Capitalism is superior to Socialism.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 9 votes and with 63 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I hold that capitalism is a superior economic system to socialism.
My opponent will begin the debate by making his case in round one. I will respond with my constructive and rebuttals in round 2.
Waived, per my description.
Since my opponent forfeited the debate, I suppose I'll go first.
Before I begin I will define Capitalism and Socialism.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I have several arguments as to why this is true.
First, Capitalism has been responsible for plummeting rates of poverty over the last few hundred years. As Capitalism spread across the world and more people had access to free markets where their labor and time belonged to themselves and market forces of allowed for the creation of new products and of increased wealth, extreme poverty rates plummeted to near nonexistence. You can view statistics on poverty rates over time here https://fee.org/media/28562/chelsea-new-02-1-790x350.png?width=600&height=265.8227848101266
This is particularly true over the past 20 or so years. the World Bank reports that from 1990 to 2015 the number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped by slightly over a billion people.
Contrast that with socialism which has wrought nothing but poverty, death, and economic devastation wherever it's been tried for any significant period of time. I challenge my opponent to provide one singular counterexample.
On my end:
and many others
Capitalism has also seen massive increases in individual wealth.
Since the mid 18th century when the powers of Europe first adopted capitalism the average per person GDP has risen massively. Examining the chart that I will provide here https://fee.org/media/28563/deirdre.png?width=600&height=509.8265895953757 shows us that personal wealth had been stagnant for nearly a thousand years then the age of Capitalism begins and wealth explodes in an unprecedented way.
Point number two addresses socialisms 100% failure rate. There are many reasons as to why Socialism's collapse is inevitable, but the one I want to focus on right now is very simple. Socialism fails because it cannot set a price. Socialism hinges on price controls. It necessitates that the government or the community ensures that those that produce goods can't charge what they deem to be too much. This overly simplistic analysis of how prices work was what led to the economic devastation of East Germany. Simply put, a price is determined by supply and demand. There is always a real price for any given good or service. The government can, in theory, step in and attempt to force the market to bend to its will; but what every socialist country has eventually discovered is that the real price is always running in the background. Eventually, reality asserts itself and the illusory economy set up by the government implodes. This happens in one major way. When the government sets a fake price that causes producers to lose money, they stop selling their goods. At least officially. As was the case in East Germany, it eventually became the case that the only place you could buy your goods was on the Black Market. A place free from government meddling where the real price was allowed to operate. This market is untaxed which causes a sharp decrease in revenue for the government.
This price interference has another major drawback. It removes the stoplights that investors use to make decisions. The real price allows people to know what goods and services to invest in. When the government is artificially setting the price, no one knows what goods and services are really going to take off and make money. These investors can be foreign, domestic, or even the socialist government itself.
Moreover, the high cost of socialism for governments tends to lead to hyper-inflation and economic ruin. When, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said "you eventually run out of other peoples money" and socialist governments become strapped for cash, they just print more. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela and East Germany. Printing more currency devalues your currency leading to massive levels of inflation to the point where you need wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread. When the government stays out of the market this isn't a problem.
In short, Socialism cannot bring prosperity because it destroys the market functions of private property. Under socialism, private ownership of the means of production no longer exists, and thus there are no market prices for capital goods available. Institutionally, socialism consists in abolishing the market economy and replacing it with a planned economy. By doing away with private property of the means of production, one wipes-out market information and valuation. Even if the socialist administration puts price tags on consumer goods, and the people may own consumer goods, there is no economic orientation about the relative scarcity of capital goods.
Capitalism, with its emphasis on personal private property and market forces, allows for the coordination of the division of labor and capital which history shows us, is better for everyone.
extend my arguments.
extend my arguments
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Con forfeits fullaciously
for now, we are evolving perhaps socialisim is just premature at this point
Did you mean pure liberitarian capitalism vs socialism? And do you have a specific definition of socialism, as they are so varied? If this is a good fit i might take this debate if you choose to restart it. I promise to post more then your current opponent. Lol
>>it does not care about intent.
One reason why that doesn't matter is we can't know it.
That's the definition I used. You must have misunderstood my comment. I pointed out that intent matters as well, and that is a flaw of consequentialistm since it does not care about intent.
Consequentialism: Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
I don't know where you got your definition from.
Consequentialism - Intent matters as well. Intending to do a bad thing is not the same as not intending to do a bad thing.
Non-Consequentialism (whatever they're called) - There is no way to find out someone's intent.
>>Each side's argument has flaws.
What is the flaws of each?
You know what, I don't know either. Each side's argument has flaws.
>>That is a more efficient way to do it. There will be some discrepancies because people make mistakes.
What is your position?
That is a more efficient way to do it. There will be some discrepancies because people make mistakes.
>>The intentions exist, whether or not we know them.
If we don't know it then we don't know their intentions. This does matter. My stance is that we can't know intentions which is why I judge people based on their actions. This can be the words they see or the actions outside of words they do.
I don't know lol.
More seriously: probably since it makes the most sense.
Observation? Interrogation? Pretty hard. I feel like this is gonna go back to a previous annoying discussion we had. The intentions exist, whether or not we know them.
How do you judge people?
Would you consider yourself a consequentialist as well?
Welcome to the dark side where you are one step closer to thou shall not be named action.
I guess I'm a consequentialist then. Intent doesn't matter, if someone intends to commit a criminal action, he is not commiting a crime. Crimes are planning, attempting, or commiting criminal actions.
>>what they intended to do
How do we find out what people's intentions?
>>why you wanted to achieve something
This is intent.
Intent: intention or purpose.
A purpose is a why you want to do something. We can't truly know that.
Kinda hard to rephrase.
People should mainly be judged on what they intended to do. For instance, I don't really consider socialists bad people because generally are trying to get the best outcome for many people. However, I judge the actions of stealing money through excessive taxes immoral. Actions of people can be bad, but they don't have to be bad people.
>That doesn't tell you why they did it.
Did I ever mention anything about why? Maybe I'm wrong, but I define intent as what you wanted to achieve, not why you wanted to achieve something. For example, if a criminal intends to rob a bank, the robbery is something he wants to achieve. It tells us nothing about why he wanted to achieve it.
>>They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?
You can only state that they wanted to do X because they failed to do it or prepared to do it. That doesn't tell you why they did it.
You can know someone's intentions if:
I. They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?
II. They admit their intentions.
>>both by their intentions
How can you judge people by their intentions when you can't know them?
I don't know lol. I think we should judge people both by their intentions and their consequences, but I also think that consequences are more important, since consequences are what affect the world.
>>It makes sense to judge actions by consequences, but judge people by intentions.
Can you say this in a different way?
>>I wouldn't say that I'm a consequentialist, but I understand their points.
What are you then?
It makes sense to judge actions by consequences, but judge people by intentions.
I wouldn't say that I'm a consequentialist, but I understand their points.
Then you are a consequentialist. Good one.
True. We cannot know someone's intentions 100%, so it's more rational to judge people by the outcomes of their actions.
That's not what I said. Good intentions AND good results are what justifies something. If you tried to steal from North Korea but ended up destroying Amazon's website (idk just a comparison), that would be good intentions but bad results. If you tried to steal from North Korea and actually did it, that would be good intentions and good results. So there is a difference, both intention and outcome matter.
>>His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.
Ethics: moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
Wylted is correct. Just another word for morals.
Wylted is also correct about intentions. We shouldn't even set that bar because we can never truly know what people are thinking (qualms for short) so it is best to go by people's consequences after hearing it is bad but they still do it while also having a level-head when making that bad decision.
Sounds like an easy way to justify pretty much anything. Well I had good intentions. As long as my intentions are good,I can do whatever I want.
If you steal from North Korea or some criminal syndicate, I wouldn't be against that. However, whether what you do is moral or not depends on your goals. If your goal is just to get rich, I wouldn't call that very moral, but if your goal is to hurt the bad guys, there's nothing bad about that.
I have never heard of that definition for ethical. I have used it as a synonym for moral, and yes depending on who I steal from, I would consider it ethical.
His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.
If he values himself over stealing then yes Wylted would be ethical in that value framework and if we ought to value our values.
I have no idea how you can consider stealing 6 figures a year "ethical".
Doubtful stealing would work out for the long term.
I would say go through college, uni route. Doubtful a company would hire a person with just skill alone. They would like qualifications as well.
Most of my spare time is spent studying shit related to ethical hacking or programming at the moment, so I can at some point get a real job making 6 figures or use my skills to steal 6 figures a year
Ask him to make it again with 2 week deadline.
And have someone constantly telling you to post an argument. Just have a reminder on your phone or something.
I actually enjoy playing devil's advocate. I just overestimated how much free time I had
Guess you must've realized you were defending socialism.
definitions are crucial to this topic.
What are your definitions of capitalism and socialism?
This is a bit too vague, what are the definitions you'll both be using for capitalism and socialism? And who has the BoP?
10,000 is fair