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

the bigger the government is the better life is for people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 120712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




High taxes on the rich, Free health care and free education, Subsidized housing and food programs, Lots and lot of welfare for families old people disabled and the poor, It might not be socialism, Or maybe you think that is socialism, But i would keep a market economy and have the government decide who gets what like the nordic nations and systems, Welfarism, Socialism, Whatever, Call it what you will, Its progressive capitalism how about that? Whatever you want to call that system they use in the nordic model, Thats the model for me! Itworks for those peole why wouldn't it work here? Why?


Ultimately do people have the will to behave in the way that that Pro wants them to behave.
Maybe that is the stark difference between the Nordic and other models.
That is to say that maybe what Pro desires can only be achieved through national re-education rather than any amount of government intervention.
Or maybe Nordic will is primarily a genetic or an inherent trait and only transferable through genetic transfer.

Another comparison to look at would be population:
U. S. A 330 million
Norway 6million
Sweden 10million
Finland 5. 5million
Iceland 350 thousand.
Notwithstanding the greater investment required for National infrastructure and management. Population wealth disparity also significantly increases relative to increase in population. That is to say; the greater the population the higher the ratio of lower achievers to higher achievers. Therefore the social burden is bound to be greater in the U. S. A when compared to Norway for example.

I would suggest that the "Nordic Model" is not easily transferable to larger systems.

"The bigger the government is, The better life is for people".
I fail to see a direct correlation between government size and quality of life.
Isn't a leviathan government more likely to be overburdened by administration than it is to be efficient?
And doesn't the cost of over-administration significantly increase the burden on an already overstretched fiscal budget?
Debate Round No. 1


Germany has a population of 80 million a fine standard of living univeral health care and one of the highest quaiities of life, I would contend that this does indicarte that nordic social democratic policy can be translated to a significantly larger population, And also poimnt out that nations using this model have the best quality of life if you google quality of life indexes for world nations. Also if you loo at the cato index of freedom all these nations score high for individual freedom and surprising well on economic freedom indices.



So Pro has ditched the Nordic Model and now gone for a Germanic Model.

Nonetheless I would refer my opponent to the information I presented previously.

Social attitude and population size are still key issues.

And Pro has still not explained the correlation between government size and quality of life in openly democratic countries.
Debate Round No. 2


i have not ditched anything the nordic model and rhineland capitalism are actually very similar, You wanted a larger population base i was giving you an example of such


I gave Pro clear and obvious examples of why the Nordic Model couldn't be easily transferred to the U. S. A.
And Pro made no attempt whatsoever to address these issues. Pro simply attempted to ineffectively shift the goal posts.

Similarly Pro has made no attempt to address their key proposition. "The bigger the government is the better life is for people".

Pro's debating technique is somewhat inert.

I am therefore unable to effectively respond further.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by imAnonymous 3 years ago
Big government vs small government. . . It's all about having just the right amount.

Examples of too-big governments include North Korea, China, And Venezuela (note that all of these governments are authoritarian; communism and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive, But closely linked).

Examples of too-small governments include the United States.

The EU generally has bigger governments than the US. Asia tends to have more authoritarian governments than the US (Russia, China; I'm saying that Russia is a part of Asia).

Authoritarians usually have a command economy, As it isn't feasible to give people any economic freedom. Command economies are more likely to grow corrupted, Stagnate, And deteriorate into dictatorships, Making a command economy spell doom - Stalin became a dictator, And Winnie the Pooh will soon do so as well.

However, This is an extreme that Republicans generally use against the left.

A larger government has pros and cons over a smaller government:
Pros: More aid to people who need it, And a decline in poverty
Cons: More taxes, Less economic growth

A small government will allow higher economic growth, But at the bottom, More people will die and live in poverty. A smaller government can lead to prosperity; A too-big government will stifle it, Throwing the nation into a dark age.

A big government has less prosperity, But shares that prosperity across everybody. Big governments, Especially when tasks are delegated to 50 different states for management, In the US's case(We can let the states manage bureaucracy), Can make sure everybody gets an opportunity to succeed - even though they decrease opportunity.

In some cases, When the government is too big, A smaller government is better, As it prevents stagnation and famine.

In some cases, When the government is too small, A bigger government is better, As it prevents more intense poverty and famine.
Finding the sweet spot in the middle is key - the answer depen
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed the problem with the debate "Pro's debating technique is somewhat inert. I am therefore unable to effectively respond further."

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