The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

socialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 19624
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

lannan13

Pro

The United States Federal Government should transition to a socialist government. 1st of all according to John Locke if a government doesn't do its dutties for the people it shall be over thrown. 2nd look at the perks: free social services, equal pay, and no classes (upper and lower). 3rd its going to happen anyway with the Occupy Wall St. movement.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Before continuing in this debate, I would like to clearly point out that while the United States prides itself on its "capitalist" system, the reality of the situation is that the United States is in reality a mixed market promulgated by forced both capitalist and socialist: the capitalist function enters in the act interactions of business and firms within the country whereas the socialist aspect enters when government places regulations in order to ensure the full efficiency of the market through the elimination of social costs, such as pollution, sickness, and other factors that take away from the welfare of the American nation.
The main point that I am going to emphasize here is that socialism is only a theory, not something that has been shown to succeed or fail in practice. It is a practice that may be dysfunctional or completely successful; the problem is that placing the United States on a shift from a mixed economy to complete socialism is a precarious move considering that the outcomes of such a practice are questionable. Another economic question comes into play at the point where the majority of the world economies within the world market practice a more capitalistic system of economy. The component of capitalism is required at this point in consideration that resources are required for businesses. In addition, the United States already has a system in place that is done in order to close the gap between the rich and poor, provide welfare services, and provide for other such things that socialism in theory alone would provide for.
To move on, we can now analyze some of my opponent's arguments, which seem to be rather flawed in many reasonings.

Rebuttal 1: His first point about John Locke shows to be nothing more than a statement with no relevance to the actual topic considering that he doesn't show why the American government under the current system of economy is not upholding the obligation required for the people via the establishment of Social Contract Theory (I assume this is what my opponent is referring to). The mixed economy that we have established in America has been able to balance out the capitalistic and socialistic component in several occassions in order to be able to fufill the economic and humanistic purposes of the society. Capitalism has been shown to be strong in function in more conservative states, including Texas, which has provided the most abundant amount of jobs for the American people even in the more sloping economy, and Louisiana under current direction of a fiscally conservative governor that has a 6% unemployment rate (a more stable unemployment rate in comparison to the rest of the country). The mixed economy is a game, and when played correctly, it can provide great benefits for the American people and uphold society, so at this point, there really is no reasoning to my opponent's first point.

Rebuttal 2: My opponent's second point shows to have more susbtance, but as I've stated before, not only does our mixed economy provide for social programs in order to be able to uphold the people anyway, but socialism is only a theory. Even if what my opponent stated is true on paper, the results of having such a system in place in totality are completely unknown considering no country has actually attempted to place a fully socialist economy in function.

Rebuttal 3: This is probably the most broad and weak point of all. My opponent pretty much creates an expansive slippery slope for this point that has absolutely no basis. In American history, protests of a similar nature have occurred for similar reasons, including the Progressive Era (1900-1917), where protests came up around businesses providing poor work conditions and little salaries and the Great Depression when protests huddled around the White House during the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. In none of these occassions did the capitalistic component of the market even come close to collapsing. There's no evidence that the OWS movement are going to in any way take down the capitalistic component of the market.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

1 socialism isn't a theory look @ the U.S.S.R. and how succesful they were. 2nd the U.S. bassed its constition off of Locke's theories. 3rd there is no evidence of OWS is going to take it down, b/c it hasn't happend yet. 4th Capitolism led to the great depression
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Rebuttal 1: My opponent has made a misunderstanding in his history. The USSR was a communist state, not a socialist one. The difference between socialism and communism are small, but significant in that socialism allows for some free-market practices (a capitalistic function, by the way), whereas communism seeks communal ownership of everything and not allowing any free-market idealisms whatsoever. If my opponent is trying to make an argument that socialism is well shown by the USSR, then this is pretty much a vote for the CON in a red ribbon considering that one of the main reasons that the Soviet Union fell in 1989 was because of communism and its inability to keep people content. Communism hasn't worked anywhere in the world whereas capitalism and our mixed market, although it has had it's own set of downslopes from time to time like the Great Depression, we have always been able to get back on our feet and fix our economy through the proper functioning of the mixed market. I'll elaborate when I get to Rebutta 4.

Rebuttal 2: I completely agree that the US Constitution is based on the idealisms of John Lock and his Two Treatises of Government. What my opponent still fails to explain is how our mixed market has failed to maintain his ideals. I've explained how correct functioning of the mixed market has been able to aid states like Texas and Louisiana in providing jobs for the people, thus allowing them to become self-sufficient and prosperous.

Rebuttal 3: At the very least, what my opponent could provide are some historical pieces of evidence how protests are going to take down our mixed market. At the very least, what my opponent could provide is some strong theoretical evidence showing how the OWS movements are going to strip us completely of the mixed market and establish socialism. My opponent provides absolutely nothing of the sort. All he does it provide this great slippery slope that OWS is beyond a shadow of a doubt change our mixed market to socialism and has absolutely nothing to provide some sort of foundation for that. No evidence. Not even a personal analysis providing how the OWS is going to take the mixed economy down alongside some small bits of evidence. It's just a total conclusion with no basis. Plase extend my point about him not having any foundation for this.

