frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





With Socialism, there can be success, no corruption, and equal prosperity.

Debate Information

I do not believe this. I believe with socialism, no one is successful but the elites, there is corruption, and there is no equal prosperity, but equal poorness. Let's see how this goes.
  1. Live Poll

    Can a country succeed with Socialism?

    12 votes
    1. Of course not!
      50.00%
    2. Yes!
      25.00%
    3. Maybe
      25.00%
  2. Live Poll

    Do you support socialism?

    12 votes
    1. Yes! Absolutely!
      25.00%
    2. Nope!
      75.00%
    3. A little bit
        0.00%
“Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

"It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
Bob Barr
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    This is obvious. That is how Socialism is, there cannot be a perfect country with this economic system, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Humans are greedy and selfish creatures, why do we have BMWs, Mercedes Benz, Porsches, and other luxury cars like Lexus, Rolls Royce, and Cadillac? Its called "competition". For profit and sales, they all compete to make better cars, who ever makes the best luxury car, they get more money and sales. Socialism in a way is basic, you're just making things for use, no one wants a wimpy Toyota Corolla, they want something nice to drive, like a Lexus, a Buick, or maybe a Cadillac. With capitalism, not everyone is poor, with socialism, almost everyone is EQUALLY poor, while the elites hold all the money and exclaim to the gullible public that the wealth is being "shared" when in reality, it is not. 
    Zombieguy1987cheesycheeseNathaniel_B



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Socialism doesn't claims that it will be completely utopian with no corruption. By your standards it's a failure but to my knowledge no society in the history of the world hasn't suffered some corruption.

    Socialism is also specifically not based on equal prosperity - it's meant to be based on merit based prosperity e.g.: "to each according to his contribution". Or to put it another way, if you work harder and contribute more than someone else, you should get paid more and be more prosperous. If you want equal prosperity then that's communism or anarchism.

    On the flip side however it seems impossible to argue that there isn't success in socialism. You can say there's less success or the success is bad for whatever reason but trying to say that no-one succeeds by any metric whatsoever - from the leader of the country to award winning scientists to people who just live ordinary happy lives - seems insane.

    Overall I think you are trying to judge Socialism on very poor metrics.
    Orthodox_Christiancheesycheese
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    Humans are not well oiled robots functioning exactly as expected. In any system, no matter how bad and no matter how good, there will be those who succeed and those who fail; those who are corrupt and those who are not; those who prosper and those who wither.

    The real question is what outcome the system favors, what opportunities people gain to reach the desired outcome, and how the society under socialism as a whole is going to function in real life. Both theoretical and historical analysis give a pretty well defined answer to this question.

    Take an ordinary, say, Cuban refugee in the US. Does this Cuban find a heaven on Earth with no issues and with prosperity in everyone's hands when he steps on the American soil the first time? No. This Cuban will see the homeless, he will see the bureaucrats who fail to process his asylum request in time and extend it as much as they can in order to justify their salary, he will see millionaires on Ferraris blasting through streets with broken pavement and beggars lined up across the road.
    But at the same time, he will see that the vast majority of people enjoy a very luxurious quality of life, compared to what he is used to. He will see that he is free to pick some berries in the forest and go to the central square and sell them for cash, without being immediately arrested for private enterpreneurship (which, until recently, was a serious crime in Cuba). He will see that he can criticize the government publicly and even organize vocal demonstrations against the local authorities, without as much as a hint at a violent retaliation. He will see that the grocery stores are full of goodies, as opposed to semi-empty stores he is used to from his Cuban experiences. He will see that people live in modern homes with Internet, stable electricity and air conditioning - as opposed to ancient clay slums he used to live in.

    Will this Cuban conclude that every single person in the US lives better than every single person on Cuba? Of course not. Some Cubans are better off than some Americans. But what is the general trend? When 98% Americans live better than 98% Cubas, and when such disparity can be seen when comparing any developed capitalist country to any developed or not socialist country - then the preferred system becomes obvious, even if the preferences do not apply to every single individual. A homeless is a homeless, no matter where, after all. The American homeless will be better off than the Cuban homeless in general, but both lead pretty miserable lives. 
    George_Horsecheesycheese
  • KruenpiperKruenpiper 40 Pts   -  
    The issue with socialism on a large scale in that in order for it to work, the state by necessity must concentrate an immense amount of power into the hands of a few.

    If the state is the legal owner of all land, property and work, which it must be in order for it to have the right to distribute it equally among the people, there must be people in charge of it.

