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
Tags
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Alright finally got an opponent!
- Looks at their profile -
Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...
Well, whatever I'll do my best and I hope my opponent doesn't troll this debate.
Then again me saying that will probably make him want to do it more but whatever, let's begin!
QUESTIONS:
Before we begin I understand my opponent is a libertarian however I want specifics.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
These questions will be important for the next round.
Let's begin with too socialistic policies that would benefit the USA.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
Affordability:
- One of the major arguments I hear against national healthcare is it would cost Trillions every year and would bankrupt America, While this is true it is a very one-sided argument and here's why. According to the Washington Post, Bernie's healthcare plan would cost 7. 35 trillion yearly, While private healthcare would cost 7. 7 Trillion yearly. It is very obvious that national healthcare would actually be cheaper than privatized healthcare. Therefore the affordability argument is debunked.
Universality:
- By the US implementing a national healthcare model, ALL Americans rich and poor alike would have access to healthcare. This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy, Better worker productivity, And an overall boost to happiness in America. This would also reduce the number of people going bankrupt in the US, According to the commonwealth fund, " 41 percent of working-age Americans" or 72 million people "have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt, Up from 34 percent in 2005. " Very clearly many Americans are struggling with paying off health care debt, And by the US instituting national healthcare, This would alleviate that stress.
Quality:
- By far the most common argument I've heard against national healthcare is the wait times and the overall downturn in quality it brings. This is quite simply a baseless accusation that is not backed up by statistics at all. The US according to healthsystemtracker.org and Business insider, Wasn't even in the top 10 in life expectancy compared to it's higher counterparts with universal healthcare such as Japan, Switzerland, And Australia.
- Statistically, 45,000 people die from our privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to a monthly 9/11.
- An argument I heard in the last debate was that the US has the best doctors in the world, therefore private healthcare is bad. Statistically, this is sorta true as according to countrydetail.com in 2016, the US only ranked #1 right behind Germany which has a mixed healthcare system. Besides other countries with national healthcare still rank high on the list, Norway, Canada, and Japan all have great doctors according to this list.
- Another common argument against the quality of national healthcare is the wait times in these countries. This is true for countries such as Canada, However, This is mostly for specialists and surgeries which of course are going to have longer wait times. The only reason the US doesn't have these long wait times is simply that less and fewer people have access to healthcare in the first place. However, Two countries with mixed systems do perform just as well as the United States does, So this seems to indicate that a private healthcare system is not necessary for short specialist wait times. Ask yourself what is more important, Wait times? Or the thousands of people who die due to not affording healthcare and the millions going bankrupt due to healthcare? Plus statistically according too, countries with mixed healthcare such as Germany and Switzerland have around the same wait times as the US does, what this means is that privatized healthcare doesn't automatically equal too faster wait times.
This is just one example of what a more socialistic economy would benefit society.
Once my opponent answers the questions I will bring up other examples such as education, collective bargaining, and heavier redistribution however I simply want to see what my opponent's stances are so that I don't waste time.
Anyways here are my sources for the universal healthcare portion,
Con
#2
Framework
Pro has a hard time making clear resolutions. Wish to remedy that. The 200 comments to the debate has made what Pro wants to debate very clear. He offered a simple descriptive definition of socialism. The definition can apply to a lot of things that nobody would consider socialism, so here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it.
Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone curious answers are in the comments.
I will be using the following structure to make this debate flow easier.
R1- Main Arguments
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Arguments
The reason for the logical syllogisms is because it helps opponents who have a hard time systematically organizing their thoughts. When I do rebuttals, I will also try to help judges organize my opponents sporadic thoughts by organizing them into simple syllogisms.
Premise 1- economic freedom causes a higher standard of living.
Premise 2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
Contention 1- socialist policies are responsible for a lower standard of living.
P1 Economic Freedom Causes a Higher Standard of Living
Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economically) such as Australia, New Zealand and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Even without any of the following details, it should be obvious to us countries with more economic freedom are better to live in. Some may argue that this is merely a coincidence the best countries have more economic freedom than the worst ones. Perhaps my opponent will argue that Economic freedom is a response to the standard of living and not the cause of it. Perhaps Venezuela's socialist policies are a response to poverty and not the cause of it. Perhaps Australia only adopted policies allowing their people to have this sort of freedom as a response to their higher standard of living.
However the statistical data does not agree. Let’s examine some data that shows that not only does economic freedom directly correlate to the prosperity of a country, but some stats that also show it most likely causes more prosperity than would be achieved through decreasing economic freedom through things such as becoming more socialist. The following chart shows how much opportunity people have for entrepreneurism in more economically free countries. An activity that improves society by incentivizing cures for diseases or even by solving more mundane problems by giving us such things as cat litter, toilet paper and the personal computer.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-1.png
When you look at the numbers for how much the average person can spend on essential items such as food to feed their family and look at how economically free a country is we can see that more economic freedom equals more ability to feed your family. See chart below.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-2.png
Repressed economies (lower on the index. Less capitalistic and more socialist) have an average purchasing power of $7000 while capitalistic/free countries have a purchasing power of over $60,000.
Some people may argue that, sure economic freedom is good for the country it is applied to, because it exploits 3rd world countries. If this is true than increased economic freedom should have a negative overall impact on the world, however the data doesn’t agree with that assertion. The chart below shows a drop in poverty and increase in the world’s GDP that coincides with you guessed it,more economic freedom. This increase in GDP occurs before not after an increase in economic freedom.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-3.png
Here is what an article posted by The Heritage Foundation has to say about the statistics they collected;
Unquestionably, the free-market system that is rooted in the principles of economic freedom—empowerment of the individual, nondiscrimination, and open competition—has fueled unprecedented economic growth. As Chart 3 illustrates, over the life of the Index, as the global economy has moved toward greater economic freedom, the world economy has doubled in size. This progress has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and the global poverty rate has declined by two-thirds.
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
The less economically free countries seem to be more repressed politically, more likely to be under a dictator and less politically free. It is as if when somebody has more money from the wealth created from shunning socialism and embracing a free economy they also have more power to influence the system in a more fair way as can be shown in the following chart. https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-8.png
It turns out that when a country embraces economic freedom, we can see that redistribution of wealth becomes unnecessary as it creates both more upward mobility as well as a more even distribution of wealth. https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-9.png
Many Marxists were originally concerned that if communist and socialist forces seized the means of power, that they would be reluctant to distribute the wealth equitably and instead horde it for themselves and their allies, which seems to be the case when any attempt to install socialism is applied. In summary= more socialist policies equals a less even distribution of resources. From a pragmatic point of view my opponent’s policies would actually backfire and do the opposite of what he intends. It’s nice he has good intentions, but he should research this stuff before assuming his good intentions will have good results and work on supporting policies that actually work at achieving his aims.
