The Instigator
billsands
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Socialism still has a chance

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 1 vote the winner is...
omar2345
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 952 times Debate No: 120284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)

 

billsands

Pro

In 1992 when the ussr FELL everyone thought Socialism had come and gone and been proven a terrible failure all around, And there were terrible mistakes that cost many lives, But what good idea ver works the first time? People spent centuries trying to fly and failing, Right? And then in 1969 we landed on the moon, We have jets rockets the lot. How many hands were blown off, How many heads exploded befoe they made the gun work? I ALMOST drowned learning how to swiim i gave up but my mom caled me a sissy and siad i'd never get desert again unless i learned. I did and even swam on a swim team i got awards. . It may take centuries to figure out the right way to make socialism work but i think it is inevitable, Why should 1% own 90% of the wealth. I think china and nordic nations like sweden are gradually discovering policies to incrementally put bit of socialism into market systems, It will take a long time, It won't happe over night and i think that was the problem, People wanted to build ROME in a day, It doesnt work that way Rome took centuries to build and so will a new society whether we call it socialism or progress. . Eventually we will get there we may have to take two steps forward and one step back many many times. . But eventually we must go forward
omar2345

Con

We meet again billsands. Do try and be courteous this time.

Socialism is a concept which is a government ceasing the means of production and distributing it in a way they see fit. The problems with this is that if the government control the money who will hold them accountable? A popular saying going around on both left and right circles is take money out of politics. Instead of taking money out of politics you instead give them more money to politics. Sure it would be in the form of taxes we all pay but that is a ludicrous amount. The present taxes some are well awful and others are reasonable. When a country does follow socialism everything will be taxed more than 50% even a wage. Lets say I earn 10, 000. If I was taxed 50% as a flat number for everything then I lose 5k. I can't use it for what I want and the government takes it away from me and I can't do anything about it apart from political action. This limits how free the people can be. I can't spend my money on entertainment instead I would give money to the government with no promises. It can go to increasing public hospitals or inside the pockets of the government. They made no promises when the exchange was made with taxes. Yes this is also a problem now but the less money they have the less corruption that can occur.

Basically at worst socialism would become communism. At worst with captialism corporations will be in charge. Stalin is worse than Jack Dorsey. One killed the most people in the 20th Century and other ruins people's career if they are a personality limited to Twitter. A person from that position can come back and find a regular job but under Stalin worship him like a God or die for advocating against him.

I will stick to that and rebut in the next Round.
Debate Round No. 1
billsands

Pro

Socialism exists to hold the private sector accountable, You polices the police? Is that an argument to abolish law enforcment or keep it honest?
omar2345

Con

I gave you the chance to defend socialism yet you couldn't. You provided something that does not even make a country supporting socialism. It is redistribution of wealth that the government controls.

Socialism exists to hold the private sector accountable, You polices the police?
With this pretty much any government which holds corporations accountable sponsor socialism. This is bad way to define it since pretty much every single government supports socialism. Since billsands advocated for socialism for the United States that would mean that the United States does not sponsor socialism. So basically this statement made by billsands goes against what he/she said in the first Round.

Eventually we will get there
This states that you know the United States does not sponsor socialism which goes against what I quoted from you earlier on in my argument. You should have stated socialist policies then you would be right but you didn't.

Is that an argument to abolish law enforcement or keep it honest?
Socialism, Redistribution of wealth, Started law enforcement? No they didn't. I don't think I need to prove this but I will. Just a quick Google search "in 1789 the US Marshals service was established". Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the communist manifesto in 1848. This wasn't introduced until the last third of the 19th Century. Meaning there is almost 100 year difference between when law enforcement was implemented and when socialism was used.
(History of socialism- Wikipedia) (Police- Wikipedia)

In 1992 when the ussr FELL everyone thought Socialism had come and gone and been proven a terrible failure all around, And there were terrible mistakes that cost many lives, But what good idea ver works the first time?
That is funny. Government murder is held unaccountable. No one if they control the money can do anything about it. How was government murder ever a good idea? It wasn't. The only way to stop this occurring is reduce the power the state has either reducing centralised power or increase the power states have. I would much rather have state power increased and Washington only be in charge of making the final decision. This would be accepting bills made by states and only having problems if goes against the constituion. There are problems with this but having it like this reduces power from a centralised government which does stop the abuse of power in a mass scale.
Answer me this billsands. Would you accept socialism if one condition would be Trump is in charge?