    People are not infallible, quite the opposite, and that amount of power and control in the hands of a few will always breed corruption. Unless you can find a group of ideologically pure, moral and just people to run the system there is always a risk of corruption. Even if it is only .01% given enough time there will be a failure and corruption in the system.
    Zombieguy1987MayCaesarcheesycheese
  • Socialism is fine. On paper. In real life, we get corruption. And Bernie Sanders
    Zombieguy1987
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • Nathaniel_BNathaniel_B 182 Pts   -  
    This is obvious. That is how Socialism is, there cannot be a perfect country with this economic system, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Humans are greedy and selfish creatures, why do we have BMWs, Mercedes Benz, Porsches, and other luxury cars like Lexus, Rolls Royce, and Cadillac? Its called "competition". For profit and sales, they all compete to make better cars, who ever makes the best luxury car, they get more money and sales. Socialism in a way is basic, you're just making things for use, no one wants a wimpy Toyota Corolla, they want something nice to drive, like a Lexus, a Buick, or maybe a Cadillac. With capitalism, not everyone is poor, with socialism, almost everyone is EQUALLY poor, while the elites hold all the money and exclaim to the gullible public that the wealth is being "shared" when in reality, it is not. 
    Good point my man!
    cheesycheese
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Socialism doesn't claims that it will be completely utopian with no corruption. By your standards it's a failure but to my knowledge no society in the history of the world hasn't suffered some corruption.

    Socialism is also specifically not based on equal prosperity - it's meant to be based on merit based prosperity e.g.: "to each according to his contribution". Or to put it another way, if you work harder and contribute more than someone else, you should get paid more and be more prosperous. If you want equal prosperity then that's communism or anarchism.

    On the flip side however it seems impossible to argue that there isn't success in socialism. You can say there's less success or the success is bad for whatever reason but trying to say that no-one succeeds by any metric whatsoever - from the leader of the country to award winning scientists to people who just live ordinary happy lives - seems insane.

    Overall I think you are trying to judge Socialism on very poor metrics.
    This is obvious. That is how Socialism is, there cannot be a perfect country with this economic system, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Humans are greedy and selfish creatures, why do we have BMWs, Mercedes Benz, Porsches, and other luxury cars like Lexus, Rolls Royce, and Cadillac? Its called "competition". For profit and sales, they all compete to make better cars, who ever makes the best luxury car, they get more money and sales. Socialism in a way is basic, you're just making things for use, no one wants a wimpy Toyota Corolla, they want something nice to drive, like a Lexus, a Buick, or maybe a Cadillac. With capitalism, not everyone is poor, with socialism, almost everyone is EQUALLY poor, while the elites hold all the money and exclaim to the gullible public that the wealth is being "shared" when in reality, it is not. 
    The issue with socialism on a large scale in that in order for it to work, the state by necessity must concentrate an immense amount of power into the hands of a few.

    If the state is the legal owner of all land, property and work, which it must be in order for it to have the right to distribute it equally among the people, there must be people in charge of it.

    People are not infallible, quite the opposite, and that amount of power and control in the hands of a few will always breed corruption. Unless you can find a group of ideologically pure, moral and just people to run the system there is always a risk of corruption. Even if it is only .01% given enough time there will be a failure and corruption in the system.
    MayCaesar said:
    Humans are not well oiled robots functioning exactly as expected. In any system, no matter how bad and no matter how good, there will be those who succeed and those who fail; those who are corrupt and those who are not; those who prosper and those who wither.

    The real question is what outcome the system favors, what opportunities people gain to reach the desired outcome, and how the society under socialism as a whole is going to function in real life. Both theoretical and historical analysis give a pretty well defined answer to this question.

    Take an ordinary, say, Cuban refugee in the US. Does this Cuban find a heaven on Earth with no issues and with prosperity in everyone's hands when he steps on the American soil the first time? No. This Cuban will see the homeless, he will see the bureaucrats who fail to process his asylum request in time and extend it as much as they can in order to justify their salary, he will see millionaires on Ferraris blasting through streets with broken pavement and beggars lined up across the road.
    But at the same time, he will see that the vast majority of people enjoy a very luxurious quality of life, compared to what he is used to. He will see that he is free to pick some berries in the forest and go to the central square and sell them for cash, without being immediately arrested for private enterpreneurship (which, until recently, was a serious crime in Cuba). He will see that he can criticize the government publicly and even organize vocal demonstrations against the local authorities, without as much as a hint at a violent retaliation. He will see that the grocery stores are full of goodies, as opposed to semi-empty stores he is used to from his Cuban experiences. He will see that people live in modern homes with Internet, stable electricity and air conditioning - as opposed to ancient clay slums he used to live in.

    Will this Cuban conclude that every single person in the US lives better than every single person on Cuba? Of course not. Some Cubans are better off than some Americans. But what is the general trend? When 98% Americans live better than 98% Cubas, and when such disparity can be seen when comparing any developed capitalist country to any developed or not socialist country - then the preferred system becomes obvious, even if the preferences do not apply to every single individual. A homeless is a homeless, no matter where, after all. The American homeless will be better off than the Cuban homeless in general, but both lead pretty miserable lives. 
    All of these are polarising socialists into communists which is fundemantally wrong
    Nathaniel_B
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch