between rich and poor become too great. This is especially true when the poor are not gaurunteed a minimum standard of survival. Violence, riots, and rebellions are most likely to occur when a population is not well fed or well entertained (or neither). This minimum standard may come in the form of a minimum wage, a welfare or workfare system, unemployment benefits, or a other moderate economic policies.
A moderate socialist system provides regulation of the private sector to ensure no group oppresses, takes advantage of, or violates the rights of any other group.
Socialism can also be a useful tool in ensuring order and stability in a nation. This can be achieved by providing a minimum standard of life so as to discourage violence, food riots, or rebellion from poor or disaffected classes of citizens.

COMMUNISM
Moderate forms of socialism reject the command economy ideology that is espoused by communism. The economy is largely run by the private sector, except some restrictions are enforced to maintain a minimum standard of living, and to ensure that the gap between rich and poor does not become so wide as to be dangerous.
Communism creates an unstable society because it limits personal freedom to achieve its ideology of social equality. Moderate socialists are not in favor of complete social or economic equality. They accept that there will be a divide between rich and poor. They accept the idea that competition is vital to national wealth and prosperity. These ideals are fundamentally at odds with communism.

--------------

REBUTTALS
Pro claims that "socialism has been tried and tried over hundreds of years and history has proved [sic] that it brings all human life to the least common denominator as it requires in the end that everyone have no more or no less than the next person in order to be fair."
In this claim, Pro is either inadvertantly or purposefully confusing socialism with communism. As I have shown above, the two are very different systems. Socialism, especially the more moderate versions, are opposed to "requiring" everyone to have an equal distribution of wealth. This is evident in the very basic definition of socialism.

I agree with him that there are SOME examples of socialism failing for some nations in the course of history. He is, however, wrong that all attempts at socialism lead to a "least common denominator." I would also like to point out that there are also a number of examples of capitalism failing. Pro will need to reconcile this fact to win support his claim that socialism is a step backwards because it occasionally failed in the past.

Pro also claims that "even poor people in capitalist societies are 10 times to 100 times richer than poor people in socialist or communist societies."
Again, he is attempting to confuse the readers by purposefully coupling socialism with communism.
I challenge Sadolite to provide evidence for this claim that poor capitalists citizens are "10 times to 100 times richer" than poor socialist citizens. He assumes all capitalist nations to be as wealthy and successful as the US. This is not the case, so to compare poor or middling capitalist nations to socialist nations would easily disprove his claim. Even if we consider only the US, Sadolite has grossly overestimated the gap.

-------------

CONCLUSION
Sadolite has deliberately or inadvertantly mischaracterized socialism in an attempt to make it synonymous with communism. I have provided a few simple, basic definitions for him in the hopes that he will not make the same mistake in the next two rounds.
Sadolite has not provided any factual evidence to support any of his claims. I genuinely hope that he corrects this in the final two rounds so that we may have a meaningful and relevent debate based in reality.
Good luck.

---------------

1. Danzinger, James N. Understanding the Political World, Ninth Edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Capitalism always works when the rule of law is enforced. I say this because there are examples of the failure of capitalism but all have one thing in common, the rule of law was not enforced and corruption was allowed to take hold. This is precisely what is happening with this country combined with the expansion of socialism. The end result is as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Socialism can not work unless it has a host to feed off of, capitalism. Capitalism does not need socialism. Socialism is a cost of doing business for capitalism. Socialism is govt based therefore it is an expense an administrative cost. Socialism does not build wealth. Socialism redistributes wealth. Socialism rewards failure and irresponsibility and punishes success. Capitalism does just the opposite.

Socialism can not expand unless it disguises itself or lies about it's intentions. I will use Cap and Trade and the Global Warming scare as examples. A Socialist will tell you that Cap and Trade is a tax on big business to cover the cost of it's carbon foot print. And like fools some people believe that the company being taxed is just going to pay it and not pass the tax on to them. This is a classic example of of how Socialism expands, it is realy a tax on the poor and middle class as the tax on the business they are trying to punish just passes it on. The same will be true for any taxes, fees, costs or what ever is done with respect to global warming. The expense will just be passed on to the poor and middle class. Theen the Socialist will create a new govt program to help assist the poor to help pay these exurbanite costs that big businesses charge for their product or service which was caused by the Socialist govt in the first place. The realy bad thing is all the taxes collected for these types of schemes are squandered in red tape and additional administrative costs created by the new Socialist agency put in charge to over see the regulation of each respective example. A total net loss for the tax payer and more people dependent on govt.

My opponent says there are many different forms of Socialism and gives a Websters dictionary explanation of each. I would say that the US is closer to Communism than any of the above. We are going to pretty much skip Socialism and de-evolve strait to communism/Marxism.

If it walks like a duck looks like a duck and quacks like a duck , it's a duck!

The ten points of Marxism:

Rather than write all of it out and then make all of the comparisons, I found a video that does it for me and is more entertaining to watch.

This video says it all. We are de-evolving as a society. We are skipping right past socialism to communism. Socialism is a step backwards in human evolution.

Lets look at Socialism and it's effects on society in real time shall we. Obama was elected just a few short weeks ago and implemented the biggest expansion of Socialist welfare programs in the history of this country. I will refer you back to the segment of my argument where a Socialist govt must lie and deceive to expand. Take his stimulus bill for example. It was shoved down our throats before it could even be read to see what was in it. It would have never passed if time was given to read it. The stock market has lost nearly 3 trillion in wealth sence he took office and announced his plans of Socializing just about everything under the sun. Only a Socialist would think spending more money would solve money problems. A Capitalist would change their behavior and cut spending. This is such a no brainer. If Socialism is expanding and the market is running away from it we are going back wards, we are de-evolving. Socialism is a step backwards in our countries evolution and human evolution.

On an unrelated note, what is the proper terminology tor the word "de-evolve" I know this is wrong but spell check didn't help and I could think of a synonym for it.
JBlake

Con

I would like to open by pointing out that Pro did not address my claims, choosing instead to print anti-socialist propaganda with no evidence to support his case. I would once again ask my opponent that in the final round he utilize the many sources available to him on this topic to support his case. Otherwise, it is just one man's grumblings.

I would further like to point out that he dropped his claim that capitalist societies are "10 to 100 times richer" than socialist societies. He did not provide evidence for the claim and he failed to mention it at all. Therefore we can assume that he concedes the point because there is no evidence to support it. There is, however, evidence to suggest that moderate socialism is on the same level of national wealth as capitalism.

Below is the per capita GDP (PPP) of the United States (partially socialist, but for argument's sake we will consider the US capitalist) and a few socialist countries. PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity. Statistics gathered from CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov...):
Per Capita GDP (PPP)
United States: $48,000 (2008 estimate)
Norway: 57,500 (2008 est.)
Luxemburg: 85,100 (2008 est.)
Sweden: 39,600 (2008 est.)
United Kingdom: 37,400(2008 est.)
Finland: 38,400 (2008 est.)

This should by no means be considered a comprehensive list. It merely serves to show that socialist countries are not "10 to 100 times," or even 2 times, more poor than capitalist countries.

-------------

Pro Claims:
"Capitalism always works when the rule of law is enforced. I say this because there are examples of the failure of capitalism but all have one thing in common, the rule of law was not enforced and corruption was allowed to take hold."

REBUTTAL:
Pro provides no supporting evidence, but for the sake of argument we will consider his claim to be accurate. Let me point out, however, that the term 'Socialism' could very easily replace 'Capitalism' in his claim and it would hold the same amount of validity. Obviously corruption can cause an economic system to fail no matter what form. Socialist and capitalist examples both abound. There are also many examples of both capitalist and socialist countries that have prospered (see above list for just a few).

Pro Claims:
"Socialism can not work unless it has a host to feed off of, capitalism."

REBUTTAL:
This is merely the opinion of one man. This is not an objective statement and there is nothing unbiased about it.
I will throw a similar statement right back. 'Capitalism can not work unless it has a host to feed off of, democracy.'
Most forms of socialism in practice today work hand-in-hand with capitalism, this is true. But is that negative? Humanity is always striving to work out the faults of any system. The marriage between capitalism and socialism is just one example of this. Proponents of both seek to minimize the defects inherent in both systems to create a new system (see my first round for a brief discussion).