Rebuttal 4: And then to add to the last baseless claim, he makes another baseless claim about capitalism being the main cause of the Great Depression. What caused the Great Depression was the failure of banks resulting out of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which itself came from no subsidizing or bailouts by the government. The Great Depression came as a result of poor execution of our market economy, not because of capitalism itself. Like I said, it's a game, and if you play your cards right, it will work just fine. And guess what? As soon as the need for machine guns, tanks, and other sorts of army equipment increased in demand, we were able to get the economy back on our feet through the function of capitalism and our mixed market. What does it prove? Capitalism WORKS. I dare anyone to find one country that hasn't had its share of ups and down. Capitalism is the exact same way? What's the difference between failures in capitalism and communism? Capitalism can get out of it. Communism hasn't worked anywhere. Socialism MAY work, but because it's never been practiced, it's questionable, and my opponent doesn't provide any theoretical evidence about why it would work either.

So thus, because my case is the one based on actual facts rather than baseless claims and assertations, it is clear that the judge's vote will be for CON.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

1 I'll explain yet again socialism is communism. Communism is the perfected state of communism acording to Marx. 2nd Capitolism is when the buisness controlls society and the economy, that's how we got the stock exchange and the con states the stock exchange caused the depression. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYIN! 3 Con repeatively discounts Locke, but we wrote our constition off Locke's idea's from the Enlightenment.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Alright, considering this is the final round of the debate, what I am going to do is provide a summary of the debate at hand after providing a rebuttal to my opponent's case, and I wil give the judges clear reasons as to why they should vote for me for the better argumentation point on this ballot.

Rebuttal 1: Socialism is the communal ownership of businesses across a country while still applying free market principles whereas communism is the communal ownership while applying a political principle where the regulation thereof is centralized by a government. There are so many differences and so many similarities between socialism and communism that it is almost impossible to discern them as a product of one another. If it were somehow possible, if anything, communism is socialism, but not all socialism is communism, and my opponent is trying to bring up an example of how communism is an example of socialism, this is pretty much a gift for the CON considering that I have already explained (and my opponent doesn't refute this point) that communism has not worked anywhere in the world, especially not in the USSR. In fact, the USSR is the most notorious example how communism has failed to function especially when the downfall came in 1989.

Rebuttal 2: If you don't put oil in your car, your car is not going to work. If you don't install a switch to flush on a toilet, a toilet is not going to work. Although these seem like far-fetched examples, they correctly show the exact same thing with capitalism : if it is not done correctly and practiced correctly, it is not going to work. Like I said, economics is a game, and we can win only if we are skilled at playing it. The Great Depression and other economic downturns in our country resulted from poor practices of our mixed market; what my opponent implies, however, is that it was the actual system itself that doesn't work: a broken gear in a machine rather than the actual person operating the machine not operating it correctly, but I've explained why this is not true for capitalism and our mixed market, but is actually true for communism. Countries have applied it correctly, as far as many are concerned, and it still hasn't functioned.

Rebuttal 3: Here, my opponent makes a strawman argument. I've said before how I completely acknowledge how John Locke has been such a strong basis for the Constitution and for the idealism of the country today, and I am in accord with all of the principles listed within The Two Treatises of Government. However, what I am saying is that my opponent hasn't proved how our mixed economy has not been able to uphold government's end of the contract. I've shown you examples of the low unemployment rates from Texas and Louisiana as a result of proper functioning of the mixed market, which aids to the people.

Reasons for voting CON: So it's almost painfully obvious that the vote should go to the CON in this debate. The judge's decision for voting will split between whether he/she wants to vote for the case that has ample amounts of evidence and logical conclusions or a paucity of evidence or research and poorly-constructed conclusion, and if a judge's decision is the first case, then the vote will obviously go to the CON. My opponent reaches these very poor conclusions, including that OWS is beyond a shadow of a doubt going to take down our mixed market, that the mixed market has not done anything to help people, and that capitalistic principles absolutely do not work. I have provided to you examples of how our mixed market has worked, shown you that any failures in our system are mostly as a result of how people work with them rather than how it is set up, and I respond to all of my opponent's arguments while my opponent drops many of my own. Because some of my arguements remain extended and because my evidence and conclusions are solid, I urge a vote for the CON.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Reid 2 years ago
Reid
Socialism isn't going to happen with the wallstreet movement? Are you serious? And your opening with John Locke is pointless. "Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens." Everyone in the United States has the right to these natural rights. Completely bending Locke's argument. Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism too. While Capitalism was a common belief for the great depression, it was the Federal Reserve which foolishly allowed the money supply to shrink by a third between 1929 and 1933. This could of been a real, good debate, it turned out to be pitiful.
Posted by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
Well.........this should be interesting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Reid 2 years ago
Reid
lannan13ScarletGhost4396Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used no resources, but provided a much better argument and had the better conduct / professionality. over the debate. Pro's rebuttals were weak and poorly developed.
Vote Placed by deamonomic 2 years ago
deamonomic
lannan13ScarletGhost4396Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: in my opinion pro did not make that much of an effort to prove his point.