The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

This house believes that socialism is bad.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 64693
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




As the opposition I am proposing one major contention: that socialism is wrong.

First round acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, I will thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

Here are some definitions I would like to make clear before the initiation of the debate:
"so"cial"ism noun \G2;s!3;-shə-G6;li-zəm: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"

"a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government"

The first clear system of distribution of wealth which we have observed is mercantile capitalism, a system which centres around merchants and trade. In the antiquity these merchants were likely to be connected to the monarchy of the country they represented. These merchants were public servants who worked for the good of the nation as opposed to themselves. The Queen in fact still reserves the right TODAY to grant monopolies to companies and corporations.

What is important to realize about mercantile capitalism is the need for markets that the merchants themselves will posses. Example: I operate a trading post in Goa and serve under the Portuguese crown. The king of Portugal has given me 100 mirrors to trade with the Indians. The Indians don't want mirrors. I can't trade.

Now here's where it gets interesting: Industrial capitalism appeared at the beginning of the 1800's and centred around the mass-manufacturing of goods. Owners of companies were likely to be owning 2 or 3 top hat factories as well as a few railroads. These large-business grew based off of the greed and ambition of their corporate sponsors and CEO's.

I wholly disagree with this mentality, I believe that any society built around greed will eventually collapse. It will create problems between social classes and will likely increase the gap between the rich and the poor. However, did we have Top hats before Mr.Greedy came along? No. What's important to realize is that even if companies are manufacturing their markets, even if they are lying to their customers about what the customers need, they are still creating and producing goods. Sure, perhaps for every aeroplane made 70 million high heels will be sold, but the aeroplane was STILL made.

It is my belief that if a government attempts to control any economy by means of redistribution of wealth or ownership of corporations it will kill the competitiveness of the capitalist world and will create far less useful creations.


I shall be the Devil's advocate for this debate haha. I am not an advocate of socialism
Socialism-"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." as provided by

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." as provided by

The only argument you make against socialism is,"It is my belief that if a government attempts to control any economy by means of redistribution of wealth or ownership of corporations it will kill the competitiveness of the capitalist world and will create far less useful creations."

The argument you make is only a claim and has no inductive or deductive reasoning to back it up, however I will refute this anyway. In the capitalist system once a movement begins such as industrialization the only way to survive is to industrialize even more. Capitalism is somewhat like social Darwinism. Those who are unable to adapt to the ever present and ever revolutionizing system are left to become dominated, by the untameable beast.
Competition ultimately means that someone wins and some one else inevitably loses. The greater margin by which someone wins . the greater margin the other loses by.

Scenario of what that competition has done
Back in the days of the Mercantile capitalist system, Nations would fund large voyages crusading the planet in search of new sources of raw material and human resources to fuel the budding inception of capitalism. Europe in search of gold decimated the indigenous population of Native Americans to export the vast amount of natural resources the western world had to offer.
The brutal system of slavery was a result of finding a cheap labor force to harvest the various crops of the "New World". It wasn't sustenance farming to provide for a family, it was an industry of exploitation that looked to fund the empires of Europe. The constant fear of being dominated forced the European nations to pillage and plunder the world to try and stay one step ahead. The utter carelessness and recklessness of the imperialistic system can be felt today.
Africa was divided in the Berlin conference by European Nations that had no regard for cultural barriers between peoples. A lot of the fighting there today is a bi-product of that imperialistic mercantile system.

p.1)Capitalism is controlled by a few
p.2)A few have large wealth
c.1)Many have small wealth

p.1)Socialism includes all
p.2)Wealth is equally distributed among all
c.1) All have equal wealth
Theoretically no one wins and no one loses
Debate Round No. 2


In reference to competition, I see it as self evident that if I were to run say 24 miles by myself and then run 24 miles with someone else my fastest run would be the latter.

Taking this into consideration, is capitalism and competition bad? Sometimes. But I'd prefer to live in a society built on ambition and greed than a society built on neglect and laziness. If the government were to to remove all competition and redistribute wealth and give everyone welfare checks the government would effectively be in control of everything. If it were in control of everything it would be running the race by itself. If the government were to run the race by itself it would be slow.


Case turn capitalism breeds laziness and neglect. When a business owner amasses large profits he himself can do what he wants whenever he wants because he has pawns (employees) to make products while the owner makes a majority of the money.
In regards to neglect, in a book called The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, big boy capitalist would use food coloring on rancid meat to make it look ,"edible" to the inspectors while infecting the consumers. The capitalist system is biased towards the rich and exploits the poor. In an article that Terry Pratchet wrote in regards to her book Men in Arms she states,"Part of the resistance to monetary policy remedies to serious recessions comes from the idea that high interest rates are inherently good. Not so. High interest rates are good for those earning them, and bad for those who are paying them. It is not clear that those who earn high interest rates are always morally more deserving than those who pay them."
Using deductive reasoning ,who is more likely to be giving the loan with the interest rate. The rich, or the poor. The poor are exploited in this capitalist system and this leads to the inherent harms mentioned in my first argument, such as slavery, worker exploitation, and conflict. According to my definition of socialism which reads,"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Since I offered a reference to my source my definition should be preferred. Socialism would be issued through the community not the government.
Debate Round No. 3


I believe that we should not vest ownership and the means of control, production and distribution of capital land ect in the community as a whole. The reason I believe this to be harmful is because it implies checks and balances on the economy. Although I agree that exploitation and slavery may be side effects of certain types of capitalism I motion that we have drawn a false correlation. Many of the side effects I have listed are related to the people themselves (the owners of the businesses) who are greedy and not so much the systems they live in. As people are transcendent of the systems they live in I see it to be evident that the problems WILL continue regardless of any change in policy. The one and only way to reduce exploitation is through transparency relative to businesses (which will provoke further awareness about where exploitation is present) and other forms of mass-awareness.

On top of this I re-iterate my previous argument, that by controlling the economy one removes the incentives people have to build said economy.


You cannot just say that capitalism isn't bad, only the greedy business owners are. That is the equivalent of saying slavery isn't bad it is only the slave owner himself who gives slavery a bad name. The problems will be assuaged when the policy is changed from one that promotes exploitation, to one that promotes equality. Socialism solves for the inherent harms caused from the structural foundation of capitalism. You say that socialism deters incentive, but in capitalism there is a present wage system that gives a fixed amount of money per hour. The hired worker knows that unless he/she is laid off their wage is set per hour. Knowing that the amount of work doesn't affect their money earned efficiency plummets. No matter what they do all they must do is show up to receive a check. In a capitalist system we do not view the utility of an action based on morality but instead we base it off the opportunity to make a profit.
Example: The raging debate over whether marijuana should be legal or not. We do not inherently value the issue based on the long term affect of addiction;we base it off the incredibly large market of consumers who would create enormous revenue.
Socialism might deter competition, but we can value human rights such as freedom and liberty over capitalist competition.
Debate Round No. 4


I find it funny that you so easily dismissed by argument relative to the people being transcendent. You absolutely "hit the nail on the head" with your analogy. The fault with slavery IS the slave owners. What I mean to address right now is ,in my mind, very important. It is not a question of merely socialism but it ties in with this debate. Socialism and certain forms of humanitarianism seem to naively defend that people have an inherent goodness to them and that if they do anything wrong it is because of their circumstances. This is purely and simply incorrect. We are all carnal sinners, nothing but a lack of fur separates us from those animals that may eat their own children. Only through salvation may we achieve a lack of sin. If we are to change the system nothing will change. Time and time again this has been proven, communist Russia wasn't "free". I re-iterate that although capitalism has it's faults it's faults can be fixed through increased awareness whereas socialism will only cause detriment to the economy through lack of innovation.


I must give an overview of the debate. We have now for the fifth and final round structurally debate whether capitalist exploitation is worse than socialist lack of innovation. Let it be shown that the pro has given no reason why the lack of innovation is bad, while I have given multiple reasons why through the capitalist system we value money over human liberty. The Berlin conference that ignorantly divided Africa, the European powerhouses that decimated the Native American population in search for raw minerals, and the inherent bondage found through american slavery. The root of all these crimes against humanity have been for the secure access to dominance through capitalist practices. Capitalism makes it essential for the nucleus of our being to be geared towards money. Like I said , Capitalism doesn't make us evaluate whether an action is moral, rather, if said action will make profit.
Socialism is a communal effort that can drastically assuage the inherent structural problems in capitalism. It might not be perfect but the alternative is exploitation.
Good Round:very interesting
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Socialism is for people who are gutless and want government to force other people to take care of them.Either to pay their bills or give them a piece of a company they do not deserve.
Posted by Organicdem 1 year ago
An alternative to socialism may be presented by the proposition. However, this is not the point of the debate. The discussion surrounds the pro's and con's of socialism, not the pro's and con's of capitalism or whatever the pro puts forward. If any voter happens to read this they are urged to consider that the debate topic is, I reiterate, solely about SOCIALISM and that any other topics should not have an influence on the outcome of the debate.
Posted by justiceandtruth 1 year ago
One question before I accept is there an alternative to socialism or are we debating harms?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--1 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: A couple grammar mistakes by Con, nothing major but it was enough, I felt Pro's arguments were better and Why so long for the voting period, I mean this is ridiculous.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to con for debating socialism while pro several times used there argument against communism.