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


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: 9/22/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 118348
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I will let Pro start


Socialism is an excellent theory, The only problem is human nature isn't compatible with such a system, As humans always tend naturally towards hierarchical separation.
Conversely, Capitalism although an inherently unfair system particularly with regard to the distribution of wealth and resources, Tends to be the order we naturally fall into.

Socialism per se is good.
Debate Round No. 1


How can socialism be good if it does not work anywhere? Every time it has been implemented it has either resulted in the deaths of millions of people or complete and utter economic collapse.

Aside from that, I would like to challenge your view on capitalism because Capitalism is the most fair economic system ever came up with. I'm sure your convictions lie in the fact 99% of the country's wealth lies in the top 1% and more wealth inequality facts. The reason that fact is effective to people is that it is such a sharp difference that everyone says it is bad, But what is actually wrong with wealth inequality? Seriously, I don't know.

From what I see, It is not like the 1% are stealing money from other people. Bill gates didn't force anyone to buy Microsoft to get rich, People chose to give them money. That is how it is with people who are very financially well off. They do not make their money by receiving someone else's rightfully owned money, They provide people services that they want.

In the same respect, I believe that if you work hard and either become a successful entrepreneur, A highly trained doctor, Or a CEO somewhere, You deserve to make more than the trash guy, The janitor, Or the kindergarten teacher, And that is how capitalism works.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate you


Your proposition only stated that you were against socialism and nothing else.

As I clearly stated. "Socialism is an excellent theory". The emphasis being on the word theory.
That is to say, In thought socialism is almost a utopia, But in practice socialism does not work.

The so called socialist regimes that you alluded to, Were socialist in name only, In reality they were nothing more than authoritarian dictatorships.

Expanding this debate any further would be straying from the original premise. Nonetheless I find it very interesting that your appreciation of capitalism is based solely on money. This being the case, Which of the following statements would you say is correct.

The Earth has a society of 7. 5 billion individual human beings.
The Earth has one society of 7. 5 billion people.

One final thought.
If you are opposed to theoretical socialism, Does that make you intrinsically anti-social?
Debate Round No. 2



Let's establish the definition of Socialism via Merriam-Webster [Source 1] before going any further.

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the
means of production and distribution of goods
2. A: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal
distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Yes I did focus on the Capitalist argument, But that had a purpose because I was addressing the third prong of the definition "unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done". Usually people argue that Socialism is moral by highlighting the wealth inequality that lies within Capitalism which is what I assumed you were doing when you said that Capitalism was "an inherently unfair system particularly with regard to the distribution of wealth and resources". I was just dismissing the notion that Socialism is moral.

Socialism does lead to Economic collapse; just look at Venezuela, The richest country in South America turned poorest country. As far as the authoritarian dictatorships, It was not socialism directly, Yes; however, It was the result of Socialism, Which makes Socialism responsible.

Vladimir Lenin once said:
"The goal of Socialism is Communism" [Source 2]

The earth is a society of 7. 5 billion individual human beings.

This does not make me intrinsically anti-social or against society in any fashion; it makes me individualistic. If we were just one collectivist society, One thing is for sure. You, Sonofcharl, Are pretty much useless. I, Jsgraz, Am pretty much useless.
Everybody is, In their own, Useless.

Let us also not forget that not only are we putting the collective over the individual, But we are also putting the abstract, Collective over the concrete. The moment where we put some concept over the individual is the moment where ideas become a sort of tyranny, And the most notable example of this is the idea of putting the government above all else which is essentially communism. Even Vladimir Lenin admits the purpose of this ideology when he said: "The goal of Socialism is Communism" [Source 2].

It is also notable that many of the world's greatest inventions would have never been invented because entrepreneurs are by nature individualistic

Source 1:
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/socialism
Source 2:
https://www. Brainyquote. Com/quotes/vladimir_lenin_136421


Hello again and well done. Good argument and well presented.

From the outset this was always going to be a difficult one. Simply because any attempt at socialism always rapidly collapses into authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter how brutal the governing regime or how open to subjugation a populace may be.

I therefore rest on the assertion that true socialism only exists in theory as human nature does not allow socialism to work in practice.

Of course capitalism works in practice for the very same reason. That is to say we are all aware of the limits of our qualities and abilities. Ultimately and basically all we need is to be allowed to survive in a respectable level of comfort, The excessive trappings of a capitalist society are in reality unnecessary when all is said and done.

