The Instigator
Public_Agenda
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

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 10 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,726 times Debate No: 13577
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (10)

 

Public_Agenda

Pro

Hello! This is my first debate, and I couldn't find a topic I was really interested in, so I decided to make one.

The structure of this debate will be as follows. The first round will be used for definitions and to provide a brief roadmap of arguments. The other 3 rounds will be for actual debate. Please only take on this argument if you intend to be present for all 4 rounds!

To clarify the topic, I am referring to the economic and social policies of Socialism and Capitalism, in respect to America. As the Pro side, I will be arguing that the economic and social policies of Socialism represent the ideals of Democracy more effectively than the economic and social policies of Capitalism, in respect to America.

As the Pro side, I will be defining these major terms as follows:

The ideals of Democracy will be defined as the following ideals:
1) The equal representation of citizens by their government.
2) The vesting of power in the people as such that majority rules, with regard for minority rights.
3) Minority rights are protected by the government.
4) The guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all citizens protected under the government.
5) The absence of hereditary of arbitrary class distinctions among citizens.

Socialism will be defined as the economic policy of nationalizing all aspects of production and business, and the social policy of providing equal government-funded care to all citizens under the government.

I leave it to my opponent to define Capitalism.

As a brief roadmap of my argument, during the course of debate I will be:

1) Identifying the policies and structure of Socialism in more detail, and explaining how Socialism does not infringe upon the ideals of Democracy.

2) Demonstrating how and why Socialism upholds the ideals of Democracy more effectively through the use of both social aide and welfare and the prevention of corporate corruption and tyranny, as well as ensuring the protection of minority rights while still allowing majority rule.

3) Rebutting my opponent's arguments as necessary.

I look forward to a fun debate with whomever decides to take on the Negative side of this argument!
larztheloser

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge, and welcome him to DDO. It's always refreshing to see an opponent who agrees with me on most major issues.

I define capitalism as being any economic structure that provides benefits on the basis of the demand for work completed. It is distinct from socialism because socialism provides equal benefits regardless of work completed. While my opponent has been very specific about limiting this to the United States, my argument will be applicable to any country in the world. Everything else I agree with.

My overall argument will be:
1. That democracy and equality are diametrically opposed, and thus we should be aiming for equity.
2. That capitalism has a proven track record of creating societies which uphold democratic values.
3. That capitalism provides mechanisms for overcoming political issues, unlike socialism.
4. That therefore capitalism is a more "democratic" economic system.

Of course, I also will rebut my opponents arguments once he has had a chance to make them fully.

Let the debate begin!
Debate Round No. 1
Public_Agenda

Pro

As a brief roadmap of my argument for this round, I will be proving that Socialism upholds the first three ideals of Democracy more effectively than Capitalism. I will also be providing a block against my opponent's first proposed point.

Contention 1: The economic and social policies of Socialism allow the majority to rule rather than a wealthy minority.

As my opponent earlier stated in his definitions, Socialism is distinct from capitalism because it provides equal benefits regardless of work completed. In a Socialist economy, no individual can rise significantly above another, while in a Capitalist system, both vertical and horizontal motion are possible in terms of socioeconomic status.

In Capitalist systems, interest groups, often headed by the economic elite, often seek to shape public policy by "donating" or funding campaigns for office. In fact, the vast majority of elections are funded primarily by such interest groups. An overabundance of examples from American campaigns can be found at http://www.opensecrets.org.... When these interest groups donate money and influence policy makers, they are not representing the majority of citizens. They are representing small groups of citizens, and the policies created often favor a wealthy minority over the majority population. Examples of this are abundant not only in the American government, but in capitalist or capitalist-leaning systems worldwide.

A Socialist government, meanwhile, offers much less room for individuals to dominate the economy. Rather, in order to donate significant funds to political campaigns, a multitude of individuals would logically have to pool resources. Thus, any significant contributions by individuals to a political campaigns in a Socialist economic system would reflect a greater number of citizens, rather than a wealthy minority. In this case, majority does rule.

Contention 2: The economic and social policies of Socialism protect and ensure minority rights more effectively than the economic and social policies of Capitalism.

