The Instigator
AIyssa
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Ariesx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Socialism

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 3 votes the winner is...
AIyssa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 389 times Debate No: 68279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

AIyssa

Pro

I believe socialism, social collective ownership of the political in particular, is the best system of government we know of to maximize political equality and happiness.
This is purely a theoretical discussion and we will assume that sufficient number of people are politically aware, active, and informed.
I believe Switzerland to be socialist, so I hope we can work off of that.

Social collective ownership of the political gives us the ability to choose what policies as a whole we can have.
We can have periodic referendum with everyone on issues along with ideas for a system of command.
We can collectively establish a system of command (including having a president and a congress).

Social collective ownership of the political part of a government means that there would be a lot of versatility, and the majority gets to directly think on and address issues and propose ideas.

You might think it impractical, but it's very reasonable. Right now the United States has periodic votes on congress on city council, congress and presidents. We also have the internet to make things work instantaneously across long distances. It's very reasonable, and the U.S. is proof that it works.

Why not our current system if it's so much the same?

Only in logistics and nothing else. The system with collective political ownership makes it so that people actually have a say on issues. Our current system has it so that most of us only have a say with our measly vote that must be put between two political parties. If neither party has what we want, then too bad. The best we can do is vote and pray that the politician we vote in does what we actually want them to do. I think that's really sad.

With socialism, that problem isn't there. People will have their hands deep in political participation, and the nation will literally be run to benefit the majority.

Ariesx

Con

I will be attempting to disprove socialism as a model that will hold back humans from their true potential and can make fallacious decisions that would hurt the country.
Republic. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. The Republic was chosen by our founding fathers because they knew that there is a difference between an ordinary citizen and a politician. The politician knows what is best for the country. The politician has a better education. The politician knows how to handle difficult situations that ordinary citizens do not know how to comprehend. That is why Americans vote for who they think would be the wisest man to lead a country. America is now the number one super-power thanks to the kind of political strategies we have used, and we intend on using it.
For example, lets give a great historic example of what the government did that historically people did not want. Slavery in America was practiced throughout America. Black people were treated as second class citizens. Abraham Lincoln was voted by the people, because the people trusted that he would be the right leader. But, if the country was socialistic, than America would still have slavery because the majority of people agreed with slavery. People were out-raged by the fact that slavery was illegal. You can say that the northerners were not mad, but black mistreatment was prominent during the twenties, thirties, forties. If we were socialist back than, slavery and mistreatment would probably still be illegal.

My opponent also tries to criticize America's form of government when it has clearly worked, In the 1930s, people were suffering the great depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt pulled us through it, but he encountered World War 2. The American people wanted to stay out of the war, but Roosevelt joined because he knew Hitler was a threat. If the government was socialist, America would not have done anything, and Hitler could have controlled the world. Our government is not sad, but great. Socialism sounds like a good idea, but it is too idealistic and can lead societies into the wrong direction.
Debate Round No. 1
AIyssa

Pro

Republic - How much power is in a vote?

Ariesx tells us that the 'supreme power' of the government rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote, but how much power is actually in that vote? There are about 300 million citizens in the U.S. with only around half of those who actually vote(1). That means that your vote is literally just one in 300 million. That's nothing. How much power is in a vote?
The United States Congress has a recent a 16% approval rating with a 76% rating of disapproval. People don't like what the government is doing, but what can the people actually do about it? We have our vote. That's it. What can we do when the majority of us want something but can't get it?
The answer: nothing. Congress may have teh disapproval of 3/4ths of Americans, but that's literally all we can do: stare at the government with disapproval.

The government does things against the people's will. That is not power in the people.

Aries says that politicians are educated and better suited to rule the country because they are supposed to know the best way to run the country. The United States' founding fathers were also educated. They ran the country with the idea that slavery was just and that property rights outweighed human rights. Many believed that African American slaves weren't even human. They believed a lot of things and ran the country on these beliefs. This literally shows that education has nothing to do with knowing how to run a country. Our educated policymakers went and got us into a lot of wars in the past one hundred years, one of them being the Vietnam War which is one of the more unpopular wars in U.S. history. What did the government do? The majority of the population disapproved of the Vietnam war for 6 years(3) before the U.S. government finally decided to stop drafting people and to actually pull back from the war.
The citizens of the United States have almost no say at all, and the Vietnam War was one of those moments where this became glaringly obvious.


Money is a huge policymaking factor.

Education has almost completely nothing to do with anything beside the job that education prepares you for. Politicians are prepared on education in law school. They don't learn how to run the country. They don't learn what's right and what's wrong and how to help the people and the nation. No. They learn about the law. They learn how to help the system stay the way it is. They learn to debate, to campaign and to appeal to wealthy interests. No politician who doesn't have money can win an election. Each election required more money. Each presidential and party campaign set new records for spending. The 2012 election had the Democrats and Republicans each spending about a billion dollars (4).
Lobbyists account for billions more during elections and between terms (5). That money literally is paid to get our policymaking government to favor the interests providing the fund. The poor or the average incomed don't have anything near that level of influence.
Most of the people are unhappy with how the government is run. We can either take to the streets and protest or wait to vote another bloc of Democrats and Republicans into office to do the same things their predecessors do.

"the majority of people agreed with slavery."
I looked this up. I don't see anything supporting this claim. The South was outraged. How many Southerners were there and how many of them actually wanted slavery to stay? I think you just made this up. Besides, a lot of citizens were abolitionists, but Abraham Lincoln actually wasn't an abolitionist and didn't think African Americans deserved equal rights (6). You're literally giving Abraham Lincoln a lot of credit for a movement that a large majority of people in the North actually supported.

Anyway, I'm not talking about socialist then. I'm talking about socialist now and the system it is now and why we should have socialism now. You are supposed to be showing that socialism now would be bad.We are assuming that sufficient people are politically active, aware and informed as was agreed upon on round 1, so your education point doesn't make sense anyway.
With the system the way it is now with most people who have little to no say and a puny useless vote and with the rich and the powerful lobbying and deciding what to do, socialism would provide for a much better system. If we were socialist, we would've left Iraq the third year we entered the war because disapproval of the war reached majority like SNAP. What could the people do? Nothing.

Aries tries to praise the system for clearly working when she has shown no data to prove that most people didn't want to join world war 2. I think most people in the United States actually believed Hitler's actions to be terrible even before the United States formally joined the war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. We were producing weapons for the Allies as a nation long before we joined the war, so most of us agreed with the Allied cause. Also, it was Pearl Harbor that got Roosevelt to make concessions to convince Congress to declare war on Japan with most of the U.S. citizens agreeing that we should enter the war. If we had been socialist, we'd have declared war anyway.

In fact, if we had been socialist, we could have the people come together to elect some form of Republic

(1)http://upload.wikimedia.org...;
(2)http://www.gallup.com...;
(3)http://media.gallup.com...;
(4)http://elections.nytimes.com...;
(5)https://www.opensecrets.org...;
(6)http://www.history.com...;
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AIyssa

Pro

Political socialism is like the Republic minus the oligarchy. More power in the people makes it so that the people and their thoughts actually matter.

Thanks for reading!
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AIyssa 1 year ago
AIyssa
Well, my belief is that we should have social ownership of our political system. The Switzerland thing is to make sure some people won't start complaining about socialism being anticapitalist and stuff like that. Eventhough I am something of an anti-capitalist, but not completely.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
"This is purely a theoretical discussion and we will assume that sufficient number of people are politically aware, active, and informed.
I believe Switzerland to be socialist, so I hope we can work off of that."
I'd accept but I'm not sure how to take that... are we debating about the Swiss or about the theory of socialism.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
AIyssaAriesxTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's bolstering and rebuttals were substantial enough to require addressing, of which was not seen past the first round of arguments, so arguments go to Pro. Although none of the links work with Pro's sources, they appear to diverse and quite relevant in making strong argument, so I will still give source points. Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
AIyssaAriesxTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
AIyssaAriesxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, dropped arguments. Pro backed up her arguments thoroughly.