Instigator / Pro
2
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#1101

Will more socialization benefit society?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Wylted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description

Pro: Benefit

Con: Harmful

Due to the nature of this topic, I do not have to prove why anything is moral, You have to prove to me why it is immoral. I will be providing a few reasons why more socialization would be moral however the BoP rests mostly on pro. However, before we begin I would like to define Socialism and the Redistribution of wealth.

Socialism: A state at which they redistribute wealth which is used for the collective good.

Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism.

Tiwaz is banned from participating in this debate due to him continually pulling red herrings, dodging questions and points, and attempting to character assassinate several people.

If he accepts he completely forfeits the debate.

Nevermind, I guess I can delete my own vote lol.

I have flagged my vote. Please delete my vote. I accidentally pressed the submit button before I was done writing the RFD.

-->
@Barney

I know that vote took a lot of time and effort. Thank you.

-->
@Wylted
@Pinkfreud08

---RFD (1 of 6) ... Incidentally, each post can hold up to 2000 characters. ---

Interpreting the resolution:
This debate changed titles again and again, but this final one they settled on looks vague enough to get the general intent across. Pro wins if the debate shows an increase in Socialism type polices (X) would have greater benefit than harm (Y), con otherwise (not Y).

Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.

1. Q&A
Pro believes that con’s political beliefs determine if more socialism would be good or bad, con insists this is off topic... I am going to agree with con here, as much as a debate could be had on if libertarian beliefs contain socialist policies or whatever, here it’s just fodder for tu quoque fallacies. ... And they happen way later in the debate and keep coming back: “logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical” +1000 maybe 2000? Characters more I am just skipping.

2.1 Universal Healthcare
Affordability: The end of pro’s R1 on this was weird, since con did not raise the challenge on that, nothing can be “debunked.” Anyway, pro shows a small cost decrease. Con briefly addresses this inside one of his points, unduly twisting pro’s words into that cost decrease being the creation of the cost (off topic: reminds me of AOC vs Amazon), pro then moves the goalpost by claiming different numbers than earlier (a disappearing $0.35 trillion is a lot), while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.
Univ.: Pro claims longer life expectancy (and cites a support point for the affordability angle, which really should have been under the affordability heading).
Quality: Some apples to oranges comparisons,

2.2 Universal Healthcare continued later...
Life Expectancy (fat): Con, your source on diet says 36.2%, which rounds to 36%, not 37%. As I corrected pro, “while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.” ... Anyway this ended up being a good contention just on entertainment value (note to all debaters: give us judges a reason to continue!). ... “This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.” This is a pet peeve of mine, but don’t complain about how horrible something is, just show it. A lot of replies here fell flat due to the source giving the index, and pro citing Germany as a counter example which does not even make it onto the top ten...
Deaths: Best use of a source I have seen in a long time. Con brings up more deaths would happen due to wait times, as apparently happened in Canada. He also mentions an alternate plan, which I’m not the biggest fan of (imaginary worlds where shit works out that way...), but other potential voters will no doubt eat up. Pro counters that Canada is not a good example, but as they’re culturally the best match for us I do not buy that; more so since this did not change the numbers (even while lowering the confidence; that leads to a lower expected increased mortality rate, not the absence of one as was asserted back in R1). ... So got to say it, pro could have gained some ground here with inverting the meaning of the death rate, as we’d have a lower carrying cost and higher average quality of life with these people dead (awful I know, but this would be logically valid and consistent with statistical arguments raised by con).

3. lower standard of living
P1: I rather like this opening, as it makes the judges feel involved via their common knowledge of places like Venezuela... It then dragged on and on, repeatedly with a sole source making itself highly vulnerable (all the eggs in one basket). Con’s counter was decent but needed to be expanded and perhaps cite examples from the source for the socialist well to do counties. On his trade comment, he hints at the best argument he could make (that there’s a golden level of socialist policies which would be better, before tipping into tyranny) but does not actually make the point. Con next drops the point claiming “statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong” missing the fact that they feed each other; if the evidence is true (or unchallenged) then I have little reason to doubt the conclusion drawn by the evidence, even if there was some small challenge to said conclusion. “If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t [socialistic]” an example here would have been fantastic.

P2: This would have benefited from subheadings to clarify that the contention had not shifted with each... Also, sources would have been good here, but the assertions (such as the negative aspect of the FDA) were strong, but pro did a good counter to this bit with “please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.” The main counter on this area again depended on counties, but con did a very good job naming examples which could then be easily cross referenced within the sources, pro basically just asserted that it’s wrong. On the healthcare plan, it really should have been stand alone and direct rebuttal to pro, rather than buried in here and somewhat easy to overlook as a directed reply.
C1: It follows.

4. Definition supplement
Since they are not conflicting, I haven’t a clue why this is a point of contention.

5. Lens (this was part of a later reply to healthcare, but it’s important...)
“It is quite possible for a socialist type policy to have benefits in the sector of society it is applied to, but still be bad for society as a whole.” This right here should have been the opening to the debate.

6. Nickolas Cage
This was so entertaining it deserves an extra highlight: “Number of drownings in a swimming pool per year is directly correlated with the amount of films Nicolas Cage has starred in.”

7. The VA
Pro could have made some good gains here, as con raises “Socialized medicine already exists in America in the form of the VA” which is actually a good system. Of course, with this claim unchallenged by pro, con successfully bolsters case with it.

---

Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Overall the healthcare point was a near tie, but quality of life point goes firmly to con; pro intentionally not refuting the evidence on it is what did him in.

Sources: Con
So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214

S&G: tied
At the very least reuse existing organizational headings if they’ve been introduced... Also to quote my guide: “Whatever style you use, be consistent within any single debate.”

Conduct: Con
Pro, never open a debate with Ad Hominems (even when they seem warranted). They were not that bad, but they needlessly distract from the topic.
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “ <- Putting things inside quotation makes if the person did not say them is very much unacceptable.
“intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.” Poor arguments are not poor conduct.
“...a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.” You have my sympathy, but conduct is not given for pity (the proximity of the request is the problem here).
Got to thank con for pointing out he authorized the character count violation (sources posted elsewhere), I otherwise would have included it as a deduction against conduct and sources.
If there was any doubt, the questions contention sealed the deal, as pro was explicitly warned on this multiple times but still did the off topic attacks.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Do you mind looking at and voting on this debate please

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I've been using syllogisms to display my logic lately, so here it is.

P1- Omar's RFD was so bad he is literally Retarded, or it is intentionally biaseed.

P2- It is rude to consider him retarded

C1- Omar is intentionally biased

-->
@Wylted

I mean what type of bias like friend bias or political bias?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I don't think you tried to bias him. I assume you are honorable. He just lacks the integrity to be unbiased, You did nothing wrong

-->
@Wylted

I mean can you prove Omar voted for me out of bias? If you want just to confirm his innocence I can send you a screen cap of me messaging him about voting and the following messages. I'll have to blotch out a few names for privacy reasons.

-->
@Wylted

Oh aright makes sense

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Accidental tag. I am an idiot, meant to tag omar

-->
@Wylted

I am unable to find the post I was tagged in, what were you saying? Sorry.

-->
@Wylted

Lol no problem

-->
@Speedrace

Thanks fellow black man

-->
@Wylted

I gotchu

-->
@Athias

Can I get a vote on this debate as a fellow black guy

-->
@Vader

Can you take a look at this please. I am running out of people to ask. If you have any suggestions I will tag them here

-->
@Wylted

That is a lot of words, but sure. Give me a few days to read through it and I can offer my vote.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Just vote fairly and you don't have to take those extremes

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu

To Virtuoso and Ramshutu,

Can you tell bsh1 to check my vote?

To bsh1,

Can you vote?

-->
@Wylted

I flagged my own vote and will ask bsh1 to vote on it. Is that okay or are you going to keep messaging me?

Actually bsh1, why don't you just vote on the debate so he can see how it is correctly done

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Why are you putting on this show. Why are you asking for evidence you cheated and intentionally used bias, when you know you did. I just can't figure out if the bias is because you dislike me or like pinkfreud or if the intentional bias is because of your political bias.

-->
@bsh1

Am I meeting your voting criteria here:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1789

Wylted keeps complaining and not adding anything constructive so I much rather see what you say instead of Wylted parroting from what you typed.

-->
@Wylted

>>You know you have not followed the guide on voting.

I just skimmed it and me specifically targeting the fundamentals is not against. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you with this so I'll tag bsh1 after this.

>>Why do you want proof you intentionally used bias to rationalize your vote? It is like me asking you for proof I have a dick. I know I have a dick, I don't need evidence.

So my "bias" is the same as you having a dick? This is clearly false. Bias can be measured in various different ways which can lead to various different conclusions. A dick is a dick. You have yet to prove my "bias" and your failure goes to show you are making this up. If you did you wouldn't be comparing this to your dick instead stating what I want or maybe you can't actually prove it.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You know you have not followed the guide on voting.

Why do you want proof you intentionally used bias to rationalize your vote? It is like me asking you for proof I have a dick. I know I have a dick, I don't need evidence.

-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

Dick, Disciple, can you place a fair unbiased vote on this please if you have the time and inclination anyway

-->
@Wylted

>>Did you noticed after our debate I had no hard feelings and voted correctly in one of your debates. Why are you voting incorrectly in mine?

Was that the full forfeit debate?
Come back to me when you vote for me in a debate that wasn't based on a full forfeit.

-->
@Wylted

I skimmed through the voting guide and it mentions nothing about me deciding the vote on fundamentals. It does however speak about biases. You haven't shown how I was biased.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Did you noticed after our debate I had no hard feelings and voted correctly in one of your debates. Why are you voting incorrectly in mine?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Because it is using your own knowledge of what "fundamentals are and not in the spirit of Tabula Rasa voting style. Reread the voting guidelines bsh1 published and the ones I put in my debate with you.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I accidentally responded to wrong person. Read my last response, and I don't need proof of something obvious. It is like you asking me for proof the sun will come up tommorrow, you are not that dumb to think it isn't clear to everyone how biased that vote was. Proof of the bias is that you would have to have an IQ below 85 to even think the reasoning you used is sensible

-->
@Wylted

>>This sentence is nonsensical. Fundamentals (whatever that means) is not something for you to judge

Why not?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

"False dichotomy mixed in with false information. I was voting based on the core arguments. If both of your fundamentals are bad then what do I have to work with?"

This sentence is nonsensical. Fundamentals (whatever that means) is not something for you to judge, that is something established in debate, you are not approacing this from a Tabula Rasa angle

-->
@TheRealNihilist

That is not the correct way to judge the arguments. The Miscellanous forum has some guides for how you properly vote on this site. The guides I provided in my debate against you go into more detail than the ones our head mod created in the misc. forum but they are in agreement with how votes should be weighed here

-->
@Wylted

>>You cheated to give your friend the win.

Proof?

>>You ignored my statistics that showed universal healthcare costs more deaths, you did not judge my arguments based on his rebuttals but your own. This is intentional cheating on behalf of your friend and there is no way in hell your IQ is so low that you believe the reasoning you gave in your vote

False dichotomy mixed in with false information. I was voting based on the core arguments. If both of your fundamentals are bad then what do I have to work with?

-->
@King_8

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con

>Reason for Decision: Reason:
Bite my shiny metal ass. Returning the favor since Pinkfreud started this FIRST. If my votes get deleted, then his votes need to be deleted as well, then this will hopefully be an end to this and he learns his lesson.
Proof:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049

Reason for Mod Action> Revenge votes are absolutely unacceptable and completely disallowed.
*******************************************************************

-->
@Wylted

"What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite."

I am meant to critiquing the arguments. Am I the voter or not?

I had like 10 studies bookmarked that prove that where a studies funding comes from is not proof of bias and that bias from funding is extremely rare. How a think tank interprets data may be incorrect but the think tank usually has good methods for the studies they fund

-->
@Barney

I was trying to bait him into an argument about the credibility of the source, but he never bit.

You cheated to give your friend the win. You ignored my statistics that showed universal healthcare costs more deaths, you did not judge my arguments based on his rebuttals but your own. This is intentional cheating on behalf of your friend and there is no way in hell your IQ is so low that you believe the reasoning you gave in your vote

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Don't play stupid. You literally stated the following which all came from you and not from my opponent "What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite."

-->
@Wylted
@Pinkfreud08

tiny.cc/DebateArt

After just skimming R1, I feel the immediate need to give advice on sourcing...

Pro: Connect your sources to the places they are used, either as links inside your arguments, or as URLs (or numbers tied to a list at the end) right after. ... Where you bolded the names of sources would be a perfect place to put the links.
The entirety of https://www.washingtonpost.com/ is not a valid source. You've been debating long enough that you've probably faced someone saying 'Google it' as their evidence, while you're not this bad, it's the same type of blunder to not be repeated.
Another thing, some users will disagree with me on this, but I suggest being up front when recycling your own arguments.

Con: I usually say use less sources, but in this case more is a good thing. You're a bit of a one trick pony, using a website that outright takes pride in their bias... A small variety of websites, may technically be a band wagon appeal, but adds an air of credibility. Plus their name is just awful.

-->
@Wylted

>>This is obviously an incorrect vote please do not decide a winner until you have weighed the arguments and don't vote based on how well you like each contestant.

Quote would do well in helping me understand where you think I did the thing you are stating I did.
Report me and see what the moderators think.

-->
@Barney

I'm aware. This would take me about 2 hours to vote on, which is why I only vote on one long debate per week. I just feel like my votes never outweigh the incompetent people's who outnumber competent voters such as you, myself, whiteflam and orogami about 4 to 1. They outnumbered us on DDO too but atleast we were more active their to make up for it