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

Labour is better than Conservative (UK Politics)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 917 times Debate No: 118368
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I personally believe Labour is better than Conservative as I believe if we are more equal we can live happier and have less poverty in our lives.

Here's a great example, Dharavi slums (Obviously I don't want our country to look like Dharavi slums) crime rate is so low, You ever wonder why and how a square mile of a million people can have such a low crime rate? Because everyone there has a very similar life, Similar housing materials and accessories and clothing. There's nothing to get jealous of or angry over because everyone there has around the same amount of money in their pocket. Now compare this to the big gap between the rich and the poor.

People rob and steal because they need to be richer, They want to be as rich as somebody. People kill over jealousy etc. Labour would enforce laws such as reducing the gap between the rich and the poor by raising tax on someone who has over "100, 000 in their bank account and always lowering taxes on the poor but Conservative do the opposite and disagree with this.
They think we should earn as much money as possible etc. Anyone could agree with that but it's wrong. All jobs are as important as each other. For example, A janitor day and night shift sweeping the warehouse and sweating non-stop constantly cleaning getting paid minimum wage, Then you have a CEO of course making big decisions that would affect the company but is also sitting at his desk writing and making phone calls. Why should the janitor be paid so much less for such hard work and labour he/she has to do? Also, Look at the state we are in right now because of how Theresa May is handling Brexit. God save us all if Conservatives keep running our country like this.


My opponent proposed that as income, Rights, And other aspects of life become more equal across the board the less poverty there is. In this round I will be specifically refuting his points and presenting new examples to build the Conservatives side.
So before I begin presenting my arguments I would like to present a few definitions. . . .

Communism is a system of government where all the property is public and the government owns and controls the manufacturing and transportation industries. People share equally from the benefits of labor and they receive the things they need from the government. (http://examples. Yourdictionary. Com/examples-of-communism. Html)

With this definition in mind I present the following statement. Conservative Politics across the globe are traditionally, Generally and statistically more successful than Labour Politics or Communism.

I aim to show that in this debate. But before we continue we must also define Conservative Politics so that it is clear what I am defending.

Fiscal conservatism (also economic conservatism or conservative economics) is a political-economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, Reduced government spending and minimal government debt

So in essence what I am standing for is less government involvement and what my opponent is advocating, Is increased involvement moving towards complete government involvement which controls everything including the wages of everyone.

Now that the parameters of the debate are set I will present my first point. This point is of Dharavi Slums.

My opponent used the example of the Dharavi slums. After doing a bit of research I concluded that the reason the crime rate was so low was not necessarily due to the fact that everyone was "poor". This is a simple case of Causation vs. Correlation. Meaning is the fact that everyone is poor the DIRECT cause of the low crime rate. Since this is a debate my opponent has the burden of proof to show that it is indeed the direct cause of the crime rate. But even still I would like to dispute the validity of his statement "There's nothing to get jealous of or angry over because everyone there has around the same amount of money in their pocket. Now compare this to the big gap between the rich and the poor. " This isn't true. In reality the free market and a lot of well of people dwell in the slums contrasted with a large amount of less well of people. So according to my opponent there would be a lot of jealousy. Below I provided a quote from an article to substantiate my claim that THERE ARE RICH AND POOR ALIKE

"However, In reality the slums are home to many people who are quite well off. This is largely a product of the fact that many of these slums have now been around for many decades. Families who may have had fewer options when they initially made their homes in the slums have since risen in their financial statuses but remain in the slums either out of a sense of community or because the businesses through which they have achieved that higher status are dependent on the slums. Bottom line: although most slum dwellers live in a state of poverty that is beyond what the average Westerner will ever experience, Some of them are actually pretty well off. " (http://www. Chooseyourlifeadventure. Com/7-surprising-things-dharavi-slums-experience/)

What does this mean? This means that my opponents example of the Dharavi Slums is not an accurate analogy to his thesis.

With that out of the way I would like to present my second point. This point can be labeled as a system of incentives.

What do I mean? Underneath a Fiscal conservative economic system as I have presented there is incentive to succeed. People will want to become doctors because there is a significant monetary incentive to do that. But why are doctors paid so highly? Because they have an important job? I would actually say because they are extremely specialized and require a lot of training. This training takes time and money. Therefore their time is worth a lot more money than someone who has received little or no training such as a janitor. So I have more incentive to become a doctor than to become a janitor. Yet the beauty of the Free Market is that if everyone decides they don't want to be a janitor there will be a significant need for janitors. Everyone has their price. If janitors are in such a demand the rules of supply and demand would indicate that people would be willing to pay more for a janitor.