P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
The economic freedom index, measures 12 criteria to determine a country's economic freedom. The following criteria are what is relevant to the debate. government spending, tax burden, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom. The Economic Freedom Index considers every part of the criteria important, and since the higher the score, the more likely you are to be a country with a positive present and future. Less poverty, better government, lower crime and a higher standard of living in just about every way possible. Let’s go down this list one by one.https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Government Spending
I don’t think this is debatable the more the government takes over the means of production in each sector the more it spends, since the government is not in the business of making profits, but of providing services. My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.
Taxes
Obviously the government has to get the money they spend from somewhere, so tax rates will increase proportional to how much money is needed to fund socialist programs.
Business/Labor Freedom
Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees. This is obvious for healthcare, but can be seen in other industries as well such as the police force which has very strict rules for how police behave which limits employee/labor freedom and in some areas even unionized labor is banned from government jobs restricting employee labor even more. OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.
Monetary Freedom
Monetary freedom has to do with the stability of money. When a socialist country has to raise funds for new programs they will raise taxes, but they also use another strategy which is to simply print money. This is especially true in Democratic countries where citizens are typically opposed to having smaller paychecks.
C1 Socialist Policies Lower Standard of Living
The conclusion is derived from the fact that the economic freedom index is a good predictor for how high the standard of living is for citizens of a country. Socialist policies cause a country to become lower in the economic freedom index. The effects of which were proven in the P1 arguments. I look forward to offering rebuttals for my opponent’s arguments in Round 2.
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
Round 2
Pro
#3
“ Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism “
- Firstly I agree with most of this definition, however, an integral part of socialism is the redistribution of wealth and resources which isn’t present in this definition but is present in other definitions.
- I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.
If my opponent has further disagreements regarding the definitions I ask he/she messaged me via PM or in the comment section rather than in the middle of the debate, anyways moving right along.
“ Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone, curious answers are in the comments.”
- For anyone reading this, Con’s personal beliefs are very much relevant to this debate as we’ll see later on in my argument.
“Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economical) such as Australia, New Zealand, and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking”
- I don’t see a point in this statement, we aren’t trying to destroy economic freedom as found in dictatorships, we’re trying to create a fair distribution and have stricter business regulations.
- We aren’t trying to restrict freedom of trade unreasonably as my opponent is trying to make out.
- Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
The next section my opponent sites statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong. Therefore we’re going to ignore the statistics.
Also another point I’d like to add, my opponent does little to elaborate as to how these countries are socialistic.
If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t.
Firstly, here's the definition of fascism for the next segment.
“ In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.”
- Which ideology between socialism and fascism argues for the dictatorship policies Cuba and North Korea exert? Fascism.
- Which ideology is anti-democratic? Fascism.
Also, this point is irrelevant since I am arguing for democratic socialism, not a dictatorship. Under these definitions, the countries my opponent has cited are more closely related to fascism than socialism and are irrelevant since I am arguing for social democracy and not a dictatorship.
While these countries do label themselves as socialist, well north Korea states they’re a democratic republic so this logic fails. People label themselves as something all the time but that doesn’t make it true.
Nextly,
“ P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom “
- Very obviously not the case since if this was the case then more socialized countries in Europe and Australia wouldn’t be rated high.
- If my opponent is than going to argue,
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “
Well, these countries have high minimum wages either through collective bargaining or governmental, high government spending, high tax rates, and socialized medicine and education.
“ My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.”
- My opponent has either intentionally or unintentionally missed the point I was making.
To give the benefit of the doubt I’ll explain it again source in the previous argument.
Nationalized healthcare costs 7 trillion, private costs 7.7 trillion, therefore, the private option is more expensive.
This is a simple concept, I spend 1,500 dollars on private healthcare. Now that’s nationalized I have to pay 1,000 dollars.
However now since I don’t have to pay for private I save 500 dollars.
If my opponent ignores this again, he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.
“ Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees.”
- Ok how please elaborate.
Do you not believe businesses are helped when there are more workers due to fewer workers dying, more healthy workers, and an increasement of productivity?
Statistics to these are found in my previous argument.
“ OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.”
- Ok please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.
Explain how employee safety isn’t a priority? Same with regulations on the drug market which keep corporations in check from charging 4,000 dollars for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make?
SOURCES:
NOTE, sources for healthcare are found in the previous argument thank you.
ALSO, if I've accidentally left out sources for my claims please inform me and I'll gladly provide sources.
Con
#4
Pro argued for socialized healthcare this round to support to more socialism. This round will focus on that. My R3 will be for addressing most of R2, but it is necessary to address a few things from it.
Definitions
Here is what pro says;
“I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.”
“here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it”
“This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy”
My opponent’s sources lacks evidence for some statistics showing Americans have a lower life expectancy than some countries with socialized medicine. We actually have a pretty good healthcare system in America and the problems it does have can be fixed by deregulation of it and other industries that affect it. Other explanations for the lifespan of Americans is the fact that 37% of Americans are fat. Universal healthcare isn’t going to fix how shitty the American diet is or the lifestyle decisions that result in poor health. Obesity is linked to higher Cancer, diabetes, and heart disease rates as well as a lot of other problems. I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that lack of socialized medicine is what is causing lower lifespans. https://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006032
Americans also seem to be more likely to be the victims of violent crimes that end in death, though being safer from violent crime in general. https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/
I don’t see a link between life expectancy and socialized medicine, that can’t be better explained from other things such as the fat Americans are fat, are more likely to murder and be murdered than what happens in other wealthy nations and are also more likely to die from diseases that are a direct result of being fat.
Pro's assertions that Americans would be more productive (many of us are already hurting our mental and physical health by embracing the cult of productivity) is simply unproven and as it stands is a bare assertion. Bare assertions should not be taken as fact, and are in fact are a logical fallacy. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/bare-assertion-fallacy
He makes the same fallacy by claiming socialized medicine will somehow make people happier. Bare assertions should be easily dismissed.
Deaths from uninsured
Pro makes the says;
“45,000 people die from privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to .... 9/11.”
“A study by the Fraser Institute titled The Effect of Wait Times on Mortality in Canada estimated that “increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.” Adjusting for the difference in populations (the US has about 9 times as many people), that middle value inflates to an estimated 400,000 additional deaths among females over a 16 year period. This translates to an estimated 25,000 additional female deaths each year if the American system were to suffer from increased mortality similar to that experienced in Canada due to increases in wait times. “
“the US has significantly lower rates of 30-day stroke-induced mortality than every other OECD country, aside from Japan and Korea. OECD data suggest that the age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates within Europe would translate to tens of thousands of additional deaths in the US.
