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

Why 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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,699 times Debate No: 26995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)




I will give you a list of reasons why socialism is bad


I would like everyone to know that I was challenged to this. I totally didn't go out looking for this.

BOP is on my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Socialism is detrimental to society for a variety of reasons. Most people get caught up in socialism because of the good nature of it. It sounds appealing and in theory should solve poverty, unequal pay, and much more. It is also affective because it takes advantage of people's greed and covetness. People that have not been successful throughout life are most likely to favor socialism. Their greed and envy of the successful and wealthy is what pits them against those individuals. They then fall into the trap of socialism.

The main reason socialism is not effective is because it involves a lot of government and bureacracy and spread out the wealth. It removes the incentive of a worker to work hard for a promotion or higher pay. If someone gets paid the same as someone else even though one of them works harder and has more talent, that person is not going to want to work as hard. Socialism removes the essential trait that pushes people to make something out of their lives and that trait is "will". The fact that socialism removes incentive not only stagnates an economy but also lowers the rate of innovation.

Socialism not only does not solve poverty and the seperation of classes but makes them worse. People become much more dependent on the government through welfare and food stamps because of socialism. This causes more and more people to fall into poverty. Socialism also causes a war on the classes. It pits the lower classes against the upper classes which will divide a country. For evidence check out the book "Socialism: Opposing Viewpoints" for a great case on the evil of socialism.

If you need any proof that socialism does not work, take a look at all of the unsuccessful european countries that use socialism. Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Sweden and many more are great examples of the unsuccessfulness of socialsim.
Sweden for example, used to be extremely successful when it had a free market economy. It then adopted socialist policies and has now had lower rates of growth, year after year. Capitalism is much more effective and the U.S is a great example of that.

Socialism might sound good but it is in a sense a dreamland that just does not work as a real world economy.


Gonna do the round from my phone. Oh boy, here we go. The only conceivable way I can go about this on my phone is to respond to my opponent's points paragraph by paragraph. So lets get started.

My opponents first paragraph doesn't really say all that much. All he does in that paragraph is accuse socialists of all being greedy and envious of other people, but a) he never warrants this, b) he never warrants why wanting wealth is bad, c) he never explained how this links to socialism, and d) he never warranted how this is unique to socialism. So we can ignore it fairly easily.

My opponent starts the second paragraph by saying that socialism is ineffective because it spreads wrath around and involves the government a lot. The only problem with this is that a) he never explains why this is true, and thus gives it no warrant, and b) it's not bad at all. Going wealth to those who are in need of wealth is a good thing. It eliminates such things as classes and poverty and creates a more balanced, equal society. My opponent's only other claim in this paragraph is that it removes our incentives to work by removing our will to work hard for reward. However, a) my opponent's example is not of a socialist economy, but rather a communistic one (which is not the same thing). So his example int even relevant. But then b) socialism actually increases our desire to work, as it places the means of production back into the hands of the populace instead of in control by the elite few. This means that more people will be in control of their own fortunes and earnings, and thus will want to work harder to earn more. With both of the claims in this paragraph refuted, we can ignore it.

My opponent's third paragraph starts with the claim that socialism increases pvierty and the separation of classes by making the population dependent upon the government. The only problem here is a) he provides no warrant for this, b) his reasoning (dependence upon the government) doesn't even prove his argument (more poverty and more separation of classes). If the government is giving citizens more wealth, citizens aren't going to magically have less wealth. More wealth for all people will only make the class separation smaller. My opponent then claims that socialism causes a war among the classes, but neve warrants it or explains why it's true or why it matters so we have no reason to look to the claim. This paragraph is also refuted.

My opponent's last paragraph is examples of places where socialism sucks. Yet this only proves, at best, that there are certain situations and times that socialism isn't the best. It doesn't do anything sufficient to affirm. But moreover, he neglects to mention France, who six moths ago elected a Socialist leader and are now one of the premier nations in terms of healthcare. So socialism does work, which either a) turns his argument in favor of my side, or b) makes the offense moot.

With my opponent's arguments refuted, I will make my case for why socialism is a good idea.