Socialism has been more successfull when enacted alongside democratic ideals and capitalism. When grouped together as such, citizens are granted social and economic freedom, yet they have the added bonus of a guaruntee of a minimum standard of living.

Pro Claims:
"Capitalism does not need socialism."

REBUTTAL:
Capitalism needs regulation in order to prevent the emergence of oligarchy. It requires regulation to prevent the exploitation and oppression of the lower and middle classes.

Pro Claims:
"Socialism rewards failure and irresponsibility and punishes success. Capitalism does just the opposite."

REBUTTAL:
Pro is grossly overgeneralizing and again provides no support for his claim.
Providing people with the basic necessities of life can hardly be deemed a 'reward' for their failure. A more accurate description might be that socialism helps maintain order by ensuring that all citizens have access to basic necessities. Capitalism, on the other hand, would allow failures to starve on the streets. This is not conducive to stability and order.

Pro Claims:
"I will use Cap and Trade and the Global Warming scare as examples."

REBUTTAL:
Not all socialists believe in Cap and Trade. Not all socialists believe in man-made climate change. Some capitalists believe in both. Therefore, your anecdote is irrelevent.

Pro Claims:
"I would say that the US is closer to Communism than any of the above."

REBUTTAL:
This is such an outlandish claim with no supporting evidence that I don't even know where to begin.
Pro utilizes an anti-socialism propaganda video to support his case. I will not go over the film piece by piece (after all, I am debating Sadolite, not 'Bored as Hell Videos'). Suffice it to say, the video uses oversimplification, overgeneralization, and selective fact representation to 'prove' its point.

Pro Claims:
That Obama is a socialist. He further claims that Obama is responsible for the economic crisis. He further claims:
"The stock market has lost nearly 3 trillion in wealth sence he took office and announced his plans of Socializing just about everything under the sun."

REBUTTAL:
Obama is a progressive. Obama inherited the economic crisis, which began in September 2008 - Obama was elected in November and not sworn in until January. To blame this crisis on Obama is absurd.

------------

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM AFFIRMED
My resolution stands uncontested:
Moderate Socialism is not a step backwards in human evolution.

1. Social Freedom
The Democratic Socialist nations of Europe surpass the U.S. in social freedom by UN statistics, and are tied with the US by US statistics.
Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France rank in the top 10 on the 'Human Freedom Index.' The United States is conspicuously absent from this list.
(Source: 'Human Freedom Index,' Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme Report)

Not that the U.S. is particularly unfree. A similar statistic put together in the U.S. (Freedom House) places the U.S. on precisely the same level in human freedom. All 10 of the UN list (except Germany and Belgium), the U.S., and a number of other nations both socialist and capitalist are given the same score.
(Source: "Freedom in the World," Freedom House. http://www.infoplease.com...)

2. Economic Freedom
The Democratic Socialist nations of Europe are not very far behind in terms of economic freedom either.
All of the countries listed above can be found in the top 30 in the Index of Economic Freedom. The majority of them can be found within the top 20. The U.S. ranks sixth.
(Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org...)

3. Democracy
Many of the Democratic Socialist nations of Europe rank above the US in the Democracy Index.
Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Luxemburg rank in the top 10. The US lags behind iwth a ranking of 18.
(Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2008: http://a330.g.akamai.net...)

-------------

CONCLUSION
Pro has not supported any of his claims with facts or evidence of any kind (save for a propaganda video).
Pro has not addressed my argument in favor of moderate socialism. In fact, he only mentions moderate socialism in passing.

Pro has claimed that socialism never works and is always a step backwards. Unfortunately he has failed to reconcile these claims with successes of Democratic Socialism in the countries of Scandinavia and western Europe. To win this debate, Pro will need to explain why these countries that share similar or greater per capita GDP (PPP); Social and Economic Freedom; and Democracy in relation to the U.S. are somehow a step behind.

Good luck in the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

"As you can see by the definitions above, socialism is not communism." My opponent rejects my source that proves that indeed socialism is very much like communism. But sence he makes no attempt to even discuss the content of my source but instead chooses to mock the name of the source and completely dismiss it as propaganda. Every word of that source is true and accurate and can all be verified. It is not propaganda it is all US govt policy many of which will be expanded. The govt will now pick and choose who lives where and artificially set housing prices under the new administration. Private property rights have been completely eliminated and your property can be sold to the highest bidder under the disguise of creating more revenue for the state. That means a private individual can force you from your property if they want to. The education system will become nationalized under the current administration. All farm land will be taken over by the govt by giving subsidies to farmers who grow what the govt wants and take them away for those who don't. This of course makes it impossible for the dissenting farmers to compete. He writes this all off as propaganda, this is fact people. Since my source is considered propaganda wich it is not there can be no meaningful debate. It's like debating global warming on this site, my sources are all garbage and his sources are the word of god. He has the nerve to call my source propaganda then sites the UN as a source what a friken joke. The UN is as anti capitalist anti American as it gets. Sense my opponent refuses to even discuss the points of my source he concedes to them all as he makes no attempt to disprove them. All of the points in my source are communist in nature not socialist. The US govt is expanding on all of the points not eliminating or minimizing them. They are taking the US backwards and the rest of the world with it. My opponent wants to call it socialism but all of the facts point to communism.

"I would like to open by pointing out that Pro did not address my claims"

I did address his claims but he rejects my source with no cohernt or intelligent debate. It is just propaganda in his words. I do not concede anything I stand by the source and can prove every word of it.

I on the other hand will not dismiss any source and never have , they all have something to say and can be rebutted if they have no merit.

Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland. lets look at these countries who embrace the type of socialism that my opponent claims as successful models and see what they all have in common and see if they could survive if the US rejected it's current capitolist system or should I say whats left of it and adopted their systems. First and foremost The US would have to change all of its immigration laws to match theirs or their systems wont work here. No one but no one enters or leaves those countries with out proper documentation. There is no such thing as illegal immigration in those countries. The rule of law is strictly enforced there and not just anyone can become a citizen you must prove you will not be a burden on society before you can become a citizen in any of those countries.

Population growth. All of the countries listed are at the bottom of the list in population growth, vertualy static This of course makes an expanding economy impossible. If the US is going to take on these forms of socialism it will have to cease all population growth. Close the boarders.

Import /exports: All of the countries listed are at the bottom of the list when it comes to importing goods and services from other countries. That means they get the majority of money to fund their socialist society from out side their country not it's own citizens. If the US were to adopt these forms of socialism it will have to follow suit in order for it to work. Do I even have to mention the current unsustainable trade deficit we have now.

So you see these are the things that socialist communist never tell you. my opponent is the same. He looks at from a panacea point of view but does no research and makes no attempt to look at it in the real world and in real terms. All all those countries will topple in a matter of months if the US were to adopt their system of socialism. Their standard of living is completely artificial and not based on free market. The entire world depends on the US importing their goods and services. If we adopt their system we will have to do it the way they do it in order for it to work. That would spell disater for them and the rest of the world. That would be a major step backward for human kind. Socialism is a step backwards for human kind in this world today. The point is resolved and undeniable. The expansion of socialism will destroy this contry and take the rest of the world with it.

"Per capita GDP" This is because they import virtually nothing and export everything. These figures are artificial and will not stand if the US adopts their system, they will have to tax their citizens to make up the trade imbalance that will result when the US goes protectionist as they are now.

"socialist countries that have prospered (see above list for just a few)." The entire list is completely and totally reliant on outside sources for it to survive they all have static populations and are protectionist in nature. If the US were to stop or even reduce imports they would all crumble.
JBlake

Con

Let me begin by pointing out that Pro has made a number of radical claims but does not use a single source to back it up. I will list his unsupported claims below. However, I will address them.

Unsupported Claims:
1. "Private property rights have been completely eliminated and your property can be sold to the highest bidder under the disguise of creating more revenue for the state."

REBUTTAL:
Pro provides no source to suggest this is anything but incoherent ramblings from a man afraid of the socialist bogeyman. Since he provided no source I searched for one to no avail. We can take this as fiction.

2. "The education system will become nationalized under the current administration."