If America had the 30-day stroke-mortality rate of the UK, for example, we could expect about an additional 38,000 deaths a year. For Canada, that number would be around 43,500. And this only accounts for mortality within a month of having a stroke, which in turn accounts for only 10% of stroke-related deaths.”
For every 1,000 strokes in America 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.
The United States has very high cancer survival rates, much higher than countries with socialized medicine. If we use the UK survival rates this would be an additional 80,000 deaths a year with other 1st world countries using socialized medicine the additional deaths would be about 20,000 a year.
If the deaths caused by privatized medicine are 9/11 numbers, the deaths caused by socialized medicine would be more comparable to the Holocaust
Affordability
If healthcare is unaffordable it is because of more “socialization”. If we look at the root causes of why healthcare is unaffordable we can remove those root causes and make it affordable again. Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponents solution to the problem which has healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha
What started this whole mess of health care costs began back when FDR was president. He enacted socialist wage controls and taxed businesses up to 80% but did give tax breaks to them based on the benefits provided. Many employers as a way to attract talent since wages were controlled offered health insurance and with the tax break it did not really cost them much more money to do it. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html
Once everyone had employer paid health insurance they no longer knew what they were actually paying for a stay in the hospital. Whether the hospital charged $2000 or $200 for the stay in it still only cost the individual their same copay of maybe $50. Same problem with medicine. No matter whether the company charges $40 or $400 for a pill, your copay might be $5.
Shane Snow explains it this way;
“ If you have health insurance through your job, you’re two layers away from the actual cost of your health care whenever you go to the doctor, hospital, or pharmacy. Between you and the price tag is 1) an insurance company; and 2) your employer.(who pays for some of your insurance)”
A better plan would be getting rid of health insurance and taking perhaps half the money we use on subsidizing insurance companies directly or indirectly and diverting that to things that can actually help the healthcare in America like preventing bad diet and promoting healthy living to the masses, reducing the actual contributors to bad health such as obesity which in turn will prevent a lot of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Even without chopping that amount of socialization in half with the program I recommend, just the steps to discourage buying health insurance would make Americans more aware of the real prices they are paying for healthcare forcing companies to become competitive with their prices. You might see a doctor that costs $100 an hour as opposed to one costing $250 an hour if you have no insurance and are not so far removed from knowing the prices of services.
Conclusion
I have proven that Healthcare costs can be better controlled through less socialization as opposed to more. I have proven that private healthcare kills less people than socialized medicine, and I have proven that even if socialized medicine improves the portion it is meant to improve it is still a net detriment to society as a whole. Vote Con
Round 3
Pro
#5
“ The conduct point petition is ridiculous. My opponent insulted me by calling me a troll and mocked my debate record, which was mostly a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.”
Moving on,
“ My opponent’s sources lack evidence for some statistics showing Americans have a lower life expectancy than some countries with socialized medicine. We actually have a pretty good healthcare system in America and the problems it does have can be fixed by deregulation of it and other industries that affect it.”
“ Other explanations for the lifespan of Americans is the fact that 37% of Americans are fat. Universal healthcare isn’t going to fix how shitty the American diet is or the lifestyle decisions that result in poor health.”
I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices? I could imagine doctors appointments and speak with nutritionists more would ease this issue down.
“ I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that lack of socialized medicine is what is causing lower lifespans.”
By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling better healthcare, the US should have the best and highest life spans in the world since it’s the most privatized.
“ Pro's assertions that Americans would be more productive (many of us are already hurting our mental and physical health by embracing the cult of productivity) is simply unproven and as it stands is a bare assertion.”
“ For every 1,000 strokes in America, 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.”
“ Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponent's solution to the problem which has a healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does. As evidenced by this 2014 statistic from zerohedge a 2018 study by healthcaresystemtracker.org. The US is pretty much ALL statistics is the outlier and has significantly higher healthcare costs per capita than every single country in the world.
Therefore my opponent just lost the affordability argument, arguments made against a national healthcare system are absurd and baseless.
Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before.
You may call this a fallacy however why would we change our system to a system which has been proven to work to a system which may work?
I’ve been teasing this argument since round 1 and in the comment section so I’ll bring it up here since I accidentally forgot it last round.
Firstly before we begin I’d like to post what my opponent's answers to my questions are as it will be important to this argument.
“ I won't answer the questions in the debate, but since you are curious I will answer them here.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
These questions clearly illustrate that my opponent is being logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical and here’s why.
If you’re a libertarian/huge capitalist but are also an economic nationalist concerned with mass immigration and illegal immigration you’re a shill.
The capitalists AREN’T conservative since it’s in their economic self-interest to abolish the minimum wage ( which you’re advocating for ) and to support illegal and mass immigration since they believe it’ll shrink the native wages thus hurting the native working class you’re so concerned with.
A better solution would be more socialization to help native workers since if you instituted a minimum wage you wouldn’t be getting such mass immigration and your native wages wouldn’t shrink.
Not to mention that libertarianism calls for the free market, so if you’re a huge capitalist why are you trying to restrict the flow of labor when you believe in the free market?
Also, libertarianism isn’t pro-government as all, libertarianism is actually more pro anarchist since it’s against the redistribution of wealth/taxes and calls for laissez-faire capitalism which is against the government regulation of the economy.
Very clearly my opponent's economic nationalist ideals wouldn’t be served under a capitalist system but more under a more socialized system which institutes a high minimum wage and immigration reform which would aid the native working class. Thus more socialization in your economic nationalist view would benefit society than a pure capitalist system which you’re advocating for.
SOURCES:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
- Well listen I didn’t mean to mock your win ratio, I merely used it to illustrate that it’s very possible you may be a troll. Oh, and I am sincerely sorry you had to deal with depression, one of my family members suffers from it too.
- Obviously looking at your arguments, it doesn’t seem that way.
- Also regarding the definitions, ok that makes sense.
- Firstly my opponent mentions no studies or statistics on how deregulation would fix the healthcare system since by my statistics the US which has the lowest regulation and is the most privatized is the WORST out of the developed world. Compared to more socialized countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and Australia, the US’s is pathetic.
- Secondly, the sources for this point were in the previous round. If I did happen to make a mistake I apologize and I’ll post my sources again in this round, sorry for the confusion.
- This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.
- Firstly, other countries such as Germany for example ( which is a country that’s very similar to the US in culture ) and has similar obesity rates. This is a country that its VERY close to the US culturally and has similar obesity rates and yet since it has socialized medicine.
- Because EVERY single country in the developed world has socialized medicine with higher life spans.
- I would also state you’ve committed a bare assertion fallacy since you’re the one assuming deregulation would lead to better healthcare outcomes ( which isn’t backed up by statistical data or common sense at all ).
- Admittedly I didn’t cite my source so I’ll do it here, according to this CDC study healthcare is linked to a boost in productivity. ( link down below however I’ll summarize a few bullet points here )
- Healthier employees are less likely to call in sick or use vacation time due to illness
- Companies that support workplace health have a greater percentage of employees at work every day
- Because employee health frequently carries over into better health behavior that impacts both the employee and their family (such as nutritious meals cooked at home or increased physical activity with the family), employees may miss less work caring for ill family members as well
- Similarly, workplace health programs can reduce presenteeism — the measurable extent to which health symptoms, conditions, and diseases adversely affect the work productivity of individuals who choose to remain at work
- Firstly I cited the source in the PAST argument.
- Secondly, this study is working on ASSUMED numbers, not actual numbers like my study are.
- Thirdly this is only a comparison of Canada which isn’t representative of socialized medicine since it’s arguably the worst example. Compare a better system like the United Kindoms or Australias and you’ll find there aren’t as many deaths.
- Fourthly you’re only taking into account yearly deaths when we also should be concerned with life expectancies and overall health outcomes.
- Statistically by my previous statistics, socialized countries with socialized medicine have higher life expectancies, better health outcomes, and cheaper and more affordable healthcare. ( We’ll get into the affordability argument shortly ).
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
- Socialized medicine in the US would be the most expensive in the world, however, my opponent is still missing the overall point that I'd be CHEAPER than our current healthcare system. Therefore you just lost the affordability argument.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
Con
#6
Syllogism
Pro does not attack the syllogism. If my premises are correct than I win.
I argued that countries who have less freedom on the economic freedom scale, have worse standards of living. pro drops this point, so my premise stands.
pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom as measured by the index. I used 5 standards on the index to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom through taxes, business/labor freedom and monetary freedom.
Pro has accepted premise 1 and that the conclusion is accurate if the premises are accurate. Pro asked why regulations hurt businesses, I guess that is supposed to be a rebuttal, but I already explained to him that it lowers your score on the economic freedom index. He dropped my argument that a higher index score means a higher standard of living.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant. This is about whether more socialization will have more benefits than harms, and I already have shown how socialist policies give you lower scores on those 5 factors mentioned earlier.
Questions
Pro needs to prove more socialization is good. Proving my beliefs are inconsistent, contradictory, stupid or wrong does nothing to move this debate along because it is irrelevant.
Life expectancy
My facts better explain shorter lives than pro's do. 1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
pro mentions that Germany has the same obesity rate as America. He drops my violent crime argument.
His study doesn’t do justice to how fat Americans are. We have the same obesity rates as Germany but our fat people are fatter. The German male weighs 180 lbs. The average American 200 lbs. The German female 150 lbs. The average American 170 lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#By_country
Less of a fatness is linked to lower mortality rate in diabetes patients, heart patients cancer victims etc, and when we look at the actuary charts we see that somebody 20 lbs too fat is less likely to die than somebody 40 lbs too fat. So 20 pounds matter. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2714501
Pro asks;
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
“I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices?"
“Don’t you think it’s a pretty big coincidence that the US which is the ONLY country in the developed world without socialized medicine is also coincidentally the one with the lowest life spans? “
Round 4
Pro
#7
Economic freedom:
Pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
- And Con seems to be missing my previous counter argument being,
Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
- To clarify, I agree economic freedom and efficiency are important however clearly more socialization in countries such as Australia and the UK aren’t being held back in terms of freedom since they rank higher or around the same level as the US in the statistical my opponent cited.
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom... I used 5 standards.. to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom
- This point is easily debunked since similar to the first premise, more socialist countries rank as high if not higher than the US.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant...socialist policies give you lower scores
It actually is relevant, if the countries at the top of the index have more heavy socialization than the US and have more economic freedom which thereby increases the quality of living, this defeats this entire premise that more socialist countries restrict freedom more thus debunking this entire argument.
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
- Americans have shorter lifespans due to private healthcare industries high costs as evidenced by the statistic I cited previously which puts the US’s healthcare plan the highest in terms of costs in the world. If the healthcare is so expensive as it is, you’re going to have people not going to check-ups or stalling on surgeries due to the high medical costs and you’re going to have millions of underinsured Americans as evidenced by the statistics I previously cited.
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
Obesity:
Very clearly obesity rates aren’t determinant in life expectancy rates and a more likely and realistic explanation is that healthcare is what mainly is determinant of life expectancy. From my previous statistics I’ve sited millions go underinsured, thousands die, and our life expectancies are dropping and are pathetically low in our private system.
Con’s assertions that they’re almost determinant regardless of healthcare plan is a misrepresentation at best and dishonest at worst.
When a bad country such as Cuba which is very horrible is only slightly behind us, that should give an indicator that our healthcare system needs massive reform.
Murder rates:
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries.
The murder rate has been steadily dropping so by my opponents logic our life expectancy should be increasing, which simply isn’t backed up by statistics at all.
In fact, according to various sources, I've linked. the US’s life expectancy has been steadily declining over the past few years even with the murder and violence rates dropping.
You could bring up an argument about mental health, however countries with national healthcare such as Germany for instance cover mental health, unlike the expensive US system in which mental health is covered by private healthcare providers.
And as we all know mental health greatly impacts suicide rates.
If mental health services were universal like in countries such as Norway and Germany, the suicide rates would generally drop. This is also ignoring a country such as Finland with similar suicide rates and yet a high life expectancy.
Nutrition advice:
Note how I clarified by stating nutritionists which are covered by a national healthcare plan and even provided in services such as Medicaid.
- A country such as Russia with low obesity rates has lower life expectancy or equal than the US, same with Cuba and Chile.
- What about New Zealand which is a country with a close obesity rate with the US and yet has a significantly higher life expectancy?
People typically ignore diet advice medical professionals give them.
There is not a single example of socialized medicine increasing visits to a nutritionist. These countries typically have rationing boards and are just as frugal as insurance companies.
- These countries have more people visiting the doctors due to it being universal.
- Economic prosperity doesn’t equal obesity rates necessarily, countries in my previous source such as Egypt, Samoa, and Qatar all aren’t in the best economic positions and yet have obesity rates even higher than the US's.
