The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points


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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,806 times Debate No: 20483
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)




This round is for acceptance only
Ron-Paul will be arguing for Capitalism while I will be arguing againsn't it


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


1) Captalism is not motivational

You may be thinking, that doesn't even make any sense. But it does. Most people have the failed misconception that more money=better performace
While that is clearly not entirely true.
Sure, it comes to simple straight, "do this you get that", tasks, you perform better with more money rolling in. But when the task you are assigned requires cognitive thinking, the more money, the worse you perform. (You perform at your best when you are given the right amount of money that is needed for survival)

This study has been repeated many times over and over again around the world, and the results are always the same. When a group of people are given a simple task that doesn't require cognitive thinking, they perform better when they are paid more. But when that task requires creativity and logic and true cognitive thinking, the more excess money, the worse they spiral downhill in performace.

If this doesn't make much sense, I'll explain this further
For a general example:
Say there is a group of workers in India that you decide to conduct this study on.
You split them into two groups. One group would be the "Simple Tasks" group, and the other group would be the "Cognitive Thinking" group.
So you also split the "Simple Tasks" group into three seperate groups. 1) Least amount of money 2) Middle Ground 3)Most Money
You assign them a simple task that doesn't require much thought
Then you see the results. The results are typical:
1) Least amount of money: Worst Performance
2) Middle Ground :The Middle Performace
3) Most Money: Best Performace

Now you study the "Cognitive Thinking" group into three groups. 1) Least amount of money 2) Middle Ground 3) Most Money
You assign them a task that requires creativity and logica
Then you see the results. The results are mindblowing
1) Least amount of money: Best Performace
2) Middle Ground: The Middle Performace
3) Most Money: Worst Performace

This study has once again been repeated over and over again in mnay other countries by many different experts in varied fields
This clearly demonstrates that money is not the primary factor in motivating work

2) Capitalism limits creativity
In the same way that the first argument didn't make sense at first, this one doesn't either.
But alas I shall explain
Capitalism's primary goal is to make a profit. That means that new technology and new discoveries are hindered by Capitalism because instead of making products that actually are neccessary for the people, they make products make a profit.
For example:
Apple makes iPhones and iPads that have bugs on purpose so that you can buy more and more. They release them with bugs to make a profit, which is hindering to the technology that is neccessary.
If your primary goal is to not make a profitbut to make a profit that is neccessary, then you will be liberated from that
restriction from making products that will make a profit or releases iPads with bugs to make a profit

3) Capitalism is selfish
It isn't only the "hard working" that get far in finances. It is not nearly that simple. There could be people in debt that work just as hard as the people who own corporations, but they just get much less profit because their jobs don't offer much profit. This demonstrates that hard work does not always equal profit, or a lot of profit doesn't always equal hard work.

I await your rebuttal


Response Point 1: This makes no sense. Capitalism is motivational. In Capitalism, people can get real wage increases based on performance. The more money-better performance argument has been misinterpreted many times. There is no level-off in wage increase. The employee keeps striving for more money through better performance. The CONSTANT prospect of increasing wages keeps employees motivated throughout their working lifetime. You are talking about the very rich people. That kind of increase leads to lower motivation in work, but greater motivation in business. The constant drive to make more money drives the economy forward in constant economic growth. Everyone from garbage workers to Bill Gates strive to make more money. This drive increases production and quality. A better rebuttal please.

Response Point 2: I picked up an issue of Consumer Reports a couple of moths ago that said that the iPad was THE MOST REILABLE tablet on the market. I only trust Consumer Reports. And plus, the many friends I have who own Apple products are all pleased and are happy they upgraded. I am holding back some of this argument to see how you respond. Believe me, I have a lot more on this and on Competition.
Please post these in your next round argument:
1: Post me an article (prefereably multiple articles) with proof that Apple is delibrately sabotaging products with bugs.
2: Please tell me why the customer can not exchange the bugged iPad or iPhone with a new one or not receive a refund.
You have the burden of proof here.

Response Point 3: Hard work means a steady increase in wages for the employee. Equality in wages means a slower economy also.

Defense Point 1: Capitalism allows for the vast majority of people to live comfortable lives. It allows for the free (as in the right to) growth of wealth.

Defense Point 2: Capitalism allows for the consumer to ultimately decide, what products should be produced and how many products that consumers will buy. Then the market sets an equilibrium price that allows for the consumer to one, shop where prices are cheaper, and two, get a say in what a particular price should be. This efficient system allows for shortages and surpluses to be eliminated in a timely fashion. This system allows for the consumer to decide what he wants.