Nonetheless capitalist systems still rely on a certain level of authority and therefore subjugation in order to function successfully and as I think we have already agreed capitalism also necessitates an unequal distribution of wealth and resources in order to maintain it's hierarchical structure or as a consequence it's hierarchical structure. In this respect capitalism is without doubt inherently and unavoidably unfair.

I therefore hold that if we regard both systems as theoretical propositions. Socialism would appear to be far better than capitalism.
Debate Round No. 3



The idea that Capitalism is inherently or by nature 'bad' (I disagree and would debate you about this) does not mean that Socialism is inherently good.

I would like to thank you and express my appreciation for your intellectual honesty. Many people argue that socialism is a good solution even though it has been tried and has failed a multitude of times, But I am not just arguing that it is a bad idea in practice. The idea of forced equality is an idea that should be regarded as far from good or just. Socialism not only functions on the premise that everyone should be regarded as a collective; it also maintains that people should be forced to be equal regardless of your background. I am merely arguing that Socialism is a poor concept in practice AND in theory.

There be no moral train of thought that regards the idea of equality of opportunity as even a question; however, Socialism considers equal opportunity wrong and takes it a step further touting the equality of outcome. Morality functions on the basis of righteousness, And how is it righteous to hold someone back from their definition of success? Who are you to mandate that one can not earn his or her wage allotted by the curves of supply and demand? If one goes to college for 8 years to become a doctor, They do not deserve to have most of their wages taken away by some higher authority for the purposes of 'fairness' so that it can be given to the one who does not even graduate high school because of a lack of effort. Socialist ideology functions on the idea that any form of inequality is inherently bad even if it is ordained by the individual themselves. That said, Is it moral to pickpocket $5000 from some guy on the street just because I am going to college and do not have that much money? If you are a true believer in Socialism the answer would be yes. It does not matter if he already went to college, Worked hard, Got a nice job, And worked overtime in order to afford a vacation for his family. When it comes down to it, He has more money than I do, And that is not fair.

Let us remind ourselves, Socialism is the idea that the collective should always be put over the individual, The idea that nobody should own anything, The idea that inequality (even if it is a result of someone's work ethic) is intrinsically evil, The idea that individuals should not have the opportunity to get what they want out of their lives. I do not know about you, But I want to mean something as an individual, I want to have to control over my life's directions, I want to get what I deserve, Not what is 'fair'; I want the freedom to fail, And I want the freedom to succeed; but most importantly, I do not want, I earn because personal responsibility trumps any degree of desire no matter the severity of inequality.

I rest my case. Good luck, My friend.



Once again I will congratulate you on the quality and presentation of your argument.

I think it fair to say that we are in agreement really. We are both fully aware of the reality of the human condition and how humans tend to naturally function within social groupings.

Nonetheless, Because of the manner in which the proposition was presented I felt confident that I could offer a reasonable argument in support of socialism, Based entirely on socialism being regarded as nothing other than a theoretical concept.

In discussions such as this one, What we are actually presenting is an academic and therefore detached assessment of the human condition and how humans may or may not or perhaps more appropriately could or could not function in social groupings. In these circumstances it is very easy to apply different labels to alternative conceptual constructs, But of course in reality everything will always stay the same. That is to say, Dominance and subjugation are intrinsic to all societies no matter how liberally or rigidly authority is applied.

I therefore maintain my assertion that if we compare socialism and capitalism academically and therefore only as theoretical possibilities, It is very easy to conclude that socialism would undeniably by the preferable but alas unworkable option.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Socialism sucks together with Big Brother. This homo style of government ewwwwwwwwwwww.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Socialism is such that it cannot be enforced and for that reason socialism will always immediately fail.
As I stated socialism can never be anything other than a theoretical utopia.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
I skim read the debate and would say Jsgraz won, Can't be bothered to do a RFD yet so might vote later.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Being anti-socialism is not the same as being anti-social.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
"The so called socialist regimes that you alluded to, Were socialist in name only, In reality they were nothing more than authoritarian dictatorships. "

How do you think one enforces socialism? Certainly through the death of millions of people, Most effectively enforced by a dictatorship. Those that die are normally the people who believe the government should not own what their mind and body has created.
Saying socialism works in theory it just hasn't be applied properly, Is the same as saying a dictatorship works in theory, You just need a good dictator.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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