The following list of benefits is taken from the following site: (

- Socialism takes the ownership, responsibility, and benefits of resources and the means of productions out of the hands of the elite few and puts them under the collective hands of the people. Contrary to popular belief, this actually increases the quality of goods produced, etc. After all, are you going to work harder to produce a better product or service to make someone else rich or for your own company of which you have a vested interest? With socialism the workers themselves own the companies, resources, and means of productions so they have a very real connection and vested interest in the well being of said companies, etc.

- Socialism creates community values. Socialism reinforces the idea that "we are all in this together" instead of each man fending for himself at any cost. This tends to have positive social benefits while equally distributing the work load.

- Socialism creates an egalitarian society.

- Socialism allows workers to reap the full benefits of their own efforts and ends the institutionalized robbery of the very workers who are producing the wealth in the first place.

- Socialism, when done right, raises the standard of living for the entire nation as a whole.

- Socialism would free workers from wage slavery.

- Socialism would raise the level of education and health services and make them available for all citizens thereby raising the over all quality of life for the entire nation.

- Under socialism need would drive production not profit which means those services and goods which were most needed but which yield little profit in the past would now be available including life saving medicines, new technologies, and better food sources.

- Socialism would end the monopolies and tyrannies of mega-corporations.

- Socialism would end poverty.

-Socialism would result in healthier citizens by increasing the access to healthy food, better nutrition, and healthy lifestyle not available or encouraged under a capitalist regime.

-Socialism creates a sustainable society that can build and flourish both for the current generation as well as those to come, unlike capitalism which is designed to ultimately fail.

With all of the benefits that socialism gives, I see no reason why it is bad. Thus, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. Therefore I will state a few key points on the legitamacy of my opponents argument.-First, he uses hipocrisy with his statements as he accuses me of not "warranting" my information when he goes about stating his opinions without any evidence whatsoever. -Second, he then tries to discard my arguments by saying that they are not relevant, although that is based on his opinion.-Third, he points out various sections of my paragraphs as they are useful to him and conveniently leaves out the challenges that would disprove his arguments.-Fourth, he likes to state that I do not have evidence, though my evidence that I have given comes from the book "Socialism: Opposing Viewpoints" that is non biased. Along with that there is overwhelming evidence of the unsuccessfulness of socialism throughout the world. Just look at the countries I have mentioned in my previous post along with the fact that many countries are reverting from socialism to install capitalism. Europe is finally catching on to the practical success that capitalism has had in America.

Because my posting page would not respond and crashed i do not have time to repost and dissect his arguments.

With that I have provided non biased evidence in my book that I have provided and the obvious fact that socialism has not had any success anywhere throught the world. Also France having good healthcare does not count as success with socialism in that country as it is one minor part of an economy. My opponent fails to mention that France's economy is in a tailspin and just released a devastating 75% tax rate on the rich which will devastate their economy even further. If that is the only success my opponent can find for his cause then that is not going to cut it when capitalism has made the U.S the fastest growing and most successful country in almost every facet in over 200 years.

My opponent's evidence with "; only provides a biased view on what one individual believes socialism would do, which has been proven wrong throughout history and you just can "refute" the facts.

So although it was very unfortunate that I was restrained with time and could not provide further detail, I hope that I can get your vote. Thank you for your time


I realize now that even though I have 8000 characters to use, I probably won't need that much.

My opponent tries to make a few claims about my refutations:

"I didn't warrant my information"

False, I provided clear and logical analysis as to why my refutations and arguments were true. Compare that to your lack of analysis and just asserting everything to be true without even providing a single reason or piece of evidence as to why, and your argument here falls.

"I wrongly label arguments as irrelevant"

False and not even relevant (lol) since I never made the argument that any of my opponent's case was irrelevant. The only time I ever said to ignore something was after I finished addressing it and thuroughly refuting it. This argument fails as well.

"I leave out certain pieces of my opponent's argument intentionally"

First that's a steep burden to prove that I intentionally dropped a piece of my opponent's case. But then secondly, I didn't drop any of my opponent's case. I literally went paragraph by paragraph and responded to every claim my opponent made in order that he made them. But then third, even if I did drop an argument accidentally, he makes no mention of what it was, which only leaves us to assume that I didn't, since he cannot even bring it up in round. This argument fails.

