Social Darwinism is a just theory

Morality I apologize for not specifying on which moral framework, but I wouldn’t like to delve that deep into morality, because I would like to keep this argument economic rather than philosophical. Just the general consensus of morality would be great (basically having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without infringing on anyone else’s rights). Success “This seems to be an assumption that the rich are inherently superior to the poor right off the bat.”By stating “you are essentially punishing hard-working, intelligent people”, I was trying to veer more towards saying that you are punishing people who found a way to gain money. These people are usually hard-working and fairly intelligent, and were obviously motivated to earn more and gain more power. There are exceptions, e.g. Paris Hilton and the royal family, but for the most part I feel my opponent can agree that most wealthy people earned their position. “While I agree that a good work ethic is generally a positive moral attribute, I think there are more important characteristics, such as compassion, consideration for others, loyalty etc. I don't really consider intelligence an indicator of morality at all.”I never said that wealthy people were morally superior than poor citizens, but rather the theory of SD is morally fair. “In any case, does Pro really believe that richer people are automatically more hard-working and more intelligent than poorer people?”In most cases, I feel that the rich are more motivated and ‘intelligent’. I use intelligent in the broadest sense possible, because it’s extremely hard to measure and test. “I can't legitimately….good moral character die poor.”There are exceptions to almost anything. 80% of millionaires were not wealthy as a child (1). You bring up a straw man by stating that “intelligent hard-working people of good moral character die poor”. I never stated that SD guarantees morally superior people end up wealthy. “If a man comes up to me in the street and offers me £100, am I a thief if I accept it?”There is a difference between taking from the rich and giving to the poor and giving someone money willingly. Taxes take away money from people whether or not they agree with the cause. “Taking something without paying is not necessarily stealing; stealing is taking something without consent, very different.”Glad to see we’re on the same page. Taxes take money from people without consent. “People who use food stamps ARE paying, they are just paying with food stamps rather than general currency… Consent is given, so this is in no way theft.”They obtained food stamps by the government, which matched the money using tax-payer money. The tax-payer didn’t necessarily consent, so they are using someone else’s money to buy the food. It doesn’t matter if the shops consent; it’s not their money to spend. Higher taxes and socialism“Consider the negative income tax system advocated by moderate conservatives like Richard Nixon [1], and even hardcore libertarians like Milton Freidman [2].”This solves the problem with the middle class, but makes a whole new problem for the rich. By attacking the rich to help the poor, you are essentially discouraging financial success (I feel this goes with the argument above as well. Social Darwinism benefits the rich, which encourages others to earn more money. This encourages more people to work rather than rely on welfare indefinitely. Welfare fraud would be reduced (because welfare would be eliminated), and lazy freeloaders would get their just deserts. “It is also important…while the team as a whole got pummelled.”My opponent’s analogy is clever, but not comparable to the economy. The economy works by individuals all earning and spending money individually. People don’t think about working together with others to boost the economy, all they worry about is earning and spending money themselves. ‘Hogging the ball’ is good for the economy, because the more money you have, the more you can put back into the market. “Push-ups are not a productive activity…individual expertise.” Again, this isn’t really comparable to the economy. Millions of people work together in capitalism, and it works just fine. “It's also important that we bust the myth…competitiveness”I never stated that more competitive people are more able to achieve more recognition. “Straw man, social policies that differentiate based on need in no way entail putting everyone on the "same level".”I was thinking more of extreme-socialism to communism. I understand I may have been drifting more towards arguing for capitalism, but I feel it is still relevant to this debate. 1 – Rebuttal: Appeal to nature is not always fallacious. Con states that all successful animal groups cooperate more than they compete, but there are many examples contradicting this statement. Intraspecific competition allows for the advancement of successful genes and stopping harmful mutations. Red deer compete much more than they cooperate, and it is the largest non-domesticated mammal in the UK and Ireland (thought it was fitting considering my opponent is English). 2-Rebuttal: While cooperation may be more efficient in human groups, it doesn’t prove that SD is unjust. The economy isn’t just one human group, it is hundreds of thousands of different groups all cooperating AND competing. 3-Rebuttal: Interesting, but it doesn’t really affect the validity of SD. SD does not advocate the complete eradication of government, and it doesn’t necessarily want police forces to go away. Social Darwinism simply stands for laissez-faire economics, low taxes, and not having one group of people spend millions supporting another group of people. It is a valid argument, but completely irrelevant in this debate. (1) - http://www.nytimes.com...