REBUTTAL:
The US education system has been public and national since the nineteenth century. I suppose you could say it is national under this administration, but that is because nothing has changed. Nationalized education has been a positive factor in our nation. It has led to high literacy rates and rapid technological advancement.

3. "All farm land will be taken over by the govt by giving subsidies to farmers who grow what the govt wants and take them away for those who don't."

REBUTTAL:
Unsupported, and I could find no source suggesting this to be true. This is an attack by a rabid anti-administrationist.

4. "He has the nerve to call my source propaganda then sites the UN as a source what a friken joke. The UN is as anti capitalist anti American as it gets."

REBUTTAL:
He offers no source or any reason why the UN is not a reliable source. In typical fashion, he derides it as 'socialist'. That seems to be his stock answer for everything not to his liking. Additionally, I alse used some US sources which he did not refute. Since he did not refute any of my claims, the remain unchallenged.

5. "I stand by the source and can prove every word of it."

REBUTTAL:
He states this and then proceeds to not prove any part of it... In fact, he makes no mention of the film's content. He only mentions the film to claim that it is not propaganda.

-------
The next few claims are all in reference to Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland. He attempts to convince you that all of them share the same attributes, the same failings, and the same successes. Obviously this is as true as saying the US has the same attributes, failures, and successes as Singapore - another capitalist country. However, I will address all of his points:

6. "No one but no one enters or leaves those countries with out proper documentation."

REBUTTAL:
In theory, this should be the case in the US as well. Illegal immigration is not a positive attribute for any nation. To limit or completely curb illegal immigration would be a positive goal - a goal that my opponent himself supports.

7. "All of the countries listed are at the bottom of the list in population growth, vertualy static"

REBUTTAL:
No Source. Not that this is a negative attribute by any means. One danger of the future is overpopulation. If most of the world's nations stopped growing by population we would remove this threat to stability.
Additionally, low or static population growth in an indicator of development. Developed countries have smalled families.
(Chowdhury, para. 5, http://www.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd...)
The US has a similar growth rate to some of them, which I will show below. All percentages gathered from the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov...):
Population Growth:
US - 0.883% (2008 est.)
Norway - 0.88% (in 2009)
Sweden - 0.72% (As of 2006 est.)
Luxembourgh - 1.188% (2008 est.)
UK - 0.276% (2008 est.)
Finland - 0.112% (2008 est.)

8. "All of the countries listed are at the bottom of the list when it comes to importing goods and services from other countries... Do I even have to mention the current unsustainable trade deficit we have now."

REBUTTAL:
a) Another unsupported claim. Again, this is not a negative attribute. When a country is exporting more goods than it is importing it is a sign of wealth and a sign that it is producing the goods and services that it needs at home.
b) A nation can only be said to have a trade deficit when it is importing more goods than it is exporting.

9. "All all those countries will topple in a matter of months if the US were to adopt their system of socialism."

REBUTTAL:
Another unsupported claim. This is a very americocentric position. To think that all nations would fail because the US fails is absurd and not based in reality. The world would continue to function with or without the US.

10. "'Per capita GDP' This is because they import virtually nothing and export everything. These figures are artificial and will not stand if the US adopts their system, they will have to tax their citizens to make up the trade imbalance that will result when the US goes protectionist as they are now."

REBUTTAL:
As mentioned before, exporting more than you import is a positive goal for any country. Their figures are not artificial and are only related to the US in that some of their imports come from the US and some go to the US. The US is not the only market available for European (or any) goods. I will supply 2 examples, because to supply more would be redundant and take up too much space. I will also only list exports, because that is the topic.
Below is a list of Norway's principle trading partners:
Exports
UK - 12,375
Netherlands - 6,857
Germany - 6,171
France - 6,009
Sweden - 5,042
United States - 4,642
Denmark 2,293
Belgium 2,073
Finland 1,293
Italy 1,119
Japan 989
(Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com...)

Below is a list of Sweden's principle trade partners:
Germany - 7,896
UK - 6,751
Norway - 6,206
Denmark - 4,602
US - 6,638
Netherlands - 3,570
France - 4,315
Finland - 4,818
Italy - 2,844
Belgium - 2,825
(Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com...)

