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.





Half of Americans under 40 say they would prefer to live in a socialist country

Debate Information

Polls vary on how Americans feel about socialism now. In May, Gallup found that 43% thought some form of socialism would be good for the country, putting socialism at a statistical tie with Trump, who’s approval ratings were 42%. The term was particularly popular among the non-white and the young. A Harris poll released a couple of weeks earlier found that only 24% said they would vote for a socialist. An NBC poll indicated “socialist” was the least attractive trait voters were looking for in a president, significantly lagging “someone over the age of 75” and “a Muslim”. A Harris poll from March suggests half of those under the age of 40 would “prefer to live in a socialist country”. Three-quarters of Democrats believe the country would be “better off” if it were more socialist.

But quite what people mean by “socialist” is an open question.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/06/socialism-used-to-be-a-dirty-word-is-america-now-ready-to-embrace-the-ideology Has Socialism lost its stigma?

  1. Live Poll

    Do you want to live in a socialist society, or one that is much more socialist than the USA ?

    13 votes
    1. yes
      15.38%
    2. no!
      61.54%
    3. maybe depends
      23.08%
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    Almost all people coming to the US from actual socialist countries say that they would never go back, and always vote against statist candidates. Unfortunately, many Americans themselves have no idea what socialism is and what it is like, hence they are being spoon-fed by the media telling them it is a paradise, despite both the historical evidence and common sense saying that it is hell.

    There were two segments from John Stossel, one with the Chinese lady who fled the Maoist China, and another with the North Korean lady who escaped North Korea and went through 3 years of being in sexual slavery in China just to be able in the end to move to a free capitalist country. It was painful to watch people who have been through so much educating Americans, supposed to be the fathers and mothers of the ideals of legislated individual freedom, about such basic things as, "Do not take from others, create your own success".

    My father is living in a socialist country right now. Trying to make ends meet on less than $100 a month disability benefits, unable to find work because the job market has been buried ages ago and almost everyone is practically unemployed.
    99.99% of the American socialists would say, "No, I would rather die than live here", if they visited that place. And that is one of the more prosperous places, as far as socialist nations go.

    Unfortunately, people born in prosperity rarely appreciate how much better off they are than the vast majority of other people on the planet. An American working for the minimum wage is within 10% of the richest people on Earth. If these people looked around and gained a bit more perspective, they would realise how unbelievably fortunate they are to live in such a wealthy nation.
    MichaelElpersall4acttZombieguy1987
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    The vast majority of Americans in the United States haven't ever been outside the United States and have absolutely no idea about what is actually happening literally everywhere else in the world.  Anyone suggesting that they'd rather live in a Socialist country than a Capitalist country like America is likely misinformed at best.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    Most Americans are socialists. America is a socialist country, and both major parties are fighting over who's better at taking our freedoms away. I don't believe that the term socialism is really open for interpretation. Socialism means "helping others". Greed should be the most important ideal that Americans embrace, not "helping others". Altruism is a disease.  
    Zombieguy1987
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    It makes a lot of sense because socialism gels far more with human nature than capitalism. Humanity seems to have a built in drive for egalitarianism and fairness; see a whole host of experiments ranging from the ultimatum game to Dan Ariely's study of wealth quintiles (https://sdsuwriting.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/71890982/ariely_wealth_distrib_DEBATE_GREAT.pdf) which showed most people are unaware of how massive wealth inequality is and that there preferred wealth distribution (even for Republicans and the wealth) is far far more equal than what the USA actually has.

    Capitalism is the greatest cause of human suffering on earth and most people recolonises the symptoms and some of the cause and effect, even of this even if not the entire disease. 

    piloteer said:
    Most Americans are socialists. America is a socialist country, and both major parties are fighting over who's better at taking our freedoms away. I don't believe that the term socialism is really open for interpretation. Socialism means "helping others". Greed should be the most important ideal that Americans embrace, not "helping others". Altruism is a disease.  
    Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production. Altruism is also considered a virtue in pretty much every moral and religious system worth naming.
    CYDdhartaDee
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    @Ampersand

    Socialism is also an economic caste system that inhibits socioeconomic growth for those on the bottom and it lets all the others keep their kushy economic status without any threat of competition. It's also a great tool for population control.

     The only way a cooperative business can work is if the government forces all consumers to only buy the more expensive product that cooperatives create. If those workers truly wanted more spending power, then demanding more pay would be counterintuitive because that raises prices of everything which in turn makes the cost of living go up. Perhaps the real purpose of creating a cooperative is not for the workers to get more spending power, but to inhibit the spending power of those who are lower on the economic ladder. 

    I also have never heard of any moral system or religious texts that encourage institutional altruism. If altruism isn't done because of somebody's choice, then it's not genuine altruism, and all those religious texts and moral codes are against  institutional altruism. Telling people that they have to work for the good of others because moral and religious beliefs all say so is totally disingenuous and incorrect.   
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    They are traitors to America. I am under 40, and not a socialist for many reasons.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited October 2019

    Half of Americans under 40 say they would prefer to live in a socialist country


    Interesting stat.I live in a capitalist country I’m entitled to health care which I do not pay for , social welfare , housing , and a state pension guaranteed , people call these “social policies “ as they are progressive and are there for every citizen to avail of if need be.

