Would socialism on a large scale be worse for society than America's current form of capitalism?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
In this debate, socialism will be defined as a command economy in which all the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned and regulated by the federal government and democratically elected officials.
Burden of proof is shared.
All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss.
Forfeiting a round will result in a loss.
To clarify, the first person to forfeit or break the character rule loses immediately, after that the rules no longer apply.
So, in general, I'm not a big fan of how this debate is set up. This isn't a comparison between two different philosophies - it's a comparison between a nuanced capitalist system with socialist elements ("America's current form of capitalism") and just straight up socialism. It's not that it's unclear, but it's also clearly imbalanced for two major reasons: one, a socialist system like this doesn't and has never existed in America or elsewhere, and two, it seems best to compare philosophies, and the philosophy behind the current system in America is mixed at best. I think both of these realities were underutilized by each side.
Pro, repeatedly pointing to failed systems in other countries doesn't get your point across because it's not establishing concrete realities in the US, and being overgeneral about how a socialist economy would work in the US similarly runs into potential problems as your opponent isn't confined to a single way of implementing socialism. Yes, he has to follow the definition, but as he discovers much later in the debate, there's nuance in how that implementation affects the market. It comes too late to matter, but you should be designing your points in a way that rejects any application of socialism on this scale.
Con, you are arguing a philosophy of economics against an established system. I honestly expected you to jump all over the fact that there are established, clear and huge harms to the existing American system, while the vast majority of what Pro comes up with to counter socialism is economic theory. One has solid, known impacts. One has theoretical impacts. That's a big difference that you could have used in your favor. For that matter, you kept bringing up how socialism plays a role in the economy to bolster your case when you should have been using it to undermine his. You're going for more socialism. You have to say why that increase is beneficial with concrete examples. You can, however, stay pretty general when you talk about how the benefits he claims to gain from capitalism are undermined by the very forces he says are so corrupt. Most importantly, though, your biggest problem is that you don't land on a clear policy position. You keep jumping between positions, talking about Finland as a model for it (despite that country not meeting the definition), then democratic socialism, then about how "socialism can adapt to american needs," then about moving away from the mixed economy. It's not clear what actually happens beyond what's spelled out in the description, and that's not good when it comes to claiming that you have benefits because I don't see anything that isn't tied to one of these somewhat tangential comparisons.
What ends up happening is that there's almost no debate over what the existing system in the US does well or does poorly. Pro argues that it's necessary to have the capitalist elements to ensure progress and a stable, growing economy. Con's responses are largely to point out things like lead poisoning that just don't stack up meaningfully against that argument and don't seem particularly unique to Pro's case. And with no clear position for Con to take, he spends most of the debate shifting his case around looking for ways to find benefits, largely conceding the set of harms laid out early in Pro's arguments. They're overgeneralized and poorly applied, but given that it's impossible to nail down Con's position, I can't fault him on application. That's enough for Pro to win the debate.
Con was actually doing good, that was until the fourth round where they had less than 3500 characters per the rules of the debate.
As a voter, even though I was sure pro was right, I made sure and fact checked if con had less characters than required. Sure enough, they did.
I encourage con to engage in the same debate again, even copy and pasting some arguments. As you have probably noticed, pro posts this same debate, same parameters, and same rules quite often. Props to pro for continuing the debate even with cons concession.
Short answer: I vote pro due to concession from con. What concession? Having less than 3500 characters in round four.
The problem with claiming that his points applied to communism and not socialism was that you were still being too broad. What helped was when you were clear about what your position was and how, by taking that position, you circumvented his arguments. What you want to do when you’re faced with general arguments like this that are meant to address any case you could present is de-link to your case, specifically. It’s the reason I don’t like what I call “pre-rebuttals” where one side drafts arguments against a case they anticipate rather than one that is clear: if the other side plays their cards right, they can make all those arguments virtually worthless simply by presenting a case that doesn’t work with them.
All that being said, you have to thread a needle to do it, simultaneously recognizing the definition as laid out in the description and establishing those ways that it doesn’t limit your case. For example, owning and regulating the means of production, distribution and exchange doesn’t prevent the government from appointing private entities to run them. I think you understood that, since you said that they could innovate anyway, but you have to really spell it out and clarify how it would work. Pointing to Finland may be demonstrative of some benefits, but you have to point to the specific mechanisms in that system and how they relate to yours. Based on the definition, yours and their system could not have been identical, but there are still lessons you could take from it.
The topic is heavily one-sided, but I believe it’s still winnable by Con.
Thanks for input.
I must point out that I tried to indicate that pro comments on the "bad" things in socialism are applied only to communism not socialism as a whole - example is the intro "debunk" philosophies of karl marx which is explicitly communism as marx indixates socialism is a stepping stone for communism even though there is no explocit need to jump from one to the other.
Yes I understand my position may have seemed too generalized or jumped around. I was trying to prevent a single image of socialism. That single image would always be compared to communism or fascism in some way.
Otherwise thanks for pointing out weakpoints. I will reread and compare arguements. Thanks again.
Haven't read it yet, but I'll give you feedback.
Cool thanks. Is there anything specific you wanted to see in the debate but maybe was missing?
This is next for me. Just so we’re clear: the most I’d ever give for violating a rule like that 3,500 character minimum is a conduct violation, so it will not be enough by itself for me to vote either way.
Any comments on context would be helpful for those reading or voting
Push, only 5 days left. Should be easy given concession.
Push for votes
Plz vote! Only a week.
Yes but would love to watch
I've seen a lot of variations proposed which is why I was very specific in the description. What you're describing is technically still capitalism. The term democratic socialism is thrown around quite a bit, but it's actually what I described.
I would be if not the fact that your definition of socialism is one that is extreme (the workers control the entirety of the means of production, i.e. communism). There are more conservative versions of socialism which is basically just arguing for a heavily regulated economy but there is still a free (but highly limited) economy where anyone can found a business and where the means of production are not solely in the hands of the people.
Any of you interested?