Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal

Right, was definitely prepared for this one. Note: THIS WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH ON MY SIDE AND WHAT VOTERS SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. What I say after this point will just be reiterations and pulling arguments through. So going on your points 1 by 1. 1. "Your first point describes a utopia Communist society......" >>Yes this is correct and I definitely saw this coming. Look to the topic of this debate, "Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal". We are debating Economic ideals here. I have already defined what an ideal is and you have agreed with that definition by not offering me a counter definition or even saying anything about it. Had you wanted to debate "Capitalism is the Greatest Economic system in practice" you should have made the topic such. As it stands I am talking about Communism as an Economic Ideal, a utopia if you will. To further strengthen my argument look to my definition of a communism and then check your examples. None match my definition and thus all fall. Thus my first point, people live and with quality, stands and is the most important point thus far in this round. 2. ".....if we never had competition, what would prevent the one or two producers from making the same crappy products over and over again.......companies would have no incentive to improve their products." >>This I consider to be very false. A communist system is more than just a system, it is an entire way of life just as Capitalism is. Think about it, anywhere you are raised ideals will be thrown at you from society and you will conform to them. For instance in America, every child grows up with the "success = getting rich" but in a communism this is not the case. In a communism children would grow up with "success = help society" this is an entire different world. And yes the difference is incomprehensible to most people in a different type of society. Stop and think for a minute about everything society has told you about growing up and how this has effected your life. "Go to school" "Earn a degree" "Get rich" "Support your family" "Have a great physique" is society hadn't said these things would you be different? Of course you would. Want proof? Santa Clause. You grew up for years and years believing Santa Clause was true what changed your mind? Society told you that it wasn't true. Society told you what to think. But this is far different than Santa Clause. The ideas inherent in a capitalist system have been entrenched in the people their entire lives their entire histories. In a communism the same effect occurs and the people approach life with a different mind set. A simple redefinition of what success entails. This is why my second point stands in this round. Instead of making crappy products people would make what would help society the most. In fact I turn this argument back on you. In a capitalism people cut corners in order to increase proficiency and profit; to undercut the competition. 3. "I think that they benefits of international trade would outweigh any lose in "efficiency."" >>You misunderstand. I'm saying a Communism because of its efficiency can create products to sell on a global market that would be unbeatable by any other nation. Thus international trade would dramatically increase which would in turn increase the communisms wealth. With my three point in tact I can only see my communism argument as standing. Thank you and please vote for it. Onto my second argument. "You say, "In such an economy the government nationalizes only key industries..Health Care, Transportation, Mail, Housing construction, personal power, and personal utilities industries." Our current capitalist government already supplies several of these services and more (mail, utilities, education, etc). So what, then, makes selective socialism so great or different? The way you word it, you make it sound like selective socialism is just capitalism with just a lot of welfare-like programs." >> On he contrary you can take two different takes on this as it is still disputed throughout the world. 1. The U.S is not a capitalism it is a minor selective socialism with very few nationalized industries and some subsidies. 2. The U.S is a capitalism with many subsidies and a few parts that aren't capitalistic. However one way or another you must concede to me that the U.S is not a total free market due to these facts and therefor is not a true ideal capitalism. A true ideal selective socialism in this case would be a market the nationalizes 100% all of the key industries, so onto your three points. 1. "Similar to the 1st point on Communism, every single real world case has not shown to hold your statement of "higher living standards" true." >>Cross apply my definition of ideal. If you wanted to focus on real life probabilities don't debate ideals. Ideals are essentially the utopian form of ideas. 2. "Again, this just makes selective socialism seem like a welfare based capitalist economy. So I don't see why you brought up selective socialism at all, since, from your definition, it is so similar to capitalism." >> No, it simply has benefits of both Capitalism and Communism. It is a system that disallows for unneeded death under the inherent exploitation of a capitalist system as you described it and at the same time allows for monetary wealth. 3. "I'm not sure what you're getting at with number 3." >>Same as last point basically. Sorry I should have grouped them, I just felt it was very important so I made it its own point. Once again I can only see how ideal Selective Socialism triumphs over ideal capitalism thus I must once again urge voters to vote for I. Onto your conclusion paragraph and my counter conclusion: "In your own definition of government, do you mention economic regulation at all. The sole purpose of the law is to uphold justice, not to steal from people with welfare programs. Even though the will is good, things like welfare really is legal stealing. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Just because other people may need it, doesn't give the government the right to take my paycheck and give it to others." >>I agree with your statement that part of the purpose of the law is to uphold justice but I disagree with what you consider justice to be. You say my ideals would steal from their people but I disagree. Is it truly just for one man to live with more wealth than he could ever need when that wealth could be split between him and 100 other men, starving on the streets, and they could still end up at an above average standard of living? Is that justice to you? You factor your equation on monetary loss but is monetary loss truly a factor in comparison to human life? Can you seriously tell me that justice is served through monetary wealth? A government runs how the people wish it to, and maybe in some societies that's what they believe. But in my ideal communism and selective socialism human quality of life is measured as the greatest factor and perhaps thats the main difference between our arguments. =) Anyways, I stand open for your final speech.