I didn’t commit a bare assertion. I gave examples of extra regulations in one sector having bad results
- Giving a couple of examples isn’t comparable to entire countries with higher regulations than the US's and is performing better.
This is an example of socialization driving costs of healthcare in the US.
- This isn’t the case since the US's costs are significantly higher than any other country, including countries with higher levels of socialized medicine.
Pro has dropped my argument that 44,000 additional deaths happen in Canada due to increased waiting.
Pro asserts that I am working with assumed stats..we are debating how something will work in theory so we are both making assumptions
My opponent claims that Canada has a worse system than other socialist countries but failed to explain why America would socialize healthcare any better.
- Canada has a significantly lower GDP per capita and has lower tax revenue and thus has a significantly worse off economy than the US's.
Source Link:
Con
#8
4 Point Voting
This is not a select winner debate. My opponent chose the 4 point system because he wants more than just arguments to be judged. I agreed to a debate with a 4 point system because I want all the points judged as well. Neither of us argued for any grammar points so you can ignore that, though my grammar is better overall, even if you spot a few mistakes. Regardless of the judges actual opinions on the matter, all 4 points should be judged and a winner decided on each one.
Conduct
Pro asked my permission to post the link to sources since he could not seem to get his argument down to below 10,000 characters any other way. So please do not deduct a conduct point from him on that basis. If you want to deduct one for the reasons I mentioned earlier than by all means do. If you want to reward me one for being gracious enough to allow him to mildly break the structure of the debate, that is fine as well.
I’m not going to touch on much in my opponent’s final round. New arguments don’t count in the final round, so all the new arguments he made should be disregarded. So when pro makes an argument like the following;
“Let’s say we have 10 people under a privatized healthcare plan and only 5 get nutritional advice.
Let’s say only 20 % so only 2 people take it. “
It should be ignored just as if I respond by pointing out there is absolutely no evidence that people would receive more or better dietary advice under a socialist healthcare system, it should be ignored. The fact he has tried to add new arguments is debatably worthy of a conduct point, and if judging the debate in a Tabula Rasa style, the judges should certainly weigh are arguments on conduct points without inserting their own judgement to see if either one of us deserve one.
Sources
I do think with how the sources have been used in this debate, I deserve source points. Not only did/959iu he not cite all of the “facts” he brought up, but when he did cite facts he intentionally misinterpreted what the citations said. For example when he stated he had sources claiming that Americans had a shorter life expectancy due to a lack of socialized medicine, but I read through his sources and they merely claimed Americans had a lower life expectancy, without attributing a cause. He seemed to concede that people were dying because of their eating choices, but claimed socialized medicine will somehow force me to stop drinking beer and eating pizza. (I know, I am on a tangent)
His sources are being cited for things they don’t say, he misses sources for facts such as the 7.7 trillion dollar figure. The other problem is it is hard to track what each source is even for which fact, because they are just haphazardly lumped together at the bottom of the page, making it hard for me to even check just one, if I buy most of his facts but merely doubt just one for example.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Even the points pro brings up that I can address from his final round, I will not be responding to. He cannot respond to what I post in the final round, so out of a sense of fairness, I will show him the same respect. Neither one of us should have it held against us, that we are unable to respond to each other’s final round.
My Case
My argument I laid out in round one. Let’s examine it to see if it still stands at the end of this debate.
P 1- economic freedom causes a higher standard of living.
P 2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
C 1- socialist policies are responsible for a lower standard of living.
The conclusion is naturally derived from the premises. If my premises stand, than my argument stands and pro loses the debate.
During the course of the debate, I argued that economic freedom as defined by the economic freedom index creates a higher standard of living. This premise is never objected to, and the judges should accept it as true.
My 2nd premise is that socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. My opponent claims that since some of the top countries have socialist policies, that these policies are not antithetical to economic freedom. However it only proves that every country has room for improvement in the economic freedom index. It does not prove that more socialist policies would not drive these countries even lower in the economic freedom index or total score the country is assigned.
I supported my premises by stating that the following 5 areas scored on the index are harmed by all socialist policies to some degree.
“government spending, tax burden, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom,”
For each of those points I gave one or more premises for how socialism causes a country to lose points. My opponent, barely challenged me on this, if he challenged me at all. Remember he never challenged the economic freedom index as a good measure for what we are measuring in this debate. He also never challenged this second premise that socialist countries have a negative impact on these scores.
Since my first premise and second premise go unchallenged and the conclusion naturally derives from the premises (this statement has went unchallenged as well), than I should automatically win on argument points.
Pro’s Arguments
I summed up pro’s arguments as follows;
P1- universal healthcare has more positives than negatives
P2- universal healthcare would require/be an increase in “socialization”
C1- More socialization would overall be beneficial to society
Pro seems to agree with my analysis and summary of his arguments. I never challenged pro on premise 2. I think I could show how it could actually decrease socialization in total, but it wasn’t worth my time to explain that. So his 2nd premise should stand.
Premise number one is what I took issue with. If we look at the impacts, we can see that despite privatized medicine being responsible for some deaths, socialized medicine if applied and assuming we would apply it as well as the UK or Canada, would result in a massively more people dying from socialized medicine that would die if America just kept medicine private.
I showed that socialism has had the unintended side effects of causing prices in medicine to soar because of a disconnect between consumers and the actual cost of care. This goes unchallenged. He argued that socialism would drop prices a tiny bit on medical care, but not removing the socialist policies that caused the prices to soar (and pro does not dispute that assertion), is also a decision for more socialism and I showed that a decision for less socialism in medicine by removing the cause of the current problem would result in lower drug costs.
I also argued that even if socialist healthcare had some positive impacts on health (even though I proved it didn’t), that it does not prove an overall positive impact to society and I pointed to the scoring of the economic freedom index to prove this. My opponent amazingly does not contest this argument.
Conclusion
I want to thank Pink Freud for this debate. It was fun. I wish him good luck in future debates.
If we look at how I framed the debate, my frame was never challenged, my premises were never challenged, only some individual points in the premises. My opponent has dropped tons of my affirmative arguments.
My opponent only argued for one benefit to socialization, I think I defeated his first premise, but even if I did not, I certainly showed that the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premises. Anyway, thanks for getting this far in reading the debate, hopefully it was enjoyable. Please vote.
Introduction
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=373
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
See comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15335
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.
Note:
I can see how arguments could go either way, I can see how sources could be tied, but there's no case for conduct not favoring con if the debate has been read.
-If that was the case then explain how more socialized countries in Europe actually have better living conditions as seen in life spans.
" Healthcare is not a basic right. Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. "
- Ok, so you're once again implying you're an anarchist.