In many Democratic Capitalist nations, minorities are underrepresented in the Legislative branch of government. The Legislative branch is responsible for the creation and passing of new laws. When minorities are underrepresented in this governmental branch, policies that benefit and protect their rights are pursued less than necessary. For equality to exist in a Democracy, the rights and equality of minorities to the majority must be actively protected.

The under representation of minorities in the Legislative branch, and therefore in government as a whole, is reflected by their economic and social conditions. For example, in America from the late twentieth century until now, the rate at which the number of impoverished African Americans is double that of the national rate of increase. The majority of Americans are caucasian, and thus the "average rate" primarily represents them. The rapidly rising number of impoverished African Americans effectively parallels their representation in congress; African Americans hold less than 10% of the seats in America's legislative branch.

Perhaps one of the most significant recent examples of infringement on minority rights caused by the under representation of minorities in the Legislative branch is America's infamous Senate Bill 1070. A document originally proposed by Arizona and passed by the American senate, SB 1070 enabled police officers to pull over drivers and make "reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person" in the case of "reasonable suspicion." The law essentially legalized racial profiling for Arizona state police, infringing majorly on the rights of Latino Americans. Latino Americans are another minority group underrepresented in Congress. They, on average, also have a much lower per capita income than the American majority, and more often live in poverty. The relationship between these factors in undeniable.

Argument Block: Equality is an inherent part of Democratic ideals. Equity does not suffice in a true Democracy.

The use of equality in Democracy is parallel with the belief in Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people ought to be treated equally in a society. Equity, meanwhile, would be referring to "Equity theory," or the perceptions of fair or unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships, which in this case are relationships among the citizens in a country. Equity theory would try to create as "fair" a distribution as possible.

The idea is inherently flawed.

While Egalitarianism is simple and absolute in concept, being the equal social and economic treatment of all by government, equity theory is debatable. The definition of equality is not subject to interpretation: it is the state of being equal. Fairness, meanwhile, is a very flexible term. Many people have different interpretations of what would be fair and what wouldn't.

In the case of a "Democracy" based on equity alone (although such a thing would never be a true Democracy), one could take members of society who were more intelligent, more athletic, or more talented and treat these people at a different level than individuals who were less so. It could be considered "fair" to treat one who is "better" better. On the other hand, people with mental or physical disabilities should be treated differently, as well. It is only fair to the rest of society and to those people if the government spends less on them and cares less for them.

The definition of equity and fairness is too broad and too malleable to be used in a Democracy. It can be easily warped to create a government under which not all citizens are represented, minority rights are not protected, and private interests dominate the political and social mechanisms of the country.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.
larztheloser

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for opening his well thought-out case. I plan to do a lot in this first (proper) round. First I will knock down my opponent's two arguments. Then I will present my own three contentions in detail.

Pro's first contention:
My opponent claims that since some people are wealthy in capitalism, they fund election campaigns and thus only the wealthy benefit. He claims socialism doesn't have this kind of political issue because all people have equal money. I have three responses.
1. Socialism doesn't have politics as vesting more political power in a group necessarily also gives them more economic power. This is important because nobody benefits. Surely a few benefiting is better than everyone losing.
2. Second, the ability to fund election campaigns is not inherent to a capitalist system. One could look to countries such as my own - New Zealand - which put a certain cap on election campaign spending for each party, which is normally very low. This works very well here, yet nobody would call us socialist because of it. Everybody wins as opposed to only a few winning.
3. Third, I deny that America is a capitalist country at present. Providing benefits on the basis of demand for work completed doesn't happen because employers take a disproportionate amount of the cut of benefits for demand for work completed. This is wrong and needs fixing.

Pro's second contention:
My opponent claims that minorities are under-represented in capitalist countries' legislatives. He claims socialism will do this better for some mysterious reason. I have, again, three responses.
1. If this is bad in capitalism, it's still worse in socialism. Minorities have always been persecuted under the neo-socialist systems that the world has seen in China and Russia.
2. The under-representation of minorities is not inherent to capitalism either. One could look to countries such as my own - New Zealand - which has a slightly different political structure that slightly over-represents minority interests. Still nobody calls us socialist because of it.
3. My opponent's examples fail. First he pointed to impoverished African-Americans. Which is very interesting because their representation rate in government is increasing (graph the statistics given here: http://en.wikipedia.org...). So do you suggest government representation puts you in to poverty? No, you suggest the opposite. The facts do not support your conclusion. Your other example is Senate Bill 1070, which you claim is racist. I do not contend that it is or isn't. I contend that capitalism did not cause it. You can have racist bills under a socialist structure just as much as under a capitalist structure.