Defense Point 3: It allows for the country's economy to grow, thus increasing both consumer wealth and business wealth, which in turn allows for consumers to buy more of the products that they want and the businesses to make more of the products that consumers want.

Defense Point 4: As consumers and businesses get more money through overall economic growth, this allows the businesses to pay higher wages to their employees, which allows their employees to buy more products from companies, and the cycle constantly repeats with businesses getting richer and more successful and consumers to get richer and to get more of the products that they want.

Defense Point 5: It allows for the poor to help their situation by allowing them to choose which job pays the most, which increases his wealth.

Attack Point 1: In most socialistic countries, most of the people are in poverty, and are not free to grow wealth for the government sets a maximum amount that people can save, and just tax the rest.

Attack Point 2: Socialism only allows for the Government to decide what is produced, how much is produced, and at what price the products will be sold at. This means that consumers have to take what the government gives them, and they may or may not end up with the products that they want or how many of that product they can buy. This in turn makes shortages and surpluses rampant. In most countries, the price of essentials is too high, and the number too few for the efficient transfer of resources, which makes poverty.

Attack Point 3: Neither consumers make much more money, for the Government taxes it all, and the businesses are not allowed to make profits, the profits go to the Government, which does not let the business expand and grow, and the businesses can not keep up with consumer demand.

Attack Point 4: Since businesses aren't allowed to make a profit, businesses can not increase employee's wages, which in turn, can not cycle more money into the business. Economic growth is cut off.

Attack Point 5: Since most employees are stuck at the same job most of their life, only a Government motion can increase wages, since the employee is not allowed to look around for higher wages, nor can the business make profit which in turn. the business can not increase wages. And that Government motion comes rarely.
Debate Round No. 2


Response Point 1:
Once again, money isn't the primary factor in motivation
The factors in motivation in tasks that require cognitive thinking include:
*The freedom for some days to be free to work on whatever they would like
*A transcendentalist ulterior motive
Why would this only apply to the very rich people?
This was tested on many workers around the world, by economists, by psychologists etc.
Money would be the primary factor for people who are doing a task that doesn't require logic. A task that would only require manual labor.

Response to Point 3: Equality in wages means a balanced and unified economy.

Response to Defense Point 1: Socialism DOES allow for people to live comfortable lives. They are working according to their abilities and what they really want to do, instead of being hindered by the idea of making use of their abilities to make a profit. With the money system, the community collects the money together to build a school. Everyone would have clothing and shelter, everyone would have what they need. It is a much more comfortable life because there would be no poverty or risk of poverty. There would be equality. Which is a thousand times more comfortable than Capitalism, which imitates a animalistic lifestyle and has a negative motto of "Survival of the Fittest."

Response to Defense Point 2: Socialism is a system which DOES allow the consumer to decide which products they want, because it is a community system. They all decide as a community what technology to release etc.

Response to Defense Point 3: Capitalism allows the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. The unemployment rate becomes larger which causes a failed economy.

Response to Defense Point 4: Yes, businesses would get larger and larger, which in turn would cause a much more imbalanced spread of wealth. The middle class would disappear. It would mostly have only rich and poor people

Response to Defense Point 5: In Socialism it helps the poor a lot more than Capitalism, to help their situation by working to their abilities and getting the money that they need

Response to Attack Point 1: What are you talking about?
The US has a total poverty rate at 17% while Norway has a total poverty rate of 6.4%.
The US has an unemployment rate of 9.600% while Norway has an unemployment rate of 3.600%.
The US has a high child poverty rate at 21.9%, while Norway has a child poverty rate at 3.4%.
Finland has a total poverty rate of 5.4%, a child poverty rate of 2.8% and an unemployment rate of 8.400%.
If anything the US is a lot worse off

Response to Attack Point 2: It's actually the other way around. SOCIALISM provides what the consumer actually wants. In collective socialism workers' and consumers' councils all plan and decide in the participatory planning process to determine what is being produced and consumed. This definitely means, what is being produced is EXACTLY what the consumers demand

Response to Attack Point 3: No the businesses won't, but the collective socialism workers' and consumers' councils will keep up with consumer demand

Response to Attack Point 4: Socialism has actually proven that it is very economically efficient. In the Spanish revolution, Socialism has brought prosperity and improvement to the Spanish people. In Socialist Aragon, 70% of the community had collectivized causing productivity to increase by 20%

Response to Attack Point 5: The businesses do not need to profit that significantly for society to function. In true Socialism, you earn the money that are necessary for survival. You have shelter, and food. Whereas in Capitalism, you have to struggle for shelter and food and compete against everyone else

Defense Point One: In Socialism, the society is ruled by the collective people. Individuals collectively work together to serve the public good

Defense Point Two: Socialism allows more people to be productive. People would no longer be left behind or outcasted by class handicaps.

Defense Point Three: Socialism does not hinder individualistic success. In fact, it motivates it by giving everyone an opportunity to have access to a job of their choice and not have the burden of their class

Defense Point Four: Socialism is perfect for protecting human rights. Socialism would be ruled by the people which in turn would bring them to protect the rights of their fellow man far more efficiently than Capitalism

Defense Point Five: Socialism puts planning into the palms of the community. This, I already explained previously

Attack Point One: In Capitalism, businesses and corporations must aspire profit before anything else

Attack Point Two: Capitalism is ruled by corporations, NOT individuals. Capitalism has been designed around the needs of corporations to make a profit instead of the individual people

Attack Point Three: Capitalism is not compassionate at all. Capitalism only serves the people who succeed under the system and doesn't serve people who fail under the system. While Socialism serves all the people

Attack Point Four: Capitalism doesn't always reward the hard working. There are musicians, actors and football players who earn much more than hard working, educated nurses under Capitalism

Attack Point Five: Extremely unequal distribution of wealth prevents individual success. A poor and hungry family would not have a fair chance to step up the economic ladder under Capitalism


Response Point 1: Money means more motivation. It is not the actual salary increase the prompts the greater motivation, but it is the constant thought of having your wages raised. This applies whether or not the employee's job requires cognitive skills or not.

Response Point 2: I see you haven't found sources for your previous arguments here. I extend my arguments from my point in the last round to this round and await my opponent's response.

Response Point 3: Balanced and unified are unimportant aspects in an economy. The primary reason for an economy is so that it can grow. Thus allowing for the country to become richer, and thereby affecting every citizen for the better with more money.

I will cover sevaral of the next points here. I know how the voters hate 23 different points in one argument, so I will try to reduce them:

Attack Point 1: Capitalism allows for the efficent exchange of goods and resources. In socialism, the Government decides what and how much of a product is produced, and who should get that product. This is obviously inefficent because the Government can not satisify the needs and wants of all of it's population (which is why Socialism works better in small countries). In Capitalism, the consumer gets to decide these things, so the consumer gets what he wants. This efficient system eliminates long-term shortages and surpluses. "The single greatest benefit that capitalism provides is that it enables human choice.":

Attack Point 2: Competition is the best thing for consumer-seller relationships. Competition is excellent because it not only reduces the price of goods, but it increases the quality of goods. "Competition in the marketplace is good for
consumers"and good for business, too. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of products and services high.": "Without competition Apple would have never created their Ipod, Microsoft would have never created Windows, and Google would probably be non-existent. Competition is essential because it leads to one very important thing, innovation.": Now relating to specific company-on-company competition: "It's clear that if one company's technology held an overwhelming advantage over the mobile OS market, innovation would suffer to the detriment of all mobile phone buyers.": Read that last article since you mentioned that Apple puts bugs in their products (which you still have not proven).

Attack Point 3: "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism."" A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!": This is not really back-up to my arguments, but I am trying to say that all the mistakes in the American economy in the last 90 years can not be blamed on Capitalism since our economy has not been purely Capitalist in over 90 years. Your poverty rate statistics can not be back up to your argument because America is not Capitalist, and Norway is (economically, not socially).

Attack Point 4: The poor benefit from Capitalism a lot more than from Socialism. This may seem weird, right? "No matter where you start in life, everyone has an opportunity to make it big.": "Those who always take and never give back, those who steal, those who live off others; they seem to be the ones we want to feel bad for... certainly not the wealthy. "Evil capitalist pigs", they cry. "You take advantage of the poor and less fortunate." Logically this is impossible since people who have nothing cannot be taken advantage of. They have nothing to take. Only those who have something can have it taken from them.: The poor can become better off through asparation and hard work.

