The Instigator
justiceandtruth
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
frostyclaw
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Socialism vs Capitalism Which is better

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
justiceandtruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 63594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

justiceandtruth

Pro

1st round con argument, rebuttal, then conclusion
frostyclaw

Con

Hello, I believe that capitalism is better than socialism. As requested, here are my arguments:

1. Socialism makes no sense. The arguments for socialism is that everyone must have an equal chance to succeed, therefore we must steal from the rich and give to the poor. This is thievery. I don't care how unequal the world is, stealing money from people's hard earned money is wrong.

2. Dubai has a libertarian economy, and its economy is very successful. If this is not proof that capitalism works, than I don't know what is.
Debate Round No. 1
justiceandtruth

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.
Socialism-
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Capitalism-an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Both definitions provided by dictionary.com
The definition of socialism provided has no implication whatsoever of stealing from rich individuals to give to poor, rather administration and distribution of goods. Use my definitions for the round to analyze socialism because mine are supported by actual references.
Capitalism creates economic inequality
Since capitalism is controlled by private powers the public good is not of importance. The supreme allocation of wealth creates a monopoly where a few elites control all the wealth. Since their is a very limited amount of money in any economy's circulation if a few people hoard a lot of the wealth that means there is very little to be shared with the multitude of masses. This creates economic inequality in which we get the introduction of poverty.

Poverty limits human choices and lessens the quality of life
It is no secret that poorer people are constricted in the options in which they are viably able to make. Choices in education, health, and entertainment all become close to zero. A lack of resources endanger the possibility to live life and negates a reason to exist.

A study enacted by Bristol University found that "The highest rates of suicide, attempted suicide and psychiatric illness were in Bristol's inner city, and the research published in the latest British Medical Journal suggests a strong link between areas of poverty and the incidence of suicide and attempted suicide."
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

Beyond suicide people in poverty are more likely to die early. According to thinkprogress.org "Although life expectancy has been rising for Americans as a whole, the people who live in this country aren"t necessary sharing those gains equally. Wealthy people are enjoying longer lifespans than lower income Americans, according to a new analysis from Brookings Institute researchers, and the gap is threatening to get wider."

Socialism solves for these harms and this is why we should prefer socialism.
Since socialist policies would be community efforts as a whole we can devise policies for who needs what. Since theoretically we would have what we need economic inequality would cease to exist. From a lack of economic inequality comes a assuage in poverty which lessens the probability of suicide, poor quality of life, and shorter life. For these reason we should prefer socialism. Ps Dubai is in a debt crisis thanks to that libertarian economy
Source empirics
frostyclaw

Con

Pro has his first argument, it claims that capitalism causes economic inequality. That is true. Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated. Therefore, if some people are wealthy than they deserved it. You also state that "Since their is a very limited amount of money in any economy's circulation if a few people hoard a lot of the wealth that means there is very little to be shared with the multitude of masses." as if to say that is a bad thing. If you have money, you get to decide what to do with it. You want to share it, go ahead. You want to save it? Go ahead. Wanna spend it on a Starbucks coffee? Go ahead. Your money.

Pro goes on to how the economic inequality from capitalism causes poverty. That is also true. There are poor people in this world. A larger number of people living in poverty commit suicide than normal people. Here is why: if poor people don't contribute to society, that's why they don't get a paycheck.

Pro explains how poor people have it bad. I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live.

Pro claims that socialism helps people in poverty. That is because poor people will be able to have access to goods and services that normal people do. Basically, everything will be public except for clothes, watches, etc. Now, if this was capitalism then it would be better because things would be privatized.

This is a genuine question: why do you care about the poor?
Debate Round No. 2
justiceandtruth

Pro

Since the pro concedes all of my arguments let me clear up some misconceptions. In capitalism my opponent says "Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated." While this is partly true it is not fully true. In capitalism their is a lack egalitarianism.Since companies are trying to get a step ahead and always one up their competition they offer the lowest prices possible. Usually to achieve these economic goals companies outsource jobs for much cheaper just to maximize profit.

Let me provide a scenario.
A man works very hard for his family and all of a sudden the company is downsizing and to cut cost they outsource jobs to Indonesia were work is very cheap. The man is now out of work and cannot provide for his family. Since he is the main wage earner the family must downsize. Give up the premium education in favor of 3rd rate education in a more affordable neighborhood. The result of this poor education is a less equipped next generation. Since the family has very limited resources they cannot afford to send their kids to college. Since degrees are valued for white collar positions the children are stuck in a perpetual cycle of working to maintain their meager existence. This scenario is also known as the cycle of poverty which can be defined as"The cycle of poverty has been described as a phenomenon where poor families become trapped in poverty for generations. Because they have no or limited access to critical resources, such as education and financial services, subsequent generations are also impoverished."
http://www2.crcna.org...

Historical example the Great Depression
Those same people who you said ,"deserved" their wealth amassed large wealth in a faulty structure so they could maximize their profit. The result an economic depression unparalleled in the United State's existence. During the depression it didn't matter how hard you worked, you were poor so the claim hard work equivocates wealth in every circumstance is hogwash.

Why do I care about the poor?
Con says,"I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live."
It is the same reason your parent's care about you when you are a baby and child. All you do in the first stages of life is consume and create debts for your parents. Children do nothing for society except live, but why do we care for children? Because we know that the investments we are putting in to them will one day turn them into productive citizens. Poor people can be the same way, just with an investment they too can join the ranks of productive society.

So In review con, corroborates all my points so Socialism solves harms from capitalism because we share resources so the people can liberate themselves.
Good round
frostyclaw

Con

Pro describes the cycle of poverty and how some people become rich not by working hard, but by being ruthless. He points to how companies "are trying to get a step ahead and always one up their competition they offer the lowest prices possible. Usually to achieve these economic goals companies outsource jobs for much cheaper just to maximize profit". Frankly I have no idea how this is relevant to the debate. A company is a private institution, they get to do what they feel like.

While some people deserve being poor, Pro explains that their children and future generations don't. Actually, they do. It's called social Darwinism.

Pro gets historical here. Allow me to remind Pro why the Great Depression happened; the banks stopped making money because of government regulations.

Pro, I hate kids. They are stupid, I don't understand why the heck my parents raised me. I don't understand their idea of love.

Pro claims that socialism liberates the people. Okay, look at Germany. They made all colleges free. How you may ask? They raised taxes for people so they can fund the colleges. Thing is, the funding was not that good. Staff don't receive as much pay they do when the colleges were private. Now, the biggest clue that socialism is worst than capitalism is that these free colleges were worst than the private ones in term of quality. And this is true throughout the world, a capitalist alternative will always provide you with better goods and services than a socialist one.

Good game.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Neither debater really offered any way to discern which is better. No definition or framework for the term "better" was ever offered. It winds up depending on what the judge thinks is more important, which is not the best thing to allow to happen. My advice for the future: make an explicit framework for the debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Socialism is for those who are not wanting to be more productive to make more.Just want to sit at the table and feast off the fat of the land.

Capitalism is for those who are willing to work harder to see that their dreams come true.Their feast comes when the harvest of their labor comes in.
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 years ago
justiceandtruth
Net benefit is equality
Posted by NoahMuns 2 years ago
NoahMuns
Guys capitalism is unequally shared misery and socialism is equally shared misery.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
QTAY21
justiceandtruthfrostyclawTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I believe capitalism is better, since it's a high risk high reward social policy, I have to give the more convincing arguments to pro. They just made it more convincing. Sources to pro.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
justiceandtruthfrostyclawTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I happen to agree 100% with Con but I can recognize that Pro made the better formulated case and arguments even though I disagree with their position. My advice to Pro would be to focus more on models themselves rather than isolated circumstances (e.g. Dubai or Germany). They also got overly emotional and antagonistic at the end, saying they "hate kids." :) I agree with Con's position, but they did not present it very well.