People spent centuries trying to fly and failing, Right? And then in 1969 we landed on the moon, We have jets rockets the lot. How many hands were blown off, How many heads exploded before they made the gun work
This has nothing to do with our conversation.

I ALMOST drowned learning how to swim i gave up but my mom called me a sissy and said I'd never get desert again unless i learned. I did and even swam on a swim team i got awards. .
Subjective and has nothing to do with socialism.

It may take centuries to figure out the right way to make socialism work but i think it is inevitable,
I agree with you but not anytime soon. Automation might be the breaking point or more opportunities for people to follow their dreams. I think what comes after automation would be the boiling point and will drive people to socialism. Enough to make the model in the United States. I much rather improve from our mistakes instead of making the same mistakes over and over again. That is the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing in hopes of a different outcome.
billsands what would you implement that would remove the mistakes of past socialism in countries? Do you even agree that socialism has been done and failed?

Why should 1% own 90% of the wealth.
It is more complicated than that. No one just hordes their money in there bed or anywhere in their house. They instead invest into companies and store it in a bank. Banks invest with the money and companies will improve. The problem is that they are getting richer and can use the power to take political action. That is bad and I would like firstly to be taxed then change accordingly to how much power they have. Power would be money. Guess a progressive tax. Flat tax is not enough money removed from rich people. Ten percent of one million is one hundread thousand. Ten percent of ten thousand is one thousand. Meaning the rich person still has nine-hundread thousand whereas the other person has nine thousand. The gap is still the same but now they have less money. Progressive tax I think will sort the inequality. The only problem is that rich people tax avoid. It is has gotten that serious Cuomo does not even enforce the law instead begs rich people to not to leave because how beneficial they are to the state. We need enforcement not cowards who are paid by corporations. Socialism only gives more power to politicians. That is not a good thing since power corrupts and the more power someone has the more it will corrupt.
Source: Cuomo announces income tax revenues have dropped by $2. 3b (NY Post)

I think china and Nordic nations like Sweden are gradually discovering policies to incrementally put bit of socialism into market systems, It will take a long time, It won't happen over night and i think that was the problem
Why not wait until they succeed until the United States tries it? Isn't that a simple concept? Make sure it works before we implement it.

People wanted to build ROME in a day, It doesn't work that way Rome took centuries to build and so will a new society whether we call it socialism or progress
I agree but instead of just saying socialism works. Why not understand its faults and improve said faults? No one who supports socialism can agree that abuse of power with socialism still exists. Most recent example I found was the head of the Venezuelan government firing oil workers for protesting a higher wage.
Source: It is in the comment section.
Deleting gaps should work.


Debate Round No. 2
billsands

Pro

How can somethng fail when in reality it has never really been tried? If you lived in 1789 in France and then saw France decend in to chaos and bloodshed, One would conclude that liberal democracy was a horrible idea and would never work. But it was attempted again and again, Lots of failures and a few success stories, Yet in thee world today the dominant and most successfull form of government is constitutional liberal democracy through either republics or constituional monarchies no one ever thought it would work, And there are still many problems but look at the progresss we have made, And I think Socialism will work the same way, Eventually we will try and try, Insanity is doing the same thng over and over and expecting different results, So we will try different policies, Tilwe find the ones that work like western european democratic socialsim
omar2345

Con

How can somethng fail when in reality it has never really been tried?
Guess you are going for the most ludicrous stance. It has been tried in China and Sweden. If you meant in the US then I would wait until they vote someone in to make that happen. If this was meant to be why not try socialism? I would say why not have laissez faire capitalism?

If you lived in 1789 in France and then saw France decend in to chaos and bloodshed, One would conclude that liberal democracy was a horrible idea and would never work.
Do you even know what happened? French people started a revolution to overthrow the monarchy. A monarchy is not democractic instead it based on values that the Religion holds.

But it was attempted again and again, Lots of failures and a few success stories, Yet in thee world today the dominant and most successfull form of government is constitutional liberal democracy through either republics or constituional monarchies no one ever thought it would work
Provided no examples of it failing instead just state it as if I had the evidence. I will move on from this point.

And there are still many problems but look at the progresss we have made, And I think Socialism will work the same way
No it won't. Socialism will change radically so that it can ever work to bring people the best model to govern with.

Eventually we will try and try
You can't even admit that it was even tried so I don't see how you would accept its failure and then say this is the first try socialism when it does work.

Insanity is doing the same thng over and over and expecting different results, So we will try different policies, Tilwe find the ones that work like western european democratic socialsim
At least you agree with me on the insanity. The thing is to know your mistakes you have to acknowledge. I hardly seen anyone acknowledge the mistakes of socialism instead blame on other factors like capitalism. Socialism as it is being tested in the present is the definition of insanity due to no one admitting to the faults and even trying to improve it. Lets take the democractic party. Kamala Harris cannot even think of a percentage to tax people. Bernie Sanders will be again stopped by the DNC. Ocasio-Cortez is an awful congresswoman who has a green new deal. That has stuff about races and paying people who are unwilling to work. Not as in unable unwilling. Meaning the person is able to work but just refuses and Cortez thinks they should be given an income sort of like a universal income. What democrats I see trying to run for office is that they do not know how to make it happen. They cannot enforce taxation, Don't even think money is a problem and think they can make a Green New Deal happen without money.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@EverlastingMoment

Thank you. I would accept your debate but lack the information to make a really good case against. Sorry learnt my lesson the last time.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Why should 1% own 90% of the wealth.
It is more complicated than that. No one just hordes their money in there bed or anywhere in their house. They instead invest into companies and store it in a bank. Banks invest with the money and companies will improve. The problem is that they are getting richer and can use the power to take political action. That is bad and I would like firstly to be taxed then change accordingly to how much power they have. Power would be money. Guess a progressive tax. Flat tax is not enough money removed from rich people. Ten percent of one million is one hundread thousand. Ten percent of ten thousand is one thousand. Meaning the rich person still has nine-hundread thousand whereas the other person has nine thousand. The gap is still the same but now they have less money. Progressive tax I think will sort the inequality. The only problem is that rich people tax avoid. It is has gotten that serious Cuomo does not even enforce the law instead begs rich people to not to leave because how beneficial they are to the state. We need enforcement not cowards who are paid by corporations. Socialism only gives more power to politicians. That is not a good thing since power corrupts and the more power someone has the more it will corrupt.
Source: Cuomo announces income tax revenues have dropped by $2. 3b (NY Post)
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
ten percent of one million is one hundread thousand. Ten percent of ten thousand is one thousand. Meaning the rich person still has nine-hundread thousand whereas the other person has nine thousand.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
It may take centuries to figure out the right way to make socialism work but i think it is inevitable,
I agree with you but not anytime soon. Automation might be the breaking point or more opportunities for people to follow their dreams. I think what comes after automation would be the boiling point and will drive people to socialism. Enough to make the model in the United States. I much rather improve from our mistakes instead of making the same mistakes over and over again. That is the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing in hopes of a different outcome.
billsands what would you implement that would remove the mistakes of past socialism in countries? Do you even agree that socialism has been done and failed?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
In 1992 when the ussr FELL everyone thought Socialism had come and gone and been proven a terrible failure all around, And there were terrible mistakes that cost many lives, But what good idea ver works the first time?
That is funny. Government murder is held unaccountable. No one if they control the money can do anything about it. How was government murder ever a good idea? It wasn't. The only way to stop this occurring is reduce the power the state has either reducing centralised power or increase the power states have. I would much rather have state power increased and Washington only be in charge of making the final decision. This would be accepting bills made by states and only having problems if goes against the constituion. There are problems with this but having it like this reduces power from a centralised government which does stop the abuse of power in a mass scale.
Answer me this billsands. Would you accept socialism if one condition would be Trump is in charge?

People spent centuries trying to fly and failing, Right? And then in 1969 we landed on the moon, We have jets rockets the lot. How many hands were blown off, How many heads exploded before they made the gun work
This has nothing to do with our conversation.

I ALMOST drowned learning how to swim i gave up but my mom called me a sissy and said I'd never get desert again unless i learned. I did and even swam on a swim team i got awards. .
Subjective and has nothing to do with socialism.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Argument doesn't post so I am trying to see what the problem is.

I gave you the chance to defend socialism yet you couldn't. You provided something that does not even make a country supporting socialism. It is redistribution of wealth that the government controls.

Socialism exists to hold the private sector accountable, You polices the police?
With this pretty much any government which holds corporations accountable sponsor socialism. This is bad way to define it since pretty much every single government supports socialism. Since billsands advocated for socialism for the United States that would mean that the United States does not sponsor socialism. So basically this statement made by billsands goes against what he/she said in the first Round.

Eventually we will get there
This states that you know the United States does not sponsor socialism which goes against what I quoted from you earlier on in my argument. You should have stated socialist policies then you would be right but you didn't.

Is that an argument to abolish law enforcement or keep it honest?
Socialism, Redistribution of wealth, Started law enforcement? No they didn't. I don't think I need to prove this but I will. Just a quick Google search "in 1789 the US Marshals service was established". Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the communist manifesto in 1848. This wasn't introduced until the last third of the 19th Century. Meaning there is almost 100 year difference between when law enforcement was implemented and when socialism was used.
(History of socialism- Wikipedia) (Police- Wikipedia)
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
he tracker, Which takes an average of the last eight polls, Put Mr Trump's approval rating at 41. 6 per cent, While 54. 8 per cent disapprove of the way the President is doing his job.

Despite the recent slide, The President's approval ratings have remained relatively stable during the past year.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
to say socialism exists because the average person isa moron is a bit simplistic, But in my opinion he or she is and needs help also the big and strong tend to exploit the small and weak, Government exists top protect the sheep from the wolves
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@killshot

Basically socialism is saying you are too stupid to use your money properly and you would accept an agreement where we as the government promise you nothing. Sure they can say a lot but they have all the power to not do it. What can people do when most of the value is in the possession of the government?

Best example is when the head of the Venezulan government fired the oil workers.
Clear abuse of power and left them jobless for protesting for higher pay.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=43nB2nTnTMQ

Delete the gaps and the link should work.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@omar I totally agree, Well said!

I'd also add (in addition to what you said) that we have never had a large scale successful switch from one form of government to another. So unless we're creating a new government, Switching from one to another imposes even more problems than just starting one using a particular regime.

I agree with you, I like spending my money how I choose. #capitalism
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
billsandsomar2345Tied
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 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: Firstly, just to lay my own criteria as a voter I expected the following : Pro - 1 ) To give me a pragmatic outlook on the effectiveness of a socialist system in a country he sees fit as an example. 2 ) To explain to me substantially that socialism is on balance going to be more effective than capitalism and other forms of governance to be applicable. Con - 1 ) Vise versa, the opposite. To explain the fatal flaw of socialism beyond reasonable doubt that it would never be applicable today. 2) To fulfill his burden of proof by refuting every point of Pros. Clearly from what I've seen Pro did not bring up a substantial case and (as Con pointed out) a lot of his arguments are more subjectively based to unrelated issues which have no merit in proving the effectiveness of socialism. In addition, saying that socialism will eventually work without evidence is too blindly hopeful and doesn't convince the voter. Therefore, I feel that Con adequately succeeded in his burden.

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