This logic can be applied to taxes as well, the same concept.
Taxes shouldn't exist since they violate others right to happiness as well since we're sacrificing their needs for the collective good.
Just curious, what is the 70% socialism and the 30% capitalism?
". The nation has to be wealthy in the first place, which is what capitalism has historically done."
- America is wealthy, what's our excuse?
And again I personally am not in favor of a 100 % socialist market. More of a 70 - 30 split favoring socialism.
" This quite simply isn't the case. They are more capitalistic than us in some ways. Sweden has school vouchers and a privatized pension plan."
You found one country in Europe with a few capitalist policies as an excuse to argue that they are less socialist.
The majority of these countries have more regulations, socialized medicine, and socialized education.
" You are assuming that punishing entrepreneurs with huge taxes and stifling regulation won't cause jobs to get shipped to other countries"
- Considering countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and other more socialized countries still have very powerful economies, it's a false statement to make that jobs are being " shipped " to other countries.
This also is once again ignoring the fact that employers also benefit from higher taxes.
Do you not think employers benefit from a more educated, healthier, and safer population?
". I believe creating a good economic environment for businesses is what we need to do to help create jobs and therefore help the poor."
- This is a false utopia that would never exist.
Encouraging radical self-interest does exactly what it sounds like.
The industrial revolution is a prime example of your version of a utopia with limited regulations and taxes.
In case you don't recall in the industrial revolution there was horrible wealth inequality, short life spans, horrible working conditions, disgusting living conditions, and disease ran rampant.
Historically encouraging radical self-interest and capitalist ideals haven't helped the poor at all.
If healthcare would help out businesses so much, I repeat: why wouldn't a business provide a healthcare plan?????
Many companies do, but not all. Government healthcare also creates a negative incentive once again. Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy? If someone eats junk food and fast food frequently, they never exercise, and they smoke weed, they will have a plethora of health problems. I have to pay for these increased healthcare costs, not them.
You are trying to argue that healthcare is an investment. It can be, and I would support it in cases that it is. However, you are assuming two things: that that person will work and that their work will outweigh the cost. In order to ensure they become a functioning member of society, you would have to force them to work, even if they didn't want to. That is called slavery. Also, what if they want to become something worthless to society like a gender studies professor? They won't pay back anything to society that the "free" college and "FrEe" HeAlThCaRe paid into them.
The Nazis were socialists.... just very racist socialists. I read the communist manifesto and I don't remember ever seeing the word "altrusim". Socialism is selfishness, pure and simple. Once you get facades out of the way, you see that capitalism is a much more moral system that socialism.
Imperialism has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Let us just live in a world without self interest..... Oh wait, that is impossible and why every socialist country ends in destitution. I think it is a rather foolish claim to say the Soviet Union was more capitalistic than socialistic. A claim you didn't substantiate.
I'm against a progressive tax. Rich make more, so they would pay more under a flat tax as well.
You need "redistribution" in terms of the military because it is impossible to run a military any other way. If an enemy is invading and you didn't pay some military toll, would they let the enemy ransack your house? No, a country defends itself and the most effective way to pay for it.
Education: if 10% of our population could afford schooling, we would all be screwed. If anything, this is fairly capitalistic. It takes the tax burden off of whoever the educated business owners would be. You need a high school education to work at any non-minimum wage job. A college degree guarantee is super excessive and unnecessary to make a living.
Well communist governments of the past had the largest influence on the lives of their people. They were definition "big government". Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, all led to mass starvation. I think there is a lot more to the equation. The nation has to be wealthy in the first place, which is what capitalism has historically done.
You act like these European countries are huge socialistic countries. This quite simply isn't the case. They are more capitalistic than us in some ways. Sweden has school vouchers and a privitized pension plan.
We are assuming increased government spending improves the quality of living for the poor. The poverty rate has remained stagnant since the War on Poverty, which included huge government spending increases and new government programs. You are assuming that punishing entrepreneurs with huge taxes and stifling regulation won't cause jobs to get shipped to other countries. I believe creating a good economic environment for businesses is what we need to do to help create jobs and therefore help the poor.
People benefit from increased health and education, but not to the extent you suggest. That is my position.
I don't see how throwing food away saves money.
Healthcare is not a basic right. Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves.
I don't believe in enacting a purge or going out of my way to make someone's life worse. You have to understand that that is also a violation of rights. Killing violates rights. Using the government as a tool to encroach on the pursuit of happiness is a violation of rights. Please stop strawmanning this argument by projecting arguments on me which are incompatible with my individualistic beliefs.
>>Nazism: national socialism
Where did you get the definition from?
Are you referring to the name of their group the National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Need I not remind you that if a person calls them self something but does not adhere to the principles of said group then they are lying about who they are.
Nazism: national socialism
Don't know where you get your anti-reality indoctrination from
Don't waste your time. He has the courage to debate you in the comment section but is to much of a coward to actually accept the debate he is having with you in the comment section.
You can also see that he gets his news from right wing propaganda. He would call them right wing news sources but we both now they are propaganda channels like Steven Crowder which I am sure is where he got that Hitler was a socialist meme from.
Steven Crowder claiming that Hitler is a liberal socialist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybWkpt_3Jo
" Sure some rich people have a leg up, but hundreds of rich people lose their wealth and hundreds of poor people gain that wealth. It is not impossible to succeed if you're poor at birth."
- You're missing my point, my point isn't that it isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
It's the fact that certain people very obviously have starting advantages over other people which is why we have a progressive tax.
" Redistribution of wealth is bad. That doesn't make me an anarchist. I just want to limit redistribution of wealth when possible. In terms of military and schooling, it is necessary."
- So why is in terms of military and schooling necessary yet food, housing, and healthcare are different?
You are stating that the redistribution of wealth is " evil " which includes taxes. This does make you an anarchist.
" Perhaps not everyone wants to live off the government, but do you want to allow people to do That?"
- It's more important to see the majority of innocent people living in poverty who want to contribute than to see a selective few be parasites.
And again this doesn't ruin incentive since we would only provide the basis of services such as food, housing, education, and healthcare. Do you not think people want more good than just the basics? Many would work a job to attain more food for their family, better housing, and more goods IE T-shirts, TV's, Cars ETC.
". But people make worse decisions when there is less weight on those decisions "
- Ok, so how about we enact the purge.
This would encourage poor people to get ahead so that they can afford better security and protection.
How about we narrow streets, decrease living conditions, and decrease working conditions.
This would encourage poor people to get ahead.
You have to spend money to make money.
It would cost money to provide basic needs to people, but this argument is one-sided.
If I give a poor person sandwiches, now that they aren't starving to death now they can contribute and make more sandwiches.
If I provide someone with the healthcare they need, not only do they get to live and be healthy, but now they can be a functioning member of society.
" Nazis were socialists by the way..... "
- No, they weren't.
The Nazis literally believe in natural selection which completely contradicts the socialism ideology of altruism.
" What was the cold war? An attempt at world domination to spread communistic ideologies."
- The soviet union is an extreme example of communism and a pure misrepresentation.
If anything by capitalisms logic the soviet union was more capitalist and imperialistic.
The communist manifesto literally criticizes imperialization and radical self-interest similar to what the Soviet Union did.
" Also, charities such as churches are much better than the federal government because local charities have a much better idea of how to fix problems in their community and incentive to use money more effectively (they can't tax for more revenue). They won't throw money at the problem like the government likes to."
- Firstly again this is false since if charities were so effective at solving the issue world hunger wouldn't be as prominent as it is even in more advanced countries such as the US and some parts of Europe.
- Secondly, where is your proof that the government wastes money and is ineffective with said money?
In more heavily socialized countries in Europe with higher tax rates more nationalized sectors such as healthcare and education very obviously aren't just wasting money and are very effective, even more so than charities.
" You think that a slowed down economy won't cause more starvation?"
- This is assuming giving poor people better conditions would slow down the economy at all. I am still not convinced it would.
Do you not believe wealthy individuals benefit from a healthier and more educated population?
" If you would look into it, you would find that starvation is super rare in America. "
- Not exactly starvation in more wealthy 1st world countries but food insecure.
Statistically, a good portion of American families is food insecure which wouldn't be an issue if the government redistributed food from greedy corporations which would rather throw away food to save money than to give it away.
Honestly, the main flaw of socialism is the false presumption that people aren't innately self-interested.
Ok, ignore my whole example. If you want to be entirely serious, absolutely no one grows up in the same exact circumstances, so it is completely illogical to presume they will end up the same. My point is that not even children in the same family end up as wealthy as one another. You must consider that some people make much worse decisions than others.
Sure some rich people have a leg up, but hundreds of rich people lose their wealth and hundreds of poor people gain that wealth. It is not impossible to succeed if you're poor at birth.
Redistribution of wealth is bad. That doesn't make me an anarchist. I just want to limit redistribution of wealth when possible. In terms of military and schooling, it is necessary.
I will look into your "born into wealth" claim when I get home from work
Really hard to read on my phone, but I'll do my best lol. I'm saying that government spending has a tendency to reduce private donations. Also, charities such as churches are much better than the federal government because local charities have a much better idea of how to fix problems in their community and incentive to use money more effectively (they can't tax for more revenue). They won't throw money at the problem like the government likes to.
You think that a slowed down economy won't cause more starvation? At the least, the government would have less money to tax with and would need to borrow more to accommodate these increased expenditures. If you would look into it, you would find that starvation is super rare in America. It is so negligible, it is often not included in our death calculations. Very few people even starved during the Great Depression.
Perhaps not everyone wants to live off the government, but do you want to allow people to do That? Sure, we should have something in place for people truly looking to be self-sufficient and can't find a job. But people make worse decisions when there is less weight on those decisions. And no, I'm not the first to make this argument.
If it would be so good for a company to have less worker sick days, then the company would obviously offer health insurance. It would be foolish not to. Many companies do this, but government healthcare raises medical costs and makes this difficult(I can provide my source if you want).
Nazis were socialists by the way..... You make a fatally flawed argument here. You act as though your socialistic governments don't have self-interest. What was the cold war? An attempt at world domination to spread communistic ideologies. It was in their interest to try to fight capitalism and spread their influence. You pretend as though the leaders in socialistic governments have no incentive to keep their immense power.
People don't know about mixed markets... I don't want to believe that, but I do.
Anyway, best of luck to you on this debate.
1. Great glad you agree and I'm not the only one who thinks this.
2. Oh shit I just copied and pasted this from DDO my bad I'll change this.
3. I use the word completely since whenever I do debates regarding socialism and I point out that mixed market economies do well they're always like,
" RAH YOU DIDN'T SPECIFY THEY'RE MIXED MARKETS REE!!!"
A few things about your setup:
1. Having debated Tiwaz (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866), I totally understand why you'd ban him from participating.
2. You are not actually waiving a round by writing the description, so there's no need for pro to waive the last round. I'm guessing that's a copy paste from DDO, but even there it would be R1 for acceptance only. Worse, you've created a setup that does not allow the person to defend their case.
3. The resolution is deeply slanted, perhaps to the point of being a truism (thus troll debate), due to using an absolute qualifier ("completely"). To give an example; an atomic bomb detonating within a populated city is not completely evil via the definitions.
It was a question.
The contender can't say no because Con is the one saying no not Pro socialism is completely evil.
Saying Yes is not a good argument you need to say why.
Yep exactly.
Just say NO and jobs a good un!
Bearing in mind that the contender is expected to waive the second round.
>>completely alters the tone of the question.
It alters the tone so much that the person on the other side needs no evidence or explanation with their claims?
The presence of the word "completely", completely alters the tone of the question.
" Why should the majority be allowed to oppress the minority at Will?"
But again I specified by stating as much as reasonably possible.
There is no good and logical reason for the Nazis to do what they did.
Even if there was, we can't ignore the billions/common good that'd suffer.
If anything like I previously mentioned this would prove your point incorrect.
" Three brothers, all grow up in the same town and go to the same school. "
Inaccurate scenario, the reality is we all grow up in different areas, households, and economic opportunities.
Let me ask you, who is more likely to succeed and have more advantages?
Donald Trumps Son or the average person/I'm assuming to be you then again I do not know your economic situation.
" Why under any valid system should we take money from people who work themselves to death to gain their wealth and give it to people who throw out any chance he gets?"
- People don't start off in the same circumstances, those that did " earn " their wealth started from FAR different positions than anyone else.
This is also assuming rich people throw away their money, many rich people don't donate to charity and besides, it's more important everyone has their basic needs than for a rich person to buy a new car.
" Redistribution of wealth sets a bad mindset. "
- Are you an anarchist? Because by this logic you must be against taxes which is a form of redistribution.
" Most people who are rich aren't born into wealth. People move around income brackets all the time"
- False the majority of people born wealthy will stay wealthy when they get older.
- not to mention the unnecessary amount of deaths we'd avoid.
". If they think their policies are the best, what should stop them from genocide?"
- Their policies weren't for the greater good and this actually disproves your point.