    Is this what you mean by a “socialist country “ or  how do you define such?


    YeshuaBought
  • all4acttall4actt 305 Pts   -  
    A lot of people supporting socialism really need to step out of their class rooms and visit or even study the history and impacts  of that socialisim has had in many countries around the world. If they do decide to visit these areas they must step away from the tourist areas and see how the whole country is doing not just the wealthy elites which always seem to still thrive in countries that taught socolisim.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
     @all4actt

    Of course wealthy elitists thrive in socialist countries. Their socioeconomic status is guaranteed by law! Nobody else is allowed to thrive, that's how the elitists get to thrive.  
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Your description is most certainly what would be described as socialism, not capitalism. Most everybody on this site has never lived in a truly capitalist country. We are all victims of socialist corruption.   
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    Your description is most certainly what would be described as socialism, not capitalism. Most everybody on this site has never lived in a truly capitalist country. We are all victims of socialist corruption.   


    Yet my country is well and truly defined as a capitalist country. I don’t know how one defines what is a truly capitalist country.


    I don’t know how having access to a universal health  system , social welfare , state pension or housing makes a country socialist or indeed if that was the case how it makes one a victim 

  • @billbatard ;
    Aren't half the people under 40 minors and already live in a independent kind of socialism?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    People mistakenly believe that what the government classifies as "free" is actually "free". In reality, they pay for it with taxes every month, as well as with lower salaries adjusted by the market.

    There are no miracles. If healthcare is expensive in countries with little governmental intervention, but "free" in some country with strong governmental intervention, then people are already paying for the same expensive healthcare every day, it is just less obvious, as they are never billed for it.

    It is the same confusion as with 0% APR loans. Many people who take a 0% APR loan genuinely believe that they are getting a good deal, since they are paying the same total price as those who buy something with cash, just over a period of time. In reality, loans always imply risks for banks, and the "0% APR" loan sum has already been adjusted upwards with that in mind - so you are still paying some interest, it just has been already included in the loan amount.

    Unfortunately, most people have never thought hard about these things. People prefer to look at the bills directly, and to not think about all the hidden fees and cuts. If they did, they would realise that "universal healthcare", "free education", "state pension", etc. are just clever marketing terms, in reality costing them at least as much (and often much more, given how notoriously inefficient governmental bureaucracy is, and how all the crony monopoly schemes naturally arise on hybrid markets) as they would on a free market.

    As I said somewhere else, there are three absolutely crucial fields that must be included in high school programs and become central points of them: logic, finances and law. People not knowing these 3 support abysmally inefficient systems and make horrible financial decisions in their lives, costing them dozens millions dollars and hundreds happy relationships and friendships in the long run. And these mistakes are so easy to avoid with just a little bit of education in these fields and common sense.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2665 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    I personally cannot stand almost anything with an "ism" at the end of it, and nor want any part of it.



  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Whoever is "well and truly defining" your country as a capitalist country, is incorrect. That happens in the country I'm from too. Everyone believes we're a capitalist country but they're wrong. I don't know how you don't know how SOCIAL programs don't make your country a SOCIAList country. When a government steals from its citizens to pay for programs that would be better run under private ownership, that's socialism.          
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited October 2019

    Whoever is "well and truly defining" your country as a capitalist country, is incorrect. That happens in the country I'm from too. Everyone believes we're a capitalist country but they're wrong. I don't know how you don't know how SOCIAL programs don't make your country a SOCIAList country. When a government steals from its citizens to pay for programs that would be better run under private ownership, that's socialism.          



    Really? Yet Capitalism is defined as ......

    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.

    Which makes my country well and truly capitalist .I don’t know how you don’t know having inclusive policies in your society makes you  a member of a Socialist state  as I still don’t own the countries offices , buildings factories etc , etc as they are owned by ......Capitalists  .....Socialism is an economic and political system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by the workers who run them and the people who depend on them.

    No doubt to accept your contention one will have to use your reinterpretation of what the actual terms mean as opposed  to what you think they mean 


    @piloteer

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system of voluntary economical exchanges. To decide whether a given system is capitalist or not, one has to ask one question: "If two individuals want to perform an economical exchange, is there entity that restricts the possible terms of the exchange?" If the answer is "Yes", then, strictly speaking, the system is not capitalist.

    However, in the real world such ideal systems do not and, probably, cannot exist. Instead, we can talk about degrees of various idealised systems. Some countries are more capitalist than some other countries. The US or France, for example, are mostly capitalist, while North Korea or Cuba are mostly socialist.

    Some countries have cronier versions of capitalism, than some other countries, however. In the US, despite over a century of gradual encroachment of the government on the free market, most enterpreners' interaction with the government still is restricted to purely paying taxes and enlisting legal help. While, say, in Norway companies are essentially married to the government, and while technically most assets are in the hands of private individuals, in practