Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Socialism

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Dr.Franklin
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
500
Required rating
10
Contender / Con
Points: 21
Description
The problem with attempts at socialism were they were premature, very premature, the world economy and technology were undeveloped, you cant run till you learn to walk
Round 1
Published:
Once the world economy developes properly we can all co operate and make like better and more equal, e can move beyond capitalism once capitalism is full grown
Published:
Socialism is bad for 3 reasons

1.Giving Government too much power is a bad idea. When you give government a new law to enforce, like taking money, It gives the state and police too much power

2.Never succeeded.Venezuela turned to turmoil because of it

3.With Big government comes corruption, The Soviet Union was the biggest socialist project was a total evil state.Mao killed 30 Million people under a socialist system.Power and evil comes

Round 2
Published:
What about Norway , Norway has more State owned assets is more collective than both Venezuela and red China and enjoys the worlds best quality of life, so you like to cherry pick the losers that are in no way close to socialist but the most socialist nation by definition on earth is a paradise, eh? and studies show people that live in big government welfare states, are extatically happy, they have no cares only rainbows and free ice cream
Published:
Rebuttal

Next RD will be defense

The World economy is already developed and always changing. Already under a capitalist we already work together to find a common goal like getting out of recessions.{1}What do you mean by capitalism is fully grown? A world economy isn't "grown". My opponent's argument is lacking with no facts and his personal opinion. Hardly convincing or really an argument.


Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
you must learn to walk before you run 20th century attempts at socialism were simply premature like hading a three year old the keys to your car
Instigator
#19
Added:
--> @billbatard
That is what I thought. Your delusion has actually led you to believe things that are not true. Similar to conservatives. Your ideology means more than what is correct. Socialism isn't as palatable as you think nor has it been as productive as capitalism.
#18
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
watch and learn maybe i know something you don't, i'm not counting on revolution i'm counting on demographic changes that will isolate you and your kind
Instigator
#17
Added:
--> @billbatard
Welcome you
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @billbatard
You still haven't changed.
Your socialist revolution is not going to come if you are not convincing. To even think the US is close to a socialist revolution is laughable. Why not attempt to make a case instead of giving the right wing such an easy way of winning?
#15
Added:
welcome to the thunder dome raggedy man
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @billbatard
I will be deabting you over this topic, Good luck
Contender
#13
Added:
--> @billbatard
Finally Billy has gone to the best debating website, long overdue though.
#12
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Ah I see. I've heard a lot about DDO going downhill. Became a graveyard once the mods became Hitler-like.
#11
Added:
--> @Cogent_Cognizer
Someone from Debate.Org, one of the last long time active users on that site to my knowledge. To my knowledge, dsjpk5 and backwardseden are the only longtime active users still on there. Although I could be wrong.
#10
Added:
--> @billbatard
Second, could you be more specific with your debate?
You're green, so that makes you pro-socialism, but your description seems a little ambiguous.
#9
Added:
First, who's BIll Sands?
#8
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
:(
Contender
#7
Added:
FUCK YAH ITS BILLSANDS!
#6
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Yup :(
Contender
#5
#3
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 refuted pro's case with the example of Venezuela, as that happened (and is happening) in present day, so if premature than then it cannot be assumed the world will ever be mature in the right ways for the socialism to not fail. Of course apparently it's actually doing great, as people living there "have no cares only rainbows and free ice cream."
A good follow up debate would be that Norway is socialist, as pro made some assertions around Norway secretly being that, and were they warranted (supported by even minimal evidence) he could have won.
I would have been genuinely interested in learning what technology advancements would make socialism a preferable system (or even a feasible one), the debate was setup for that, but then it never happened.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro never sources anything he says, while Con does for each and every one of his claims. This completely kills Pros arguments as they really need a source to back them up. Also, I can no longer check if his claims are legitimate leaving the voter in the blue as to how to treat his arguments. But, it isn't only the voters, Dr Franklin can no longer secure the legitimacy of Pro's points himself.
So, it is clear that Con won sources.
Pro's uncited claims
#1 ""Norway has more State owned assets is more collective than both Venezuela and red China.""
#2 ""enjoys the worlds best quality of life.""
#3 ""you like to cherry pick the losers that are in no way close to socialist but the most socialist nation by definition on earth is a paradise, eh.""(Multiple unsourced claims here, he doesn't prove Venezuela isn't socialist, that Norway is the most socialist nation on Earth, and that Norway is a paradise).
With the lack of sourcing on Pro's part I can't truly count any of his points, Dr.Franklin on the other hand gave me multiple good reasons to believe Socialism doesn't work.
Cons arguments
He points out Socialism's track record of failure, from the past to the present, how tyrannical governments will emerge, and how Mao killed 30 million people, this proves to me that Socialism is wrong whether you look at it from a moral perspective or a more statistical perspective, Pros attempt at rebutting these are unsourced.
Over all Con demonstrates socialisms blunders and inefficiencies. When Pro tries to debunk these things he doesn't back up 1 point with a source.
So, it's fair to say Con won arguments.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This debate was extremely awkward. Both sides forfeited a round, and Dr.Franklin got banned for some reason. Not only that, but there wasn't many arguments to go on due to the 500-character limit, meaning that I have to be more critical of each side.
I awarded "convincing arguments" to con, since his arguments were more specific and easier to understand. Pro argued that "Once the world economy developes properly we can all co operate and make like better and more equal". This argument was extremely vague, in my opinion. Pro should have went into more detail about what he meant when he talked about "the world economy" developing properly as well as making live "better and more equal". Con gave more specific arguments and went into more detail, despite being limited to only 500 characters.
I awarded sources to con since pro didn't give any source.
I award spelling and grammar to con, too. Pro misspelled several words like:
"develope" (it's actually spelled "develop" without that E at the end)
"co operate" (it's one word, not two)
"extatically" (i have no idea what word he was actually trying to spell here; exactly? extremely? excitingly? ecstatically?)
Pro also started multiple sentences without a capital letter and also ended multiple sentences without the period, question mark, or exclamation mark.
I tied conduct, since both sides forfeited a round, so their conduct was equally bad.