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

We Shouldn't Make the United States more Socialistic

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 547 times Debate No: 49408
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




The idea that "pure capitalism" was what was at fault for the recent economic catastrophes and rising inequality would be a mischaracterization of the United States economic system - a mixed economy.

To say there needs to be "more socialism" in order to quell inequality would be a misguided and horrendous course of action.


I accept this debate challenge.

Note that I am not arguing for a complete overhaul of USA's capitalistic system; I am merely arguing for the enforcement of some socialistic policies.

Pro will have to show why enforcing socialistic policies in the United States is a "misguided and horrendous course of action" in his arguments.

Good luck to Pro.
I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Be careful to not mistake me as a conservative talk show demagogue. Welfare programs and their recipients are not evil,or immoral, etc. There is very real distress or difficulty faced by the impoverished or underprivileged receiving help from government programs. They certainly have good intentions, but the most effective poverty eradication mechanism in human history has been through capitalism, because innovation is driven by individuals whom are rewarded by efficiently allocating traded value


Pro argues that capitalistic measures are a better means of solving USA's wealth disparity than socialistic ones, and he claims that "human history" proves his point, but he hasn't cited even a single example to back that up.

Anyways, that is obviously false, as up until now, we have been a mostly capitalist society, and the bottom 40% of our population owns a mere 0.2% of the national wealth!

I have shown through example that capitalism only breeds wealth disparity; it doesn't fix it at all.
Debate Round No. 2


chrisChrisChris forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago

Just because some socialistic programs have failed doesn't mean they CAUSED the wealth disparity. And wealthy people are effing greedy; you can't rely on them to use their money for the good of society; they'll only do what's good for them. And the "lazy bottom class" phenomenon only happens when pure socialism is put into practice; I'm only advocating for some socialistic policies. The majority of failed ones thus far have been the result of poor implementation.
Posted by JohnnyS101 2 years ago
Socialism is what is creating the wealth disparity! If you do some research, you can see that the disparity was quite high in the early 1900s, then dips and begins to grow again during the institution of failed socialistic policies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, the list goes on of socialism programs that have continued to fail time and time again. Wealthy people are more educated and have more opportunity when it comes to wealth and gaining it. When you institute social policies, you create a 'lazy' bottom class who do not try to gain more wealth, as their wealthy class does. It is just asinine as to how someone can actually believe social programs do benefit a capitalist economy. That is why the aforementioned programs have succeeded no?
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Seriously, Pro? 500 character limit?

I didn't even have enough room to post my source!!!

Here it is, anyways...
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww what.....

It's just a standard case of a conservative's false dichotomy of capitalism with socialism.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago

lol he challenged me
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
.... I wish I could've debated this.

Curse you Romanii!!!! *wags finger furiously*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 2 years 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side put a ton of effort into debating, and knowing con, he could of. As far as sources go, no one added any, but con added some statistics, which makes his arguments more convincing. Pro forfeited.