My first contention:
One of the democracy principles, defined by my opponent, is the lack of arbitrary class distinctions. Note the word arbitrary. Under a socialist structure, people are arbitrarily assigned to work, and thus have their living conditions dictated to them arbitrarily. Under a capitalist structure, people choose their class based upon their effort. I understand that under the status quo there are many barriers to this, just as there are many barriers to truly arbitrary assignment under a socialist structure (it's no secret that socialist countries such as Cuba are rife with nepotism and corruption which prevents socialism from functioning properly). It therefore seems that fair rewards are what democracy stands for, and equal rewards are not.
My opponent has tried to block this in advance by saying that it is open to interpretation, what is equitable. I point him to my original definition of capitalism, "rewarded on the basis of demand for work completed". So say I produce one table, and my neighbor produces two. Under capitalism my neighbor should get twice as much reward as I do. That would be ideal capitalism, and although it rarely holds true in practice, it is better than socialism where my opponent has no extra incentive to produce that second table. The extra payment is not subjective, it is set by demand and supply in the market, 100% objective. I think the whole thing about disabled people is not really strictly relevant to the debate, but in case I'm wrong, I ask that my opponent clarifies this argument fully.

My second contention:
Precedent. Socialist countries tend to have governments that are less representative, minority-regarding, life/liberty/pursuit of happiness upholding and arbitrarily divisive than capitalist countries. Take China as a typical case study: China's government is generally regarded as being unrepresentative of the views of the people (come on, how many people supported Chairman Mao's 5 year plans?), little regard for minorities (especially Tibetans and the Uighurs), not very caring for democratic ideals (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and arbitrarily divisive (see analysis above). While I accept China is not totally socialist, I also deny that America is totally capitalist, so the comparison is valid. There is a reason why very few socialist countries are democratic.

My third contention:
In a democracy, it is important to be able to guard against poor rulers. A capitalist economic structure can in fact help achieve this, in two ways. First, it is because most other countries in the world are capitalist. Countries with the same political framework usually do not attack each other, and have less internal violence (Democratic Peace Theory). The result of this is more restrained rulers. Secondly, capitalism enables people to have political freedom, which is a necessary pre-requisite of fair voting. Capitalism does this by giving voters economic freedom to produce, which in turn grants them political bargaining power, which they do not have under socialism.

Great, that is all. Bring on round 2.
Debate Round No. 2
Public_Agenda

Pro

Thank you for your compliment and for your well built argument.

As a brief roadmap to my arguments for this round, I will be expanding upon the meaning and workings of Socialism, defending my points, attacking his, and bringing up my third contention.

Major Point: Socialism in context to the Topic.

My opponent has justified the use of comparing Communist China and Russia to Socialism with the excuse that I have related America to Capitalism. The difference is that China and Russia are Communist, a distinct political system that is diametrically opposed to Democracy. I am debating about the economic and social benefits of Socialism in a Democratic system, which makes Communism unrelated to the issue at hand. America still pursues many Capitalist ideals and would best be described as a Corporatist or Corporate Capitalist system. The difference between Social Democracy and Communism is much greater than the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism, and thus my opponent's use of China, Communist Russia, and Cuba as examples is unjust and invalid.

Defense of Contentions 1 and 2: Any government regulation of spending defies the economic ideals of Capitalism, and Socialism does indeed have a political system.

My opponent has tried to counter my argument by stating that some "Capitalist" countries, such as New Zealand, put caps on campaign spending for each party, thus reducing the influence of interest groups and the wealthy elite. But when a government places caps on campaign spending, it is defying Capitalist ideals and actually pursuing Socialist ideals; specifically, the Socialist ideal of government regulation of business. Politics and government positions supply jobs to a large portion of the population in any Democratic country, and thus government can be seen as a corporation (it fits the definition as shown by http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Any regulation of the corporation, including the regulation of the spending of the parties within, would be Socialism and not Capitalism. Thus, Capitalism cannot cap the amount of money spent by parties during election, and thus cannot prevent the wealthy elite from dominating and electioneering the political process.

My opponent's first counterexample to my second contention was that his own country, New Zealand, overrepresents minority rights. However, he provided no evidence that it does so, and did not describe how it does so.

His second counterexample to my second contention was that neo-socialist countries such as China and Russia persecute minorities. However, this is not a fair couterexample or point as China and Russia are not Socialist, but rather are or were Communist, and have used the political system set out by Communism to persecute minorities, not the economic and social principles of Socialism.

First rebuttal: Socialism does not have arbitrary class distinctions, and the equal distribution of wealth prevents "favors" in the political system.

My opponent has stated that Socialist countries are rife with arbitrary class distinctions, then used a Communist country as his example once again. Once more, Communism is not comparable to Socialism, because Socialism is an economic and social system, while Communism is a political system. The gap between Socialism and China, Russia, and Cuba is much more immense than the gap between Capitalism and America. Communism, once again, is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. My opponent's comparisons are invalid.

The social and economic policies of Socialism do not allow for arbitrary class distinctions any more than a Capitalist system does. Neither has a political system or means for which people would be elevated to higher standpoints arbitrarily. Rather, in Capitalism an individual can attain a higher socioeconomic class by obtaining more wealth

Second rebuttal: Socialism guarantees voters political freedom just like Capitalism, and prevents any individual from using his or her political freedom to restrain the political freedom of another.

Once again, my opponent is trying to use Capitalism as a political system. It is not. It is an economic and social system. The topic addresses only economic and social factors in the context of Democracy as well, not political, thus it is assumed that the political system at work is a form of Democracy. I would like to kindly ask my opponent to stop using reference to political system or traits, as they are out of the context of the topic.

I will still rebutt my opponent's point, though, by saying that the original idea behind Socialism was the creation of a Utopian society where citizens benefit each other and the government, and vice versa. In this system, citizens would have political bargaining power as they are the mechanisms behind government. The regulation of business inherent in a Socialist Democracy protects the rights of workers, and gives them the ability to assemble or strike. Citizens still have political bargaining power, and still have the right to speak out against unfair conditions under a Socialism. In fact, this right is even stronger because in Socialism, unlike Capitalism, another individual cannot use his or her wealth to strengthen his or her political freedom and then use that political freedom to restrain the political freedom of another.

I originally intended to bring up a third contention in this argument, but have run short on space. For my final round, I will bring up my last contention, rebutt my opponent's points, and offer up a conclusion.

I'm excited to see your response!
larztheloser

Con

My opponent has raised some pertinent issues that I'm glad I have the opportunity to clarify. In this second round, I intend to answer my opponent's major round two rebuttals, and summarize my case. I'll do exactly the same in round three.

Pro's first rebuttal: China, Russia etc is an unfair comparison
My opponent defined socialism as being "the economic policy of nationalizing all aspects of production and business, and the social policy of providing equal government-funded care to all citizens under the government." This is pertinent because, under this definition, China and Russia both qualify as socialist. Their form of government is irrelevant to the comparison, as we're talking about social policy. The persecution of minorities is a social policy. It happened in, as I called them, neo-socialist countries. It does not happen as often in more capitalist countries. Therefore the comparison is valid. I talk more about why government policy is completely valid below.

Pro's second rebuttal: Capitalism is not a political system (political argument out of context)
I have four responses. One, history shows that political systems and economic systems go hand in hand, economic systems do not arise without politics to back them. Two, my opponent has run political arguments himself. Three, I've already shown in the last round that capitalism is a pre-requisite of democracy. My opponent did attempt to rebut that and I've answered him below. Four, you brought up several political arguments yourself, for instance the under-representation of minorities. Thus it's absolutely within the context of the debate to talk politics.

