Debate Rounds (3)
I believe socialism is one of the most optimal political systems. I mean political socialism and not necessarily economic socialism. I know that the online definitions sometime include an economic aspect, but that is not what I'm arguing nor is it what I want whoever takes this to dispute.
Simple and effective, good luck countering it, don't bring any economics of any kind into it. :)
Most any type of political system must account for some form of economics which is very important to how a cooperative society works.
What I meant was that this debate will not take the definition of socialism which would say that socialism must mean that control of the economy is held equally by everyone perpetually.
So the standard for this debate will be that socialism is the best system we have that accounts for the needs of the majority. it's not perfect. It's the best we have. Ok?
When people think of socialism, people think, "oh, socialism means everyone has the same amount of power in a socialist system and that is true as long as it is socialist".
That's not true. Socialism really means that the people are the ultimate authority. A socialist society can have electorates too, but instead of an oligarchy under which people have little to no say whatsoever, the electorate or group(s) of electorate in power must obey the will of the majority masses. They can make major decisions, but once majority referendum vetoes it, the decision is annulled.
Unlike the system where people can only exert political power by voting between limited political options. The U.S.'s system is a good example because honestly, your only real choices are between democrats and republicans; any other parties cannot help but be dwarfed by the Democrats and Republicans sheer size &influence)
"Treating everyone equally is bad because not everyone wants to be treated the same."
Fair enough, but how does that translate into policy? If there is a policy which reflects this desire to not be treated equally, then people could socially decide whether or not to have that policy. Since socialism accommodates for people not wanting to be treated the same, you aren't really refuting socialism. Socialism is not about treating everyone the same, it is about having the power be in the people. Think of the majority as one people as one political body made up of different people and ideals. The fact that people can be socially elected in popular referendum means that socialism allows some concentration of power but again, people are the ultimate authority.
Socialism is not perfect, but I believe it's most fair and effective.
Btw, socialism is not communism. People confuse the two because communism is socialistic and is often described as a socialistic or socialist political system. Historically, in a Communist society, the majority are stripped of power and are treated equally badly by a power-usurping minority personnel or regime. That is not socialism. The people have no power at all. Again, Socialism is not about treating everyone equally, but instead it is about power in the people. One system let's everyone have no power while the other gives the power to everyone to exercise as they want.
People confuse Communism and Socialism because they think Socialism means to treat everyone equally. It is not.
What exactly is happening in Pro's society?
How exactly can you expect a quadriplegic and a down's syndrome person to even be capable of handling the 'power to the people' to an equal extent as a highly intellectual psychopath and a mediocre-intelligence empathetic human being? What exactly is stopping this anarchic mess to end up forming a corrupt mafia of its own kind and the mob become the new government? Are you seriously assuming that if there end sup being a food shortage in a region, that people aren't going to go as far as torturing, blackmailing and killing others to ensure they and their loved ones get more for themselves than the rest of the community?
Pro has absolutely no comprehension of human nature nor do they realize that we originally were in anarchy,a s are all animals other than human beings. There is a simple reason why we rule the world and other animals don't; we have rules and inequality in order to maintain hierarchic structures where everyone has someone to answer to and someone to answer to them.
In a purely socialist society, everyone is only free as long as they are totally incapable f comprehending selfishness or of having a slight trait of an ego. this is psychologically impossible, even for Buddhist monks who have to do daily breathing exercises jus to pretend that they've lost what is blatantly present in any and all human beings.
The fact of the matter is that humans are inherently selfish, that is impossible to disprove. When we help others it is to either improve our own reputation in a community or just for the sheer joy of knowing the other thinks better of you now that you helped them.
If we had infinite resources, land space and tolerance, perhaps this could work as a system. Unfortunately we do not, there will always be those who have more than others and those who want something another has and to protect what they have from other people who want their owned property. It isn't economics, it is basic instinct and a fact of life. Whether this entity is a girlfriend, a job position or a privilege, everyone has things that motivate them to work for it. No one would bother dealing with the stress that a CEO has unless being a CEO gave them some power over their underlings and their underlings had poverty to fear if they got fired. Fear and intimidation via authority and abuse of power is beautiful in its own way. Otherwise we may as well all say 'police brutality' to the very fact you are throwing some idiot in a cell who just raped three women and pulls their hearts up through their mouths. You will always have people who want to hurt others, always, the question is if you have a system where there is enough inequality to ensure that the authorities can immediately discipline this individual in a way where he/she stands no chance to escape it or fight it. Inequality is beautifully great when it is the 'evil' who are the losers out, the necessary catch to this is that such a system means the good can often end up at the bottom regardless. In fact there is no 'good' in an equal world. there's no motivation to say 'haha I'm more selfless than that freaky serial killer' because everyone is so kind. If everyone is kind, there's no joy or pride in being kind in the first place; we only enjoy being kind and helpful since there are sick individuals to consider our selves morally superior to.
What you're saying makes sense to a point. People have vices, but that doesn't mean that the vices translate into policy. See, people want to survive, and people have a built in aversion to pain and suffering. It's evolutionary. Coexistence is needed for survival, and we've developed necessary communication skills. Humans are strong because we work together. It's evolutionary.
In a socialist system, people will naturally come together to form some level of command and authority who either will directly propose laws or have the majority do it. As long as the people have the power to periodically decide and propose against all issues, socialism is not contradicted.
I mean, you might as well say that we shouldn't have anything involving people because people are greedy. That's really silly
Humans may be selfish, but no matter the motive, humans appeal to each other. They have to or else they won't live very long. No sane one is going to go on a murder spree because that would really shorten her rates of survival.
Modern pseudo-socialist systems exist, but lots of them have some minority committing horrible crimes as an organized unit. We don't and haven't actually had socialism with power in the people as a whole. Socialism is not anarchy. Anarchy means no one has political power. Socialism means political power in everyone.
I'm not an anarchist. You're be silly.
Suicidal individuals contradict this, as do people who are arguably more healthy and advocating euthanasia. On top of this, it is likely that Pro was intending to mean everyone wanting everyone else to survive equally to themselves (as this is the only way that socialism of Pro's style could work). If everyone wanted everyone else to survive there wouldn't be killings and suicide bombings but there are a total of 4,118 recorded suicide attack in over 40 countries up to date(the latter is an example of suicide and killing at once).
Pro then states that everyone has an aversion to pain and suffering. Suffering to a masochist is actually not linked ot pain but rather to not feeling anything, they actually derive huge amounts of pleasure from intense pain, this can be both sexual and emotional whereby it is known formally as Masochistic Personality Disorder. Following on form this is the opposite end of the scale, meaning people whose only method of gaining emotional and sexual pleasure is through the suffering and pain of others; these people are known as sadists.
The next claim that Pro makes is that coexistence is needed for survival and that this necessitates that humans working together has helped them climb to the top of the evolutionary food chain. This is absolutely correct. The reason humans work so well together is because of an unequal society where there is a place for everyone and everyone either keeps to their place or are severely punished for not doing so, and perhaps rehabilitated into more obedient citizens. In a socialist society of Pro's type, there would be no one to tell anyone to do anything, and no punishment for the wicked. everyone would have this unequivocally granted birthright to 'power' equal to any and all other human beings. The issue with this is that if everyone is born with equal power, they may grow to abuse that power differently to how their fellow humans use it and if no one has more power so as to step in and prevent them from any further abuse, they are free to abuse as they please. Socialism is actually a system where humans are not working together, but are in complete chaos and working dysfunctionally.
Pro states that in a socialist system, there will inevitably be a chain of command and authority but then how on Earth do the people underneath these authority figures have 'power to the people'? they are powerless and are lower ranking. If the authority figure says jump they say 'how high sir/ma'am?' and this is then not socialism. Socialism is inevitably going to lead either to pure and utter chaos or to a very anti-socialistic mob/mafia styled running of the world.
Pro then states that as long as people periodically have the power to decide on certain issues, the system is socialism even if there is inequality and unequal spread of power throughout the populace, this is like saying that every single country where voting and elections occur are socialist. In that case, pretty much every political system is socialism and what Pro is actually debating is whether voting should occur or a tyrannical dictatorship should arise, which is a whole other debate topic altogether.
Pro then states that it is insane to mass murder people but if there is no punishment system in place and no one has the unequal authority to say no to them then how does on stop a mass murderer or deter future ones?
Pro finishes by stating that they are not an anarchist because anarchy is no one having power whereas socialism is everyone having equal power. Unfortunately for Pro, if everyone has equal power, no one has any since it all cancels each other out and there is no one who can claim to be powerful relative to anyone else i the political or legal sense of the word. Pro is correct though; they are not an anarchist because they are not a Socialist either and are clearly confuse don what Socialism actually is.
I thank Pro for this enjoyable debate and their friendly manner of discourse and conclude that Socialism has not been successfully support by Pro, who had the burden of proof in this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry, but CON's argument that not all people want to be treated equally is, sorry, dumb. Yeah, it's true, but that doesn't mean that it's actually a good argument. Also comparing total equality to total inequality (socialism vs. anarchy) is just completely wrong. Con was the only side to use sources, so they get that. Conduct to pro because con tried to limit their case by saying "don't bring economics into this", and also for saying "pro has no idea what they're saying" (or along those lines), which I personally view that as an Ad Homien attack.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.