"He has evidence when I said he didn't"

Great! Better than last round. Why don't you provide us a link to be able to look at it outselves so that we can know you're not bsing it.

Oh wait, you didn't provide a link? Awkward...
So you don't have any evidence? Sad day...

Under all of that he makes reference to the number of countries that use capitalism, however he doesn't respond to the argument that just pointing a bunch of random countries that have capitalism and saying "I win" isn't sufficient to prove that capitalism is better than socialism. I could go specific and say that it would just be the argument from popularity fallacy, but since this is the last round I won't make a new argument. This argument fails.

Not only that, but he never responds specifically to any of the arguments I made against his case. He tried to respond to the responses in general, but never actually attacks my refutations to try and defend his case. Thus, you can extend out my refutations to easily wipe out his case. This gives my opponent no offense left in the round, which means you default to the negative position as I'm better upholding my burden of proof.

Also, as a side note, healthcare being a minor part of a country? LOL!

My opponent's only attack against my case is that my source is biased and thus my arguments aren't true, however the bias of the source doesn't determine the validity of the argument. Are all theists who write arguments in favor of God's existence automatically wrong since they're biased to believing that he exists? Are all atheists who write arguments in favor of God not existing automatically wrong because they're biased to believing he doesn't exist? Bias alone is insufficient to refute an argument. My opponent needs to be actually responding to each of my points in order to refute them. Even if the source itself is bias, the validity of the argument doesn't change. I myself, who couldn't give a rat's a** about politics and economics, could repeat the same arguments for socialism that my "biased" source says. Would they still be biased arguments, if the person it's coming from (me) isn't biased one way or the other?

Since my opponent's only attack was on my source and not on the arguments themselves, you can extend them all out and easily negate off of the fact that my case is the only case standing at the end of the debate, which means I'm fully and better upholding my burden of proof than my opponent.

As such, the round breaks down very easily:

1) My opponent is failing to respond to my arguments against his case.
2) My opponent is failing to respond to my arguments in my case.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 5 years ago
This was not a strong debate on either side, I don't see how people are giving Con so many points. I won't cry vote bomb because reasons are given for all the decisions, but neither side was able to give anything close to a compelling argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 5 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct deduction from Con for being antagonistic from the first moment. If this is not a debate worth your time, don't take it. Arguments go to pro based on the first round. There pro gives the standard arguments against socialism which pro mocked more than refuted. After that the whole debate degenerated into criticizing each others form. Sources go to Con, as he is the only one who bothered with them.
Vote Placed by Muted 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, conduct to Con. Pro does not define his terms or set out any rules. This is bad debating conduct as it can lead to trolling. Secondly, Con had slightly better grammar. Just to document one of the mistakes made by Pro, " takes advantage of people's greed and covetness." Thirdly, and this is the most difficult to decide, arguments go to Con. This is because Pro begins to attack Con more than Con's argument in the last round. Last but not least, Con gave one source which Pro failed to discredit. In conclusion, this could have been a great debate, but Pro has to work on his persuasive essay writing skills before trying again. I would suggest searching up "socialism" in the search bar and reading through any good debate you can find there. It would most certainly give you a good idea of how to proceed in another debate.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 5 years 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to negate Con's arguments, while Con provided a decent enough refutation of Pro's arguments. Pro made several assertions they never backed up or gave reasons for. Also, as a Socialist myself, there are some flaws I noticed in Pro's arguments (such as claiming Socialism destroys incentive. It destroys material incentive, in favor of moral and social incentive.) So from that I can see flaws in Pro's arguments. They both had decent conduct, and both had relatively equal spelling and grammar. Only Con used sources, so Con gets that.
Vote Placed by Torvald 5 years 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This may look like a votebomb, but to be honest, Con really did win by this much, in my opinion. Conduct is tied simply because I feel a little bit bad for Pro, getting hammered so hard in a debate challenge that he expressly issued. The only real reason, however, that Con doesn't get the Conduct point is that he stated that the resolution was negated, which annoys me. Spelling and grammar is obvious, since he managed to have better spelling and grammar using a mobile than Pro did with a terminal. Convincing arguments go to Con for his obvious hammer drop on Pro. Reliable Sources is self-explanatory.