The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/26/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 76993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




In a socialist economy no parents have to worry about rather or not they can feed there children as well as medical bills. The economy also is better for our children and the generations to come since all are equal and are not subject to a level of class. Also the economic system calls for a 5 year plan this is a great way to structure the growth and focuses of the economy.


I guess this is a speed debate, so I will be pressed for time and therefore will be forced to be terse in my response.

Socialism as model is deeply flawed by its idealistic nature. It depends on several suppositions that are false. Firstly, it seems convinced that mankind will share resources and power. It will not, and never has, epically in a large, nationalistic context. Redistribution will inevitably be corrupted, as we saw with the perverted son of socialism, that is, Communist Russia, during the starvation of the Ukraine, in which farmers toiled only to have their crops sent away to Russia.

Socialism discourages innovation and exceptionalism – it takes incentive away from those who would otherwise be working harder to get richer. Entrepreneurship and competitiveness is damaged in this way. Businesses that might be weeded out through Capitalistic choice are allowed to flounder onwards, even if the product is subpar.

A brief glance at history will show that it never lasts. Socialism gives birth to Communism when Socialism inevitably fails. The individual is nothing – it’s all about the state. The state determines, character, thoughts, businesses, etc.

There are only four Marxist-Lenist states left; China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. China has flourished not because of Socialist polices, but because of widespread reforms, under Xi Jinping, for example, his introduction of the “Chinese Dream”. These attempts to ‘modernize’ socialism are in reality attempts to inject Socialism with Capitalism so that Socialism doesn’t breed chaos and violence, although, in China, it still does on occasion.

So I ask Pro to look at the long history of Nations who went full Socialist and tell me which ones continue to find success in pure Socialism.

Debate Round No. 1


Socialism would not only benefit the nation by providing free health care and free schooling but the rite word for communism is commune this means for the community and communism is not only the best source to eliminate social class but it is an economic system not a form of government! Many people have not yet realized how communism is more so than a structure for a nations economy, this means it can be used in all forms of government such as democracy, dictatorship, republics, etc.


Free healthcare and free schooling are ideas with socialistic roots perhaps, but that is not what Socialism is. Socialism definition: “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

A Socialist government controls everything in the economy and the idea is that the wealth made from this production is then spread around a community. Communism is a little different: “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

Communism can be a brutal, evil way to run a government; for example, Communist Russia under Stalin, who slaughtered 56-62 million people.

Socialism was where Communism came from. Under Lenin it was more Socialist, but as any historian will tell you, any nation that went pure Socialist fell apart or went to a brutal totalitarian system.

Capitalism fused with some Socialist polices seems to be the modern way to go, however, pure Socialist states hardly exist anymore.

Debate Round No. 2


wow good job at copying and pasting what you find online but guess who now has the number one economy in the world China America is number two ha ha


copying and pasting what you found online” – if you meant the dictionary definitions, well, yes, I copied them online – I haven’t actually written my own dictionary, so it would have been difficult to draw from it. As I pointed out, China is a Communist-Capitalist fusion, certainly not a Socialist state. That is what the ‘Chinese Dream’ proposes – individualism, Capitalistic notions, etc.

If you want to check out the great history of Chinese freedoms, check out the genocides in Tibet, as the Dalia Lama put it, “Tibetans were not only shot, but also were beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned, mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive, drawn and quartered, and beheaded.”

Or check out the time when it was legitimately Communist – back when Mao Zedong led the nation through the ‘Great Leap Forward’, his attempt to modernize Communism, in which over a period of three years some 30-40 Million Chinese starved to death. The villages starved, some 50% of the village population just died of hunger. Famine absolutely ravaged China, meanwhile, the Japanese, who went Capitalistic instead of Communist, experienced decade after decade of growth and a place in the top echelon of the international community.


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Sorry Contender, tried to vote for you but lost my phone so I can't vote. I'll just say here why.
You presented longer arguments, sources, better linguistic skills, and you didn't just taunt the opponent like Pro did in his final debate. Also, you had good arguments. They did not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: pro seemed to be too lazy to even present a case for his side, which was a costly decision since the BoP was on him, and since con provided a good amount of evidence against socialism
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only provides brief assertions without any support, whereas Con sources many of his arguments and makes an effort to warrant his statements. Since Con is the only one to really address how the systems work instead of just stating how he believes they might affect the country, Con gets my vote.