The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Socialism is the most logical and rational form of economics.

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 4 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,771 times Debate No: 14858
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

socialpinko

Pro

Socialism is the best option economically and politically speaking. I will argue for economic democracy, financial regulation, market socialism, nationalization of major industries, equality of opportunity, an extensive welfare state.........
LaissezFaire

Con

As Pro is the instigator and has the burden of proof, I will let him make the first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

As to market socialism, it is simply the most rational option. Cooperation and democracy are the defaults in politics but when it comes to economics which affects a person just as much as politics we must all be controlled by a select few? Now the welfare state is now rarely debated against. It is only the extent of which it applies that is disputed. The socialist sees the welfare state as the means to equality of opportunity. Unemployment benefits and universal health care are only two implementations of the welfare state. Those who deny the need for the welfare state say that those who were not born into money are not deserving of the basic necessities of life(medical treatment). Another tenet of socialism is some mode of financial regulation. This is also widely accepted in the US. However, even with the level of regulation that we have in the US, we still managed to miss some stuff and here we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Next is nationalization of major industries(energy, healthcare, education). Nationalization is the only way that citizens may exert democratic control over the services that they enjoy. Let's take healthcare for example. Millions of Americans cannot afford medical coverage. This is because medical care is privatized and for profit. This means that a person can be denied the basic necessities of life because they do not have enough money. It's sad that that is the way things are in the US. If the government were to assume control over the healthcare industry, every citizen would be entitled to true liberty.
LaissezFaire

Con

==Democracy==

Pro argues that since we have democracy in politics, we should have it in economics as well. This argument begs the question. You must first establish why a large group of people should have the right to dominate and rule a smaller group of people, just because of the relative sizes of the groups. Second, even if democracy is a good political structure, that doesn’t mean it should be extended to any other area. I’m sure no advocates of political democracy would advocate democracy in, say, sex, where people could vote themselves other people’s bodies.

==Financial Regulation==

There is no evidence that financial regulation, or lack thereof, had anything to do with the current recession. It’s often blamed for the recession, but none of the people currently blaming “deregulation” for the recession managed to figure out the connection during the 10 years between the deregulation and the actual crash. Surely, if there was an actual connection between deregulation and the recession, some of the many, many people would have seen it before the crash. But they didn’t. In contrast, many of those who blame the government (specifically, the Federal Reserve) for the current recession did predict the housing crash. [1]

[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...

==Healthcare==

Pro mistakenly assumes that the current US healthcare system is, in any reasonable sense, private. About half of all healthcare spending in the US is done by the government. [2] The parts that are “private” are heavily regulated, with government approval required for health insurance contracts, drugs, medical procedures, and to become a licensed doctor. If the American health care system is broken, it can hardly be blamed on the non-existent free market—especially since the supposedly evil profits make up only 0.36% of total healthcare costs. [3] Pro claims that universal coverage would be good, but does not explain why. In Massachusetts, for example, health insurance coverage increased, but actual health care outcomes didn’t. [4] Obviously, the point of a health care system should be to make people healthy—if it can’t do that, then a reform can’t possibly be considered beneficial.

[2] http://content.healthaffairs.org...

[3] http://factspluslogic.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...



Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

A- The Argument from Revelation

Oh. I didn't know that the only way to explain predictions was to attribute them to god. We can predict the exact course of the revolution of the Earth to within mere centimeters and you don' see me going around saying the only way to predict that is if god told me. Saying that god is the only explanation is intellectually lazy at best.

B-The argument from Miracles or Testimony

" Jesus, unlike Penn and Teller, did things that were not and are not physically possible" The reports of the alleged miracles of Jesus were written decades after his death. You could say that Penn and Teller shooting each other and allegedly catching the bullets in their mouths is humanly impossible. But even if they did this and a group of people wrote, decades after their death, that their tricks were divinely inspired you would not expect anyone to believe you would you? Please bring evidence that Jesus actually did miracles. And a collection of books written decades after his death does not count as external evidence.

And yes I said that space would not allow me to provide all the reasons people believe in god and I am right about that. However, I should have also said that if you would like to bring any arguments for the existence of god I will be happy to disprove them. After all, the burden of evidence is on you.

Moral Argument

I don't know if you recognize the truth of evolution or not. I'm actually debating someone right now who tries to deny the validity of macro evolution. Evolution is the great creator of morality. As social animals our ancestors needed to get along with each other. The chimps who could get along with their peers had a greater chance of finding a mate to reproduce with. So, slowly but surely more of the chimps who didn't kill others reproduced versus the ones who could not get along with others. Obviosely, there are still those who believe in killing, just look at the military or sociopaths, but those have other explanations. Your moral arguments again brings no external evidence for the existence of a god. And it' kind of funny. I assume that you are a Christian and your argument simply points to an author of morality. Even if your argument made sense, why does it not point to the Muslim god or the Hindu god. You said that all cultures agree on the same basic principles. Just something to think about.

Creation

This is the funniest argument. Supernaturalists say that everything needs a cause and that cause is god but when questioned about god's cause, they say that he's an exception. If that is so then your axiom that everything needs a cause falls apart.

Impossibility of Disproving Existence

You say it is impossible to disprove the existence of your deity. However, you make dozens of claims(noah's ark, resurection, ascension into heaven) and since you have yet to prove these assertions true, I have the right not to take their truth on blind faith. If you were to debate that I am not the creator and governor of the universe, according to your argument, you cannot disprove me regardless of all the evidence pointing to the negative. In that case why are you not agnostic in regard to my alleged holiness?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

All obey the holy word of god!
LaissezFaire

Con

As my opponent has accidentally posted the wrong debate argument here, we're just going to skip this round.
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

socialpinko forfeited this round.
LaissezFaire

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
socialpinko

Pro

I forfeit this debate. Sorry to waste your time. I hate to admit it but I got bored with socialism.
LaissezFaire

Con

That's fine. The more people that get bored with socialism, the better. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
to say that one is bored of complete socialism is not to say that there are not good qualities associated with it.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
We can just skip this round and have the debate be 1 round less.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
I accidentally posted the wrong debate
Posted by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
Come on Roy...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
socialpinkoLaissezFaireTied
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: pro forfeited
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
socialpinkoLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets my conduct point because Pro forfeited, all arguments were better from Con, Con was the only one that provided reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
socialpinkoLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro admitted defeat. No sources from Pro. Forfeit is loss of conduct. Clear victory to Con.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
socialpinkoLaissezFaireTied
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: Pro conceded this debate, so obvious is obvious.