The Instigator
hawaiianxx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

socilism is the best

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...
David_Debates
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 100039
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

hawaiianxx

Pro

is better than all of them
David_Debates

Con

I will argue that capitalism is more benificial than socialism. I await for an argument from Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
hawaiianxx

Pro

this is the definition of socilism = 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.

that means captilist pigs wont hog money anymore! if we have socilism then you get equal money!! who doesnt want that!?
David_Debates

Con

You've made my case for me, Pro. The danger of socialism is that it allows other people to run your life.

It makes you a tool of a community rather than an individual.

Capitalism, on the other hand, respects each person's uniqueness, individualism. It gives liberty to all, opportunity to all. In stark contrast is socialism, someone deciding just how much money you are allowed to have, how much property you are allowed to have, and some even go as far as to regulate how many children you are allowed to have.

I ask the voters to decide: Would you rather live your life ruled by another, or have the liberty to make your own financial decisions?
Debate Round No. 2
hawaiianxx

Pro

well what about black people huh? since the government is rigged against them how are they going to get money to survive in the world huh? or mexicans or asains! the top 1% has the money that the 99% has combined! thats crazy! thats why we need socilism!
David_Debates

Con

Pro raises a contention: minority groups are "discriminated against" not by the market, but by the government. There are two responses:

1) If the government is biased, that's a problem for socialism, not capitalism.

In a capitalist society, government stays out of the economy. It doesn't pick sides, like in a socialist society. Thus, if the government is biased, minorities in a socialist society would suffer much more than if they were in a capitalist society.

2) Just how biased against minorities is the government?

I'll list off some famous, rich minority figures in the USA:

-Oprah Winfrey
Net Worth: $2.7 billion (Forbes, 2017)

-Robert F. Smith
Net Worth: $2.5 billion (Forbes, 2017)

-Michael Jordan
Net Worth: $1.14 billion (Forbes, 2016)

-Patrick Soon-Shiong
Net Worth: $8.6 billion (Forbes, 2017)

These are only 4. I'll tell you right now, Pro, it looks like these minority billionares have a lot more money than I expect to earn in my life. And this is due to capitalism, not socialism. If this was socialism, they would be forced to earn the same amount as you or your lazy neighbor. They would be forced to make less money, which just doesn't make sense!

Due to the fact that my opponent has failed to rebutt any of my claims, and that I have sucessfully challenged each of them, I ask the voters to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JimShady// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: David Debates wins this. I agreed with him before hand and after hand because his arguments a whole lot better than hawaiianxx. Both had good conduct, but grammar was a bit bad for the pro. Although both brought up good arguments, Con actually refuted the pros, and Pro just ignored Cons. Sources were not used, so a tie for that.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply state that one side refuted the other " they must specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. This point may only be awarded in instances where one side"s argument is significantly more difficult to understand. Having marginally worse grammar is not sufficient reason to award this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by hawaiianxx 1 year ago
hawaiianxx
to much bias jim shady!
Posted by hawaiianxx 1 year ago
hawaiianxx
yup!
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
It is better than all of them*
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Socialism*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
hawaiianxxDavid_DebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con gives legitimate examples, pro does not
Vote Placed by subdeo 1 year ago
subdeo
hawaiianxxDavid_DebatesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no real arguments, and only cited opinions, while con used facts to rebut Pro's points. He also made some good points of his own, which were never rebutted. Grammar also was won by Con. This is because many of Pro's spelling errors made it difficult to read, while Con had almost none of these.