Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Socialism at least tries to address problem, not dismiss it away as ‘it’s just part of the system. ’” BUT it is part of the system! Name one period of time in human history where there was no poverty or greed. These things have always and will always exist no matter what. Yes, socialism tries to address the problem, but there is a difference in addressing a problem and solving it. Socialism does not fix the problem. Capitalism is a system that tries not to destroy the problem and be unrealistic, but rather ease the problem. You can’t destroy greed. You can’t destroy poverty, but you can react to it. That is why capitalism, among other reasons, is better. “My opponent also brought up the USSR and how they supposedly were greedy when it all fell down, and it lead to corruption, etc. Yet he fails to realize that a) The USSR was a communist, NOT socialist country. ” All communists are socialists! The ideal socialist state is also the ideal communist state! By definition, all communists are also socialist. I ask my opponent to explain why a socialist but not a communist state is ideal. “fails to realize that not every system is perfect” I never called capitalism perfect. But, considering the historical proof and examples I have provided, history shows that capitalism has worked better than any other system, while socialism has NEVER worked. “10 ways that a capitalist society, the US-freaking-A is the most corrupt country “ Ah, I also never called capitalism a corruption-free system. But capitalism is a much freer system. In the US, they have freedom of speech, press, religion among other freedoms. {1} The USSR, China and North Korea (among other countries. ) have/had none of these freedoms. Is the US as free as they say they are? Not necessarily, but a single party, totalitarian countries with no freedom of speech and press like North Korea is less corrupt? Really? “Let's take a step back. If the whole greed thing never happened, the whole Martin Shkreli thing never happened, there would be no need to have a cheaper drug in the first place. ” But greed has always existed. As stated before, greed exists outside economics, It can’t be directed and it can’t be controlled. Greed is at fault, but saying that it can be eliminated is unrealistic. And despite what my opponent says, Socialism will not get rid of greed toward money! I am sure that the people who’s money is redistributed will want their money back. “My opponent clearly seems to support the latter. ” Yup. “In this argument my opponent starts off with a poor example of Alberta. A) He states that Alberta is socialist, but it is clearly not according to our definitions. “ The Albertan government is run by the New Democratic Party, a SOCIALIST party. “It’s honestly the people’s fault. They elected who they wanted. They got what they elected. ” Kind of like how the German population elected Hitler. They must have also got what they elected. “Afterwords, he named multiple examples of a bunch of socialist places with one party. Yet he doesn't seem to understand that there are many Capitalist places that are also Authoritarian. ” True. Belarus and Armenia are authoritarian. But name ONE socialist society that is/was not authoritarian. And they have to actually be Socialist, not just in name. I can’t. Socialism and Communism have bred nothing but authoritarian states, with corruption and totalitarianism. Socialism has no sample to prove why it is democratic. I will also note that my opponent never actually pointed out any reasons why Socialism is the more democratic system/why Capitalism is not a democratic system. He simply tried to point out flaws in my examples. “Reader, switch the word Socialist with the word Capitalist and the same could be said. In a world with all apples, the orange would not work. That"s a fact of life. So it’s not a problem with Socialism, it’s a problem with surroundings. ” I personally think that this statement is a False Cause logical fallacy. {2} It seems like you are saying that: Socialism was not as common as Capitalism at the time. The Socialist Countries lost the cold war. Therefore, the Socialist Countries lost the cold war because Socialism was less popular amongst countries. So this “Fact of life” is based around a logical fallacy. Okay then. “As stated last round, Advertisements use the lust for money to manipulate emotions, with 3000 ads thrown at them a day. Advertisers know this, and abuse this for the money. But not only do they see this barrage, this attack, of ads, people are affected by them. 64.6% click on google ads. This goes to show just how effective these ads are. ” And that is their choice. This once again, is important to democracy. No one is forcing them to click on these ads. Would you punish a priest for encouraging (but not forcing) a person to convert to Christianity? Are these people being influenced? Yes, but the CEO of the company that created the ad is not holding the person behind the screen at gunpoint. I will also point out that you are criticizing a system about influencing people, yet the entire idea of Socialism is about influencing people, while Capitalism and the Free Market is a much more free system. How can you even talk about capitalism controls people’s freedoms, when Socialism would do the same thing! “One of the biggest problems in today's society is poverty. One of the worst solution is the common Capitalist mantra is that ‘you work hard you do well’. So they assume that the easy fix is just to work hard. This is totally impossible because of the dubbed ‘cycle of poverty. ’” Socialism has created nothing but misery in the world. Capitalism has created wealth worldwide more than any other system in the world. Is there poverty in our society? Yes. But there is always has been. Besides, how can socialism fix poverty? My opponent may say that this will be done by a mass redistribution of wealth. But the actual process of this redistribution has not been explained by opponent. This redistribution will not just happen. It will not happen overnight. It is far too ambitious and unrealistic. To help support my case, I will present two quotes from two separate countries. “Socialism will never end poverty. It will never ‘level the playing field’, and it will kill personal incentive. First, before I am accused as being uncompassionate, I want to mention that 14 years ago, I was on food-stamps and welfare. This was due to a life changing accident… Anyway, I have personal, first hand knowledge of what it’s like to be a welfare recipient. I also have knowledge of dealing with the bureaucracy of those federal and state agencies, as well as the attitudes of my fellow recipients. I will tell you upfront, it sucked, and I couldn’t wait to get the hell off these services and to get some dignity back. But I was an exception. Many have no intention of every getting off these entitlements. The redistribution of wealth through entitled programs can never equate to a prosperous society. Incentives are great motivators, free stuff is not. Thomas Edison said: ‘Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress. ’ I believe I used the system as it was intended: to give TEMPORARY assistance to those who need help getting on their feet. That being said, I have never been back on it. I went back to college, own a business and became a landlord. ” {3} “Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is superior to capitalism in one primary way: It offers more security. It's almost like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you're lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It's just as Winston Churchill once noted, ‘The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. ’” {4} I now call upon my opponent to explain to all of us how Socialism will be able to create a proper system that will get rid of economic inequality. IN CONCLUSION… My opponent has strawmanned my arguments multiple times, misinterpreting my arguments on more than one occasion during this debate. My opponent has not been able to provide any historical example of Socialism working, proving that Socialism is a mere Ideal. My opponent failed to prove how Socialism can work, simply stating would SHOULD be done, not what COULD be done. I have proven that Capitalism is the more realistic, sustainable and overall superior system to Socialism with historical examples to help me. Socialism just can’t work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aaaaaaaaand done. What a fun debate. Win or lose, this debate certainly is the highlight of my debating history on this site. As a die-hard socialist, it was interesting to look through the other side. I would like to thank my old friend DDD for being such a worthy opponent. I once more appreciate his patience. Yours Truly, DarthKirones. Sources: {1}. http://www.newsoptimist.ca... {2}. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... {3}. http://www.redstate.com... {4}. http://townhall.com...