Socialism is evil

" The Nordic model is highly capitalist, You were wanting to debate socialism as you defined in round one, Not social systems. If anything, They would be categorized under welfare capitalism or a mixed economy. " - These are far from " highly capitalist " countries. In fact, These countries aren't 100 % either at all. These countries have redistribution of wealth and socialized government programs such as free college and free healthcare. All of which are forms of redistribution of wealth. - If you are going to make the argument that since these countries aren't 100 % socialist, This doesn't make them socialist and their success is mostly due to capitalism than this is wrong. The problem with this logic is that acting as if countries have to be 100 % of one ideology or the other, Which is unrealistic and limiting. For example, Capitalism combined with socialism is a very successful system. This takes the good parts of capitalism being innovation and economic growth, But at the same time having socialized safety nets to prevent poor living conditions and the exploitation of workers. Also by this same logic, Capitalism would be considered unsuccessful since no country with 100 % capitalism has ever been successful Unless you are going to argue that the industrial revolution countries were successful which is just absurd. " You were wanting to debate socialism as you defined in round one, " - I want to debate whether or not it is evil. The fact that mixed economies with socialization work prove it is not " evil" as by our own definition it isn't harmful to society. Again if you are going to go with the mixed market argument, Then you'd have to say any economic system in the entire world that is mixed is also evil. " The standard of living hasn"t only risen in the USA, It"s risen all around the world due to modern advancements in Science and technology. " - Never said the standard of living wasn't rising, It is rising which is due to mixed economies on socialism and capitalism. The standards of living have risen due to mixed countries with capitalism and socialism. Again during the industrial revolution when there was little to none socialization, There was immense poverty, Wealth inequality, Crime, Disease, And poor working/living conditions. If this is your idea of an " ideal " world than we can start an argument about that. " These are not examples of a purely capitalist economy, They"re examples of a purely libertarian society. " " 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. " - Last time I checked, The industrial revolution checked everything in the definition of capitalism, During the industrial revolution these countries had all of trade and industry owned by private owners for profit with little redistribution of wealth. In your own definition, It never states that the market should be " regulated" at all or argue for the redistribution of wealth. " These countries having higher median wages is meaningless. These countries also have a much higher cost of living with a higher tax rate to support their social systems. " - This is inaccurate, According to Forbes, The only countries mentioned on my list that have higher taxes are Germany, Denmark, And the Uk. Every other country such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, And Japan all have lower taxes than the US does. " This is simply not true, Unless you think government itself is somehow innately socialist. " - By our definitions that we agreed upon, The government is entirely run on the redistribution of wealth/taxes which would, Therefore, Make them immoral from your POV. " Yes, And universal healthcare isn"t a solution; though an obvious red herring, " This isn't a red herring at all, Addressing points that you may bring up later isn't a red herring. The reason why I pointed out that socialized programs are generally better is that this is a common argument used in favor of privatized industries. " Centralizing this and laying it upon the government will do little to help in this regard. " - Explain to me how statistically according to CEO world and literally every other statistic out there, That the US isn't even in the top 10 nor 20 when it comes to highest life expectancies. Being beaten by countries with more socialized medicine such as Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Denmark, Spain, Uk, And Sweden. " But in making it accessible it negates the value entirely. The average person should not be going to college, Nor be attempting to. It would be better if the government just got out of this. " - Going to college helps society and the economy by having more skilled workers and a more educated population. Which in turn leads to more innovation and more economic gain. So yes the average person should be going to college. " Why? It seems to me all these things could be provided by a capitalist system, Except better. " - This is an acetal claim which I already provided statistics to that contradict it. " This isn"t socialism, Taxation is necessary in order for the government to enforce the social contract and protect it's sovereignty. Properly implemented, Taxation should not interfere with a capitalist economy. " - Taxes are taking wealth and redistributing it. In this case, It is going towards social programs which is essentially socialism with the definition we agreed upon. - By this own sentence, You pretty much agree that at least some levels of socialism are necessary which completely concedes your entire argument. Sources will be posted in my profile comment section.