Pro's third rebuttal: Being the "mechanisms behind government" gives political bargaining power
Two responses. First, within a socialist system, you are working for the government, meaning that you feel as disconnected from the government as most plebs do from their bosses and their decisions. They are no more the mechanism behind the government than in capitalism, but capitalism gives them added bargaining power based on their productivity. Second, being a mechanism doesn't give you power at all in a democracy. People who work for state owned enterprises have no additional political bargaining power compared to the rest of us, because the rest of us have the same incentive to produce.

Pro's fourth rebuttal: NZ's policies
Policy #1: CAP ON CAMPAIGN SPENDING IS SOCIALIST? This means, under your definition, that it nationalised production or nationalized business or provided government funded care. I'd like to know which of these things my opponent thinks a cap on campaign spending does.
Policy #2: HOW DOES OVER-REPRESENTING MINORITIES WORK IN NZ? As wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org...), all the New Zealand governments since the introduction of our present voting system have been minority governments. Famously in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org...), a single minority party was the "kingmaker" in government and dictated much of our policy. Bigger parties cannot govern without larger parties, so smaller parties have a greater proportion of the power relative to the number of votes they get. Minority groups form minority parties. Thus minority groups are over-represented. Get the mechanism?

Pro's last rebuttal: Socialism does not distribute wealth arbitrarily
Socialism arbitrarily tells people their income, as I defined in the first round and you accepted. It takes no account for production. Making a payment without regard for anything is an arbitrary payment. Therefore socialism distributes wealth arbitrarily.

So, in this round I have essentially proven the validity of all of the arguments which I made in the last round. My opponent did not directly attack the majority of my rebuttals from last round so I guess my opponent is focusing on my arguments rather than his. I made three arguments: that equity is democracy, that capitalism and democracy have a proven track record of working together, and that capitalism is better for democratic politics. Taken together, these three points have one inescapable conclusion: that capitalism is more democratic. Because my opponent has not given us strong analysis as to why this is not the case, his argument fails. Thank you, I anxiously await the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
Public_Agenda

Pro

Here is my final argument. Thank you for this amazing debate!

Rebuttal #1: Communism and Socialism are separate and incomparable.

While Russia and China may qualify as being Socialist, their actions against minority groups and generally inhumane policies were not policies of Socialism; they were policies of Communism. Socialism is an economic and social system. Communism is Socialism, but with a fascist or police state dictatorship for a political system. It was the dictatorial political system that enacts policies these inhumane or unrepresentative policies, not the Socialist economic and social system.

Rebuttal #2: Political and economic systems are separate and do not necessarily go hand in hand.

I brought up the under representation of minorities not as a direct political effect or policy of Capitalism, but rather as an indirect effect caused by the economic policies of Capitalism, thus making it still legitimate in the context of the topic. Pure political policies are not legitimate for this topic.

An economic system does need a political system to back it, yes, but the variance in political and economic systems is so massive that you can not necessarily say that all Bureaucracies are Capitalist, for example. The only exceptions would be Fascism and Communism, since both imply an economy owned and run by the government. However, no other political systems imply a particular economic system. A few examples . . . Capitalist Monarchies, Capitalist or Socialist Confederations, Capitalist Oligarchies, Capitalist and Socialist Republics . . . The list continues on, as shown by ( https://www.cia.gov... ).

Rebuttal #3: Socialism does give political bargaining power.

A Democracy is meant to have majority rule. If minorities had the individual political bargaining power to make significant differences, majority rule would become void. Using my opponent's own analogy, blue collar workers do not have any connection or control to their bosses . . . In a Capitalist system. Under Socialism, where workers' rights and regulation are general policies, workers can strike or petition without fear and can influence their boss's decisions. Similarly, groups of citizens can come together to petition, or can withhold their vote. Thus, citizens still have political bargaining power, but it is vested in groups rather than individuals.

Rebuttal #4: Socialism does not distribute wealth arbitrarily.

Because wealth is distributed in regard to the current economic status of the nation in question, Socialism does not arbitrarily distribute wealth. Wealth is distributed equally and in regard to several factors, namely the government and economy. This is clearly not arbitrary.

Rebuttal #5: Equality is necessary for Democracy, not equity.