Yet if we parallel this system of incentives with a communist or labour system, We can see that there is no incentive to succeed in life. Even now in the U. S underneath the welfare state there is almost more incentive to not work than to work. Why? Because the government is trying to put people who are disadvantaged on an EQUAL level as those who work hard. This may seem good on the surface but when we look beneath and see the disadvantages of this system we can see that people who can get a job DON'T WANT TO. Why? Because they are getting paid by the government to do nothing. If we take this to the extreme of my opponents thesis of "if we are more equal we can live happier", What happens? In my opponents perfect world everyone makes the same amount of money for different jobs. What incentive would anyone have to become a doctor? What incentive would there be to become a mortician? Can you tell me honestly that someone would willingly say "I want to have a harder job and get payed the same as the guy flipping burgers". This may sound ridiculous but this is what would happen. Simply using the laws of human action we can determine that it wouldn't be worth it to exert more energy than we have to, To receive the same amount of reward. Now my opponent may come back and say "the government will assign people jobs". This is even worse! This would create even more envy and jealousy. A few lucky people would have easy jobs and others would work in the literal sewers. So assuming my opponents point "People kill over jealousy etc. " while my opponent wants to reduce crime he would actually be increasing it.

My third and final point is that of taxes. My opponent says. . .
"Labour would enforce laws such as reducing the gap between the rich and the poor by raising tax on someone who has over "100, 000 in their bank account "
In reality this creates even less incentive. If we tax those who make more higher than those who make less, Than what is the common reaction for those who are rich? Well first lets examine how much of the U. S taxes are ALREADY payed for by the rich.
"In 2014, The top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, Or 39. 48 percent of all income taxes, While the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, Or 29. 12 percent of all income taxes. " (https://taxfoundation. Org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/)
The rich already contribute more to society than the poor. So why should they contribute more? Instead as I mentioned earlier in my definition underneath Fiscal Conservatism that my policy reduces taxes typically. Not just for the top 1%, But for everyone. Making it easier for those of lower status to succeed in life. But this is the money that you made and why is the government taking it at all? In some places taxes get up to 65%! This is ridiculous! At this point the government is making more of your money than you are. Where was the government when you were working to earn that money?

Lastly I would like to agree with one point presented by my opponent. I would like to agree that all people should be equal. Men and Women should be equal. Black, White, Red, Purple people should all be equal. But not in the respect that my opponent believes but in that there shouldn't be a law saying that purple people are not allowed to do something while people who are say Blue can do that thing.

To conclude. INCENTIVES
Debate Round No. 1


ORKEYYY, Thanks you've changed my perspective. I live alot around my Grandma who is pro-labour so idk what to believe but was trying to go off my own mind instead of copying things she said. I'm usually good at debating just it was first time didn't know what to say was cba for proof etc.


I am SOOOOO happy that you are open to new perspectives. I encourage you to do some digging of your own and come with your own conclusion because I could totally find things that support what you are saying. Its important however to understand both sides of an argument. This is really encouraging and I hope that you continue to do research and not abandon your point of view with out at least researching yourself. Lastly, This was a lot of fun to research. Don't feel bad I am a nationally ranked debater. Lol
Debate Round No. 2


It was amazing to meet you, I'm honoured to meet such a good debater. But i know to always question things and never stick with one side permanently regardless of what happens.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Dorex, I would be happy to answer any questions you have regarding capitalism, Socialism or communism, And why people generally favor socialism, Despite its dangers.
You should know that I am a capitalist myself.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Well labor is basically the UK socialist party, They essentially want government to have more control over the people, This means you will lose certain freedoms, Including free speech.

The worse part is, Implementing socialism has many complex problems associated with it. One such issue is an increase on taxes for the rich, Sounds good at first right? Until the rich decide the taxes are too high and move to another country taking their company with them, And in turn, Their jobs.

Socialism aims to ensure the government controls private companies, This means the government has a monopoly over certain goods, Goods produced rise in price as a result of no competition. No competition also means a general decrease in quality and innovation. It is innovation that is responsible for pushing man-kind forward technologically.

I would say lastly, If using my own mind and body I create something, Why is it fair to say the government owns what I just created? It is not fair, And based on that analogy alone, Socialism is morally abhorrent.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.