As you can see, the US is not even the principle import nation of these countries' exports. To withdraw the US market would have an effect, but not an apocalyptical one as Pro has suggested. Obviously the US would not do that anyway because it would be against US interest.

11. "The entire list is completely and totally reliant on outside sources for it to survive they all have static populations and are protectionist in nature. If the US were to stop or even reduce imports they would all crumble."

REBUTTAL:
No sources. Pro has not even informed us as to what outside sources all of these nations are reliant upon. As mentioned above, the US is not the only market available.
------

Following a string of unsupported claims, my opponent personally attacks me, claiming that I "[do] no research and [make] no attempt to look at it in the real world and in real terms." On the contrary, I supplied a number of diverse sources to support my claims. It is my opponent who failed to do research, choosing to let an anti-socialist propaganda film (that also does not support its claims) to speak for him.

-----
CONCLUSION
My opponent has cited no sources to support his claims, save for an anti-socialism propaganda video by a "Bored as Hell Videos" that does not even connect to any of Pro's claims.
My opponent has resorted to personal attacks on me. He has claimed that I have done no research despite the fact that I supported all of my claims with statistics and relevent sources. As previously mention, he cites none.
My opponent has not addressed my argument in a meaningful way. His only response to my argument is that if the US were to stop accepting the exports of the European Democratic Socialist nations, they would fail. He offers no rational as to why this would occur.
Democratic Socialism is not a step backward in human evolution
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Incentive =/= run by the state."
It does if the incentive is accepted.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans
small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"Will you change your mind and support Obama when you turn out to be wrong?" Absolutely, but his success is very unlikely. Also the govt cannot just print more money to solve the problem with the FDIC. Govt must solve the problem before the FDIC goes insolvent.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Well good luck. See you here on 31 December 2009.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
No it won't, but having some is better than none. The point is, it will regain value. Those who still have it in hard currency will get their money back when it regains value, those with deposit slips will get nothing back, not now not ever.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Sadolite,
If the FDIC goes insolvent and the banks fail, do you think american currency will hold much value when you go back for it?
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Will you change your mind and support Obama when you turn out to be wrong?

R&R,

Incentive =/= run by the state. It would be stretching the truth to claim so. This is what I am saying the Bored as Hell Video does repeatedly, stratches the truth and uses reports only selectively chosen facts to imply something that is not factual.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
JBlake, The point is this, Obamas policies will hurt this nation and not improve it. This of course is my opinion. Obamas policies are socialist and can in no way be considered pro business or capitolist in nature. Would you care to make a cyber wager that Obamas policies will fail and that the FDIC will go insolvent before the end of the year and there will be a massive run on the banks just like in the great depression? I am sure I will still be debating. We will come back to this comment and one of us will have a good laugh and a big I told you so. I withdrew all of my savings from my savings account just today and put it in a safe deposit box at the bank in cash. Now I will be able to sit back while all the fools clamour for their lost savings accounts. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's good finacial advice if you ask me. You should consider it along with everyone else who reads this.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Labor unions are not run or controlled by the state, as the video is implying"

They are subsidized by it (by laws granting labor unions what are essentially governmental powers to force action by businesses).

Therefore, they have an incentive to obey the state.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
8. Misrepresentation. Labor unions are not run or controlled by the state, as the video is implying. Allowing the state to negotiate with labor unions does not equal state-planned labor organization.
9. Misleading. Not a state-induced phenomenon. Private individuals and private enterprises are investing in rural regions. This is not a movement towards combining urban and rural and removing the distinction.
10. Fact. They are correct in this regard in the first half. However, students are not being bred for industrial production, as the second half implies.
Patriot Act: Not permanent. This section provides no sources.
Habeas Corpus: They are referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The suspension clause (the clause causing the controversy) was struck down on June 12, 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush. (Pg. 70, http://www.loc.gov...)
[series of anti-socialist cartoons]
Claims Bill of Rights and constitution is destroyed, does not show how.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by brycef 8 years ago
brycef
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EnragedParrot 8 years ago
EnragedParrot
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
sadoliteJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70