Attack Point 5: Businesses need profit to survive. It is illogical to say that a business can survive without profit because with no profit, no money can be invested back into the business, thus increaseing quality and safety to both the product and the factory. With profit, broken machines can be fixed up, employee's salaries can be raised, businesses can expand, thus driving the cost of a product down, or they can create a new product for the good of the consumer. No profit, no expansion. "Businesses rely on profits to buy new inventory, expand operations and finance product development. Without profit, a business would stagnate and risk losing its market share to other competitors.":

Attack Point 6: Socialism produces terrible economic conditions overtime. Spain has a 25% unemployment rate. They are socialist. Venezuela has a 30% inflation rate. They are socialist. China has a 8-10% GDP Growth rate. They are Capitalist (economically, not politically). Norway is in a great position economically. They are Capitalist (again, economically). The US has a 8.6% unemployment rate, 5% inflation rate (which is actually pretty bad), 2% GDP Growth (again, this is actually pretty bad), and has had a sluggish economy for the last three years. America is mostly Socialist. Sources for economic data: Various economic websites. Data can be easily found through Google.

Attack Point 7: There are no "evil" corporations, and they do not and can not run the economy. In America, one corporation or even an oligopoly can not rule the economy. There will always be competition for that spot on the market. There are tens of thousands of corporations all with an equal chance at that spot. It's like saying that there are 50,000 people eligible of the American Presidency. Do you think that one will be put in office and survive for at least a month?

Attack Point 8: Capitalism is not meant to be compassionate, and neither is socialism; It is not an economy's duty, obligation, or job of any kind to be compassionate, or having compassion will ruin the economy. When most people say that Capitalism is not compassionate, they mean that the greedy rich take advantage of the poor, and that the rich should give their money away to the poor. This re-distribution of income will crush the economy, because the 99% obviously outnumber the 1%. The individual person's money received through that re-distribution would be so small, that it would not matter a lot in an individual's or families's financial situation. The rich start businesses. When the rich have all of their income redistributed, no one is rich enough to create a business, for large businesses have a great amount of risk. This would kill the economy quickly.

Attack Point 9: The Scandinavian countries can espouse the good in Socialism, and the European countries in the debt crisis can espouse the bad in Capitalism. "None of those Scandinavian countries are considered socialist by real socialist who believe in real socialism where all economic activity is controlled by the gov't or where all means of production are publicly owned.": And most of the European countries are mixed economies (socialism and capitalism). Capitalism can not be directly attributed to the Europe Debt Crisis. It is partially too much Government control in the economy (due to the increasing Socialism in these Countries) and partially bad leaders and presidents.

Attack Point 10: Capitalism does not abuse human rights and Socialism does not protect them, but in fact endangers them. "Massive human rights abuses are a norm in these socialist and communist countries. And those who try to defend human rights are severely treated by the government machinery. For instance, human rights defenders in Cuba have been subjected to acts of harassment, surveillance, arbitrary detention, restrictions on the freedoms of expression, assembly, association and movement, beatings, judicial harassment, periods of detention under house arrest, long prison sentences, violent attacks, ill-treatment, torture and killings." "The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated… By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.":
Debate Round No. 3


Response Point 1:
Motivation-Provide (someone) with a motive for doing something.

And that "motive" isn't "money." It mind be kind of hard to wrap your mind around it but, just because people who perform better get paid more as a reward, doesn't directly mean that, they are motivated by that extra pay. People don't get more "motivated" by consistently getting paid more. They just get paid more.
"I'm learning recently, you can't motivate people. You've got to provide the work environment that's going to make them want to do a better job. You just can't make them do a better job by paying them more money."
– Company owner*

Response Point 2: I didn't really mean that Apple LITERALLY puts bugs on their iPads. What I meant was that they develop the perfect iPad or iPod long before they release the imperfect versions that people buy that usually have several bugs. It's not only Apple. And I don't really have any sources to back this up and I know, that this is a setback. So..I guess you win this one point

Response Point 3: Pure Darwinist Capitalism is an accident just waiting to happen. What would happen to the free schools? The fire fighters? The police department? Oh right, they can still be there. But there would be no funding from government to support them which means you have to pay for it yourself. So does this mean that the poor children will be excluded a right to free education?

Attack Point 1: As I already explained earlier, it's the other way around. Socialism is ruled by the collective people, not the government. Under the economic system of Socialism, the society is ruled by the individuals working as a team. As I mentioned before, in collective socialism, workers' and consumers' councils discuss through a planning process to determine what is being produced. Which means that consumers get EXACTLY what they want. Mutualist Socialism also works like supply and demand: "Very Much Like Capitalism." Where in Capitalism, heavy advertising is used for products to persuade people, all in the name of profit instead of supplying the necessities for people.

Attack Point 2: No doubt about it, competition= growth in business. But too much competition can be extremely debilitating for businesses. Companies might spend way too much money in advertising: causing scarcity of resources. Then there is harmful spending cuts. It all causes a chain reaction to businesses likely to shut down, which causes scarce available resources for society. There's also the possibility where businesses grow too large causing monopolies. And monopolies are terrible for the economy and society. Monopolies end up being the only provider and have the freedom to choose any price they want. The consumer has no choice. This puts the whole free trade system down to the grave.

Attack Point 3: Capitalism SHOULD be condemned because the basis of Capitalism in America, even though it isn't pure Capitalism, has caused a huge gap between the poor and the wealthy. Capitalism, pure or mixed, is the cause of poverty. In pure Capitalism, there would be no free schools, or fire fighters or police. You'd have to pay for it. This would lead to the poor being uneducated and the rich even richer in education and wealth. Absolutely no Socialistic programs in the economy, is extremely flawed and fatal. That's a completely Darwinistic lifestyle. It would cause the poverty rate to be even worse for the poor since the system won't even provide poor children the right to a decent education.

Attack Point 4: Poverty is a by product of the inequalities of Capitalism. Poverty wouldn't exist without Capitalism. Capitalism is what creates classes and rounds up who goes on top and who goes down the ground. Pure Capitalism is Social Darwinism by definition.

Attack Point 5: Social Entrepreneurs don't need profit for success

Attack Point 6: Huge inequalities in economy causes terrible economic conditions as well and social problems as well

Attack Point 7:
Monopolies and huge Corporations are totalitarian structures that are not open to the public. Since monopolies are the only providers, they can set up any price they choose regardless of demand since the consumer does not have any other choice.

Attack Point 8: The economy is there to provide wealth and resources for the country. If there is a massive imbalance of wealth, most of the wealth and resources go out to the rich and leave out most with nothing but crumbs. If wealth is terribly imbalanced, the overall well being of a country is unstable

Attack Point 9: I agree with most of this. European countries definitely bring out the good in Socialism and Capitalism. I really don't see much of an argument here...can you explain this argument further?

Attack Point 10: The entire point of Socialism is to protect human rights. Any true, dedicated Socialist society, protects their citizen's human rights. Here's the difference: Cuba is a "corrupt" Socialist society. It isn't a true good intended Socialist society. Any economic/political system can become corrupt by nature. It's not only Socialism

Response to "Ron Paul: Africa has famine because they aren't Capitalist" Article:

There's a lot of factors that cause famine in Africa. It's not Capitalism. Actually it's totally the opposite. Africa is in famine because they don't have any Government interference at all. Just because they don't have an established free trade doesn't mean that, that is the cause of the issue. Africa hardly has any government. They have no necessary functioning systems like, roads or free schools or health care. They don't tax heavily or anything. Their Government is almost, if not, non-existent.


Response Point 1: During company and industry monopolies, the industry usually operates with a lot of "fluff". In other words, they spend too much money on desirables which raises the cost of the product. Like at the Federal Reserve Bank. They get all sorts of vacations times, paid lunches, etc.... And this causes the price of the product to increase to pay for all the fluff. And plus, motivation comes from the prospect; not the actual reward.

Response Point 2: I see. Just skip over this point then.

Response Point 3: The Government agencies are irrelevant in this debate. But, education is not a right and should not be provided free of charge by the Government. The family should pay for the education because they are getting something for nothing. They should pay their dues (and don't go throwing taxes on me. The bottom 47% don't pay any taxes). This debate is not about the extent of Federal power.

Attack Point 1: Your statement is misguided. Socialists don't seem to understand that in order to have Socialism, you must have a totalitarian Government for a period of time. But once that Government is in place, it is almost impossible to get it out, leading to a semi-permenant state of totalitarianism and repression. And this kind of Socialism does not let the consumer decide, thus you have shortages. "Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to the control of others, and a desire for free will. In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power. As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.":

Attack Point 2: Wow. America has been very pro-Competition since it's founding, and this has never happened. Companies know exactly how much to pay in the advertising sector. Businesses are very efficient at accounting. They keep track of all of their costs. "Those who condemn all competition as bad present us with the least attractive exemplars, competition as a ruthless drive for personal power by people who have contempt for those who are bested.": Almost all of the monopolies in America are Government created. Monopolies are almost impossible to acheive in Capitalism. Competition is fact discourages monopolies.

Attack Point 3: "Poverty and income inequality are related, but only the former deserves a policy-based response. Sound economic policy to reduce poverty would lift people out of poverty (increase their productivity) while not reducing the well-being of wealthier individuals. Tools to implement such a policy include investments in education and job training. Income inequality should not be vilified, and public policy should encourage people to move up the income distribution and not penalize them for having already done so.": The income inequality is neither bad, nor as bad as the Government says it is. The poor are in essence, not living bad lives, but are living pretty comfortable lives (the ones that aren't are the lazy ones), and the Rich help people live comfortable lives because they start businesses, which provides people with the right quantity and quality goods at the right price. And pure Capitalism is nothing like mixed Capitalism. You might as well call the American economy and mixed Capitalism Socialist.

Attack Point 4: Poverty is made worse by Socialism. Why? Because that totalitarian Government I told you about earlier makes it worse because then, there are incredibly high tax rates and poverty is extremely rampent. "The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions.": "The success of capitalism is due to the way it utilizes human nature. Most people are greedy and want more. Therefore, they work to create wealth -- and trade for things that they cannot make.":

Attack Point 5: Profit is the motivation that gets things produced. Without it, there would be terrible working conditions and no motivation to produce or create, so this leads to bad working conditions and shortages. "The businessman or woman should have the desire to churn out profits and to ensure that his or her business does well. The need to be ambitious and set up goals, which they should strive hard to reach.": There is no success or motivation if profit is taken away. Profit drives the economy. Without it, it crashes.

Attack Point 6: Like I said earlier, Capitalism helps stop income inequalities and socialism (due to the totalitarian state) promotes them. "In other words, if rising inequality is limited to households and families and does not extend to individuals then the causes might have less to do with greedy capitalists in the American economy and more to do with other factors in the American society. These include: diminished social contact between the rich and the poor; rising divorce rates and the breakdown of families; fewer income earners in a household because of a lack of education, death or incarceration and so on.": Not to mention, through education, one is a lot less likely to be poor or unemployed. "The unemployment rate in this country for workers with college degrees is a skimpy 2.1 percent.""The more educated our workforce, the more productive it will be. The secret of economic growth is getting as many people as possible to work as intelligently as possible.":

Attack Point 7: Again, monopolies are almost non-existant besides ones established by the Government. Yes, monopolies are not a really good thing, but they are impossible to acheive. "Monopolies by the definition of the word can't exist because they aren't charging whatever they like, they still have to compete with the market. Anyone is allowed to produce and sell a cheaper product if they can. But the bigger a company is, the more they can produce and sell, the less likely someone else could possibly compete. That's not a monopoly, that's good business sense. The public is not paying huge prices for a product that could be made by someone else cheaper, which is what we mean when we think of oppressive monopolies.":

Attack Point 8: The economy is not obligated, nor dutified to fix inequality. That is the market's job. The market fixes inequality. And an inequality in wealth is not bad for the well being of the country. In fact, it makes it somewhat better due to the increase in economic growth. If people became more educated, there would be a significant reduction in income inequality. "The goal should be to make the wealth pie larger, so that everyone gets a fatter piece. Creating a better educated and higher skilled populace is the most certain way to accomplish that goal.":

Attack Point 9: Norway can't be used as a good example of Socialism because it is not Socialist. "The left's star child is trending DOWNWARD in its taxation that it now has comparable tax rates to the US. HOW could this possibly happen? Additionally, will they still support Norway as it (presumably) continues its trend BELOW US tax rates? Will they still cheer Norway as a "socialist utopia" when in fact it is more capitalistic than the US?": And Europe can't be used as a good example of Capitalism because it is not capitalist. "They are absolutely Socialist but in recent years have realized that that form of government does not work in the long run. In a lot of places in Europe, the unemployment rate is easily double digits.:

Attack Point 10: Yes. But again, that semi-permanent state of totalitarianism prevents the use of human rights, and increases poverty. "Hayek argued that the road to socialism leads society to totalitarianism, and argued that fascism and Nazism were the inevitable outcome of socialist trends in Italy and Germany during the preceding period.:

Attack Point 11 (Africa's needs Capitalism article): Africa has no economy. No economic system can be blamed for Africa's economic failures. But if Capitalism was instituted, there would be tremendous economic growth (or a long period of time). "Those Africans who are educated and who have discovered what is making Africa a covey of drug (funny money) addicts at the mercy of the drug dealers (puppet leaders) and their drug supplier (the unConstitutional coup in the United States) need to turn to the philosophy of classical liberalism and rise up to educate their fellow Africans and to sever the chain of slavery.":
Debate Round No. 4


This last round is for only for conclusions not for any more debating

My Conclusion:

In Socialism, the temporary totalitarian state is only in centralized Socialism. There are many different branches of Socialism that promotes freedom to the people.
There is anarcho-socialism, syndilacist socialism etc.

In Socialism, everyone works as a community to produce supply and demand for each other making it harmonious and equal.
Socialism, promotes education because the community collectively collects fund they make together to build a school. Whereas in in pure Darwinist Capitalism, you must pay to have an education, which prevents the lower class from getting a decent education
Pro has contradicted himself when he said that through education, one was less likely to be poor, when he also at the same round said that free education was not a right

Socialism would promote well being and promote production collectively

While I do agree that not everybody is the same, it makes sense that we should always put aside our differences and work together as a community

Vote Con


My Conclusion:

Socialism's "wanted" goal of a utopia or a community centered country can never be acheived because in order to have these utopia Governments, there needs to be a totalitarian state for a short time. And unfortunately, that totalitarian state can never be ousted because they are too powerful, thus the country becomes a mess with poverty and hunger rampent. Socialism's ultimate goal can never be acheived.

And the "effects" of the utopia Socialist state can again never be acheived. But even if they could be, it would be impossible to keep having them in the community for a long period of time because it is human nature to be greedy. This is true under any economic system. Even trying to change it always leads to disasterous consequences. People would never allow their money to be forcibly taken away. They wouldn't just "voluntarily" give their money away. That's why if some people aren't willing to pay for it, they shouldn't get it for free. And education is not a right, but anyone can go out and get an education.

Putting aside differences and work is not the job of the economy.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yarely 7 years ago
Congrats to Ron-Paul
I shall educate myself more on economics
Posted by Ron-Paul 7 years ago
For Yarele: It wasn't a complete fail.
Posted by Yarely 7 years ago
Damn what a fail
Posted by Ron-Paul 7 years ago
Man. Why did mauricio2 do that? I hate vote bombs because they force voters that would have otherwise voted based on the debate to counter a vote bomb. That's a shame. That wastes 2 perfectly good votes.
Posted by Yarely 7 years ago
Oh God I think mauricio2 just votebombed :/
Posted by Yarely 7 years ago
Aw well maybe next time I'll use definitions
Posted by wmpeebles 7 years ago
Please use sources next time. This could have been a better debate if someone defined what socialism and capitalism actually is and used the definitions to support their arguments along with sources from reputable places. It's hard to know what any of you guys is talking about is true or not, especially when no sources are used to support your positions.
Posted by Yarely 7 years ago
Oh btw thanks for debating this with me
It was an interesting debate because I wasn't entirely sure about Socialism myself, I just agreed with a lot of its ideas
But this debate got me to research more
I still have a lot of research to do though
You can never learn too much
Posted by Yarely 7 years ago
Okay sure thing
Posted by Ron-Paul 7 years ago
For Yarely: Sorry. I was out of space. If you have any room left in your next post, you can debate this article:
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 7 years ago
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: Both sides had a flawed understanding of economics and political science. However, Con (intentionally or unintentionally) incurred more debate fail with his statements that contradict the most basic principles of what capitalism is and why it works. Such gems include: "Captalism is not motivational" "Socialism [] helps the poor a lot more than Capitalism" "Capitalism limits creativity" -yeah.. "new technology and new discoveries are hindered by Capitalism" -econ 101, technology decreases
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 7 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side put forth enough evidence from sources to support their position. Both Con and Pro made numerous statements that didn't seem correct, yet neither of them tried to back up their statements from reputable sources, nor did either of them try to refute each other using sources. It's very hard to know who's right in this debate when the lack of sources caused both sides to generate weak and unsupported arguments. All of my points go to Yarely to counter the vote bomb made by mauricio2.
Vote Placed by mauricio2 7 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: Capitalism!