As I am short on space, I would like to remind my opponent that I proved that equality is an integral part of Democracy, and that equity does not suffice. To review my argument, please reread my argument block from Round 2.

Contention #3: Socialism guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to citizens protected under a government more effectively than Capitalism.

Life - When deprived of economic means by which to support himself, a citizen is being deprived of life. The greatest priority of a Democratic government is to ensure life to its citizens. In a Capitalist system where economy is driven by work done and is a competitive environment where not everyone is guaranteed a job, not everyone will have a means by which to support himself. If a citizen can not support himself, there must be a welfare program to ensure that he does not die of starvation or cold or some other similar harm. Any such welfare program would be social spending, an aspect of Socialism, not Capitalism.

Liberty - Liberty is giving each and every citizen equal opportunity and treatment. In the case that one citizen can rise to a level of economic power and infringe upon the rights of another citizen, and do so legally at that, is a clear demonstration of how Capitalism fails to protect the Democratic right of a citizen to liberty. Socialism ensures the equal treatment of citizens and limits vertical socioeconomic movement, preventing such infringement upon the rights of others.

The Pursuit of Happiness - How can a person pursue happiness if they cannot even afford to eat? Once again, one person taking from the economy for his own happiness but denying happiness to others is not Democracy. My opponent will probably argue that by limiting a person's ability to achieve wealth, you limit his or her ability to be happy. But this is not true. Numerous studies done by Princeton and Yale have found that once a person makes enough money to pay the bills, excess money does not make a person happier. In fact, suicide rates seem to increase with income. One such study can be found at ( http://www.princeton.edu... ).

As this is the final round, I will conclude my arguments. Over the last few rounds, I have proven that the economic and social policies of Socialism more effectively uphold the five defined aspects of Democracy than the economic and social policies of Capitalism. They do this primarily through the regulation of economy, the equal treatment of citizens, the guarantee of life and safety through welfare programs, and preventing private interests from dominating government and politics. I have proven that equality is an integral aspect of Democracy, and that equity does not suffice. My opponent has provided rebuttals that rely on invalid comparisons and arguments that do not follow the topic. His counterarguments have not been sufficient, and thus I have carried my duty and satisfied the burden of proof. In conclusion, Socialism's economic and social policies do uphold the ideals of Democracy more effectively than Capitalism. Please give your vote
larztheloser

Con

I'd like to acknowledge my opponent's conclusion, it seems he has left the best arguments until last! I do, however, have some responses to give:

Pro's rebuttal #1:
Minority persecution is a policy of communism, and therefore not a policy of socialism. In fact, this is false. The social organisation of socialism inherently disadvantages the minorities. Minorities always have inferior political bargaining power, because everyone has equal capital. Thus minority groups are never listened to, because their voices don't matter anyway. This would happen whether the political structure is communist or democratic. Remember that one of the democratic ideals is minority consideration.

Pro's rebuttal #2:
Capitalism can exist under many political structures, thus no structure is inherent to capitalism. My opponent does not answer the second part of this case, which is the historical precedent for socialism to have a particular political structure attached to it. I notice now that I repeated myself in the last round, and I'm very sorry about that. The second counter-argument should have been that the distribution of political capital under socialism favors a political structure with all power vested in a single leader, because a socialist government that is not bureaucratic cannot reasonably provide state employment for all citizens, and a bureaucracy without a single leader usually falls apart. That is why all socialist societies before now have not been run by elected governments. My final answer is that just because there is no structure inherent to capitalism, that doesn't mean capitalism is not a pre-requisite for democracy. That argument, still unrebutted, is the economic political-capital case I ran in round one.

Pro's rebuttal #3:
Socialism gives political bargaining power. Precedent is still on my side here! Besides, why is the disconnect between a socialist and a capitalist worker and their superior, be that a board or a government, any different? My opponent has not made the causal link. Finally, political bargaining power comes not from having a united voice, but from having the resources to back that up. Under a socialist structure, the government controls all resources. Where is the political capital in that!?

Pro's rebuttal #4:
Wealth is not distributed arbitrarily because the government distributes a set amount rationally. Yet I am not speaking of the amount paid being arbitrary, I'm talking about the distribution. Socialism takes no account of the individuals - their production or their services - and pretends we are clones. We are not, and thus an "equal" distribution of wealth is in fact unequal. That is why I maintain equity over equality.

Pro's rebuttal #5:
Equality is necessary for Democracy, not equity. He points you back to round #2. I too recommend you read his round 2 case, and then my round 2 rebuttal of that case. I think my opponent is running out of ideas.

Contention #3a:
Socialism gives life. Just as socialism does this, it is perfectly possible for a capitalist government to do this, for example by giving minimum wages. It's not inherent to the socialist structure. Perhaps it's social spending, but here my opponent makes a political argument, not an economic or social one. Besides, the higher work efficiency of capitalism means that governments are able to provide superior health care, as seen by the considerably higher life expectancy in say, Japan over Cuba.

Contention #3b:
Socialism gives liberty. Liberty in context means economic freedom. This means that you have the freedom to produce and get rewards for producing, according to your production. Otherwise you would either not be at liberty to produce or you would not be at liberty to receive, which are the two integral transactions of any economy. Socialism limits both of these. Capitalism does not necessarily limit either. My opponent says that once a citizen reaches a certain level of economic power, they can infringe on anther's rights. Apart from his lack of a clear mechanism, when you are thus infringed the answer is easy under capitalism - produce some more and your rights are there again. Under socialism there is no such counter-mechanism.

Contention #3c:
Socialism gives the pursuit of happiness. My opponent says that more money does not give more happiness. I agree. Equal money does not give more happiness either. You can pursue happiness in either socioeconomic structure. Happiness is so subjective that you can find it at all times in all corners of the globe. Thus I think this argument is, at best, moot.

Just like bombs beat cats in real life, democracy tends to favor capitalism over socialism. I have presented many reasons why, my opponent has not proven why not. I have answered every one of his contentions, and as you can see from my analysis above, none of my opponent's critiques of my argument remain valid. Ladies and gentlemen, democracy is in danger. We need you to save it from the socialist menace. Let democracy choose democracy. Giving a strong capitalist vote will ensure that democracy is safe for generations to come.

PS I know that conclusion was totally BS, but seriously - vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
It seems like your name does not ring true, at least for this debate.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Thanks everyone for the votes, but thanks especially to my opponent. This was a close debate, and I think I only won because of one additional vote bomb. Had it not been for public_agendas good conduct, we would have tied. I just thought I'd mention this in the comments to show how appreciative I am of this. Thanks!
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
The question is democracy the ideal or is the individual? In socialism, the economy is decided but whomever, if it is democratic, then a majority decides how the economy is run and wealth is distributed. But is that a good thing? Does the majority decide for the good of all?

That's where I had problem here.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Kitty cat! Nice debate. I ended up not agreeing with either.
Posted by Public_Agenda 6 years ago
Public_Agenda
Whaaaa? That's lame. Kay, then I won't vote either. It was a good debate, though, so thanks for debating me. You were a tough opponent... At times I really wished I had put the character limit at 8,000 instead of 6,000.... :D
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Lol ... anyway, I can't vote because the voting system only works for the US.
Posted by Public_Agenda 6 years ago
Public_Agenda
That is interesting... I'm not sure if the voting is sincere or not X3 It seems like one person totally vote bombed against me, and then another totally vote bombed for me. Larz, should we vote also or no?
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Go kitty!
Posted by Public_Agenda 6 years ago
Public_Agenda
Larz is good at being concise in his points. It seems I'll have to do the same. :)
Posted by Bipolarmoment 6 years ago
Bipolarmoment
One thing I would encourage both sides to address is that the US is not "capitalist" in any sane definition. At best it would be described as "Corporatist". Likewise I would encourage Pro to address how socialism thru democracy can necessarily uphold his #4 ideal when it's already admitted that a majority opinion constrains the minority.

Thanks for this debate.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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:33 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:15 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Vote Placed by KillRoy_Was_Here 6 years ago
KillRoy_Was_Here
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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 
Vote Placed by mb852 6 years ago
mb852
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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 mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by ReptiDeath 6 years ago
ReptiDeath
Public_AgendalarztheloserTied
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:25