Liberalism is inherent with Socialism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
this is the first debate i came up with so that's fun
- Is progressive
- Works towards the whole humanity
- Stresses for economic freedom[5]
- There are examples of socialism without liberalism
- Liberalism needs the stress of individual rights
- Stalin, while running a socialist nation, did not stress for individual rights
- Stalin’s example is socialism without liberalism
- Liberalism needs the stress of individual rights
- There are examples of liberalism without socialism
- Classical liberalism fits the definition of liberalism
- Classical liberalism is capitalist and not socialist, it is an example of Liberalism without socialism
- Classical liberalism fits the definition of liberalism
- The statement "Liberalism is inherent with Socialism" is disproven by facts and logic
- Vote Con.
Firstly in response we should first recognise the phrasing of the statement saying that socialism is inherent with socialism not vice versa. The link being presented as such is from the specific sect of liberalism, which is inescapably liberalism just in a more "left wing" mindset. The link being made isn't from a socialist sect to all of liberalism (although that could also be viable due to owenism) or indeed all of liberalism to all of socialism, it is a portion of liberalism that effectively links to all of socialism.
Secondly the Contender looks exclusively at Stalinism as a sector of socialism instead of enforced Collectivism, making the link between Marxist-Leninism and it's sub-sects to Socialism is like linking Fascism and other Sub-sects to conservatism, it only works when you recognise the latter as a much "bigger tent" so to speak then it actually is.
- My opponent did not critique my definitions, as a result, they stand
- My opponent dropped the fact Classical liberalism is a liberalism and it is not socialist
- My opponent also dropped the fact that Stalin is a socialist
- For what I interpreted, Pro moved the goalpost as the topic has shown no boundaries to the key terms yet in R2 Pro added "it is a portion of liberalism that effectively links to all of socialism." Even if it is not, the fact he dropped that classical liberalism is right-wing and Stalin is a socialist would lose him the win.
- As a result, my opponent did not prove that Liberalism is inherent with socialism.
- Vote CON.
The outcome can be summarized with a single quote from con:
"A source and I can pretty muchagree that Stalin-era Soviet Russia is socialist[2], since Communismis a variation of socialism[3]. If you wanna critique these twoexamples, please use sources to do so, as Pro holds the BoP bydefault."
That said, I did find con to be quite eloquent, and look forward to reading more of their debates in future.
Sources:
Con used sources on Stalin, to show how bad one branch of socialism is, and support that it is void of liberalism. Pro failed to engaged with this, or otherwise offer counter sources to disprove the connection.
Legibility:
Sadly for con, the copy/paste from LibreOffice deleted many spaces, making his case unduly difficult to readinmanyplaces.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://tiny.cc/votingpolicy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty much cite how "CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory" and likewise how at least one of those many sources supported this.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
Benjamin
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Sources:
No sources from PRO. He referenced some literature but it does not even compare to CON.
Arguments:
PRO did not fulfill his BoP with sources. Nevertheless, CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory, fulfilling BoP.
Sorry, in r2 I was meant to say that Stalinism is communisT and communism is socialisT, not M. Typo.
And all I'm saying is that that is a generalization
Modern liberalism oftentimes aligns with socialist economics, that's all I'm saying.
I wouldn't say so, I'd say people who are modernly liberal happen to agree with socialism, they aren't intrinsically linked. Socialism is an economic structure, modern liberalism is more about social rights.
...LibreOffice is still janky, but at least it is better.
He may not, but modern liberalism is very close to socialism.
And I don't think this person knows what socialism is.
Idk what kind of liberalism he's talking about, he didn't specify. But I think that there's always liberalism implicit in socialism is his resolve
Is he arguing that There is always socialism in liberalism or if there is always liberalism in socialism? I can argue both, but I want to prioritize the correct interpretation.
Maybe modern liberalism. But not classical liberalism.
As a Chinese citizen and long-time Reddit Dweller, I disagree fully.