From a 100 % individualistic standpoint, the Nazis were in the right in their attempts at world conquest
They had a very strong country ( for the most part ) capable of taking over the world, who cares about the other countries in Europe, Americas, Asia, or Africa.
By a capitalist standpoint, it would be a moral virtue for them to take over the world as it's in their self-interest to do so which is the idea of capitalism.
" Ok, but in your example, you forget a vital element: charity. Often times, a church or non-profit would send in food to starving people out of their own volition. You don't need to steal from anyone."
- Considering that millions are still starving every day, including those in our own country, it's correct to assume charity isn't effective. I don't see it as stealing especially for a great cause. We already redistribute wealth from everyone towards a collective good IE Military, schools, infrastructure ETC.
" The thing is, it might be good in the short term to redistribute the food. But, if by doing so you undermine our system of private property, you're going to end up with a worse economy and less motivated workers."
- This would slow down the economy, however, what is more important.
The economy slowing down, or millions dying and starving to death.
Workers will still work normally, just in the hands of the government and not greedy corporations.
I fail to see how this would motivate fewer workers when we'd still have plenty of food left over, I could imagine workers will still be fighting for better food and more food. This system would just guarantee everyone has basic needs.
Do you not think you're the first person to make this argument?
Philosophers in the 18th century used the incentivization argument to decrease living conditions and excuses to cause food shortages.
Obviously the more empathic in the past two centuries hasn't disincentivized workers.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live off of the government for free, everyone has hopes or aspirations.
" Smart workers helps everyone, but I don't know if thousands of dollars for one person's surgery is always worth it."
- Do you not believe that more healthy workers would fuel the economy? Less sick days and more productive and happy workers who have to worry less about sickness or high medical costs always boosts productivity.
Let's tell another story.
Three brothers, all grow up in the same town and go to the same school. Let's name them Jake Blake And Arnold. They all have the same economic position.
Jake has a full ride scholarship to an in state school because he was an athlete. He starts doing drugs, drops put of school and decides he doesn't want to work. He makes $10k gambling
Blake gets a factory job and works 40 hours each week, not a minute longer, and he doesn't put any money into a savings account. He makes $60k
Arnold studies 20 hours each week in high school and scores high enough on his SAT to go to Harvard business school. He passes with a 4.0 GPA and he helps invent new, more efficient ways to construct automobiles. He works 80 hours every week and never takes vacation. He makes $1 million each year for his efforts.
Why under any valid system should we take money from people who works themselves to death to gain their wealth and give it to people who throw out any chance he gets? That's unfair to everyone involved. Redistribution of wealth sets a bad mindset. One that says that no matter what decisions you make, we will take care of you. Don't you think GM would make better decisions if they weren't "too big to fail"? If you promise to bail people out whenever they make poor decisions, they will continue to make poor decisions.
Don't take money from people who earn it. Most people who are rich aren't born into wealth. People move around income brackets all the time
Ok, but in your example, you forget a vital element: charity. Often times, a church or non-profit would send in food to starving people out of their own volition. You don't need to steal from anyone. Yet, the government often likes to crowd out these private sector groups. The thing is, it might be good in the short term to redistribute the food. But, if by doing do you undermine our system of private property, you're going to end up with a worse economy and less motivated workers.
I think that a very limited form of healthcare could be beneficial, but that is questionable. Smart workers helps everyone, but I don't know if thousands of dollars for one person's surgery is always worth it.
Well, it would support the Nazis to kill off political rivals. If they think their policies are the best, what should stop them from genocide?
This isn't a crazy hypothetical. This is how they thought, and they had the power. Under a system where the "common good" is out above personal self interest, you leave the door open for atrocities and violations of rights. Why should the majority be allowed to oppress the minority at Will?
" I don't quite know about the healthcare example, but education is something that promotes social good."
- Do you not believe society would benefit if everyone had the healthcare they needed?
Happiness would increase, worker productivity would increase, and fewer people would die or be sick.
" What about Nazi Germany? If the majority is Nazis, should their interests surpass those of their victims? If you base decisions off of personal liberties, that can never happen"
- The goal is to please the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
Killing an entire population for a goal ( which isn't enough correct ) isn't reasonable.
Let's state that in an alternate scenario the ENTIRE as in 100 percent of the Jewish population were murderers, rapists, and thieves, and society would be better without them than I believe they should be put in prison and receive the mental health they need. Not executed as I don't believe in the death penalty.
Obviously, this isn't the case and to that, I'd say,
" It is super easy to justify anything with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end."
" . It is super easy to justify socialism with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end."
- Fair enough, if you want a more realistic example, how about this.
You have 10 people.
1 of which comes from immense wealth and because of this they have more opportunities and are better raised, because of this they stay rich.
4 come from some wealth and are raised decently and turn out decently.
The other 5 come from poverty and as a result, turn out to be mostly poor with one making decent money.
A snowstorm hits leaving the town in a food shortage.
As a result, the bottom 4 are starving to death.
However, if we redistribute the top person's food and some of the middle 5's food, the 4 won't starve. However, it will require a sacrifice for the greater good.
Taking a 100 % individualistic lens will state that the 4 people starve.
Taking a more collective approach will state that everyone has enough food to survive.
This is a more realistic scenario which happens daily,
As of right now, we have enough food to feed around 10 billion people yet we only need to feed 7.7 billion.
Even so, many go hungry any night and many starve due to the capitalistic system which would rather see people starve to death than to see companies lose money.
In a mixed market economy with a higher emphasis on socialization, the food would be redistributed and we'd have more than enough to feed everyone.
I mean that is a fine example, but that is all it is: an example. It is super easy to justify socialism with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end.
I don't quite know about the healthcare example, but education is something that promotes the social good.
Ok, I have a big problem saying that the majority should be out above the majority like that. What about Nazi Germany? If the majority is Nazis, should their interests surpass those of their victims? If you base decisions off of personal liberties, that can never happen
1. Harmful to society is a good measure.
We need to stop looking at problems with a 100 % individualist lens and instead consider the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
For example, if the world was going to end unless we sacrificed one person and that one person refused, would you really let the world end just because one person was selfish?
Same with this, socialized healthcare and education would be beneficial to the collective good of society but would also hurt a small portion of the population.
The goal is to please the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
2. Society is the majority of the population and this would be confined mostly to America.
I don't think "harmful to society" is a very good measure. Who is society? The majority of the population? Is this confined to a single country?
>>The Contender only needs to say No in the first round and the debate's over.
If he/she says no then that person wouldn't be against socialism which would mean they are on the same side as the instigator. The contender doesn't win. He/She is just an idiot if they do that.
Welcome back!
The Contender only needs to say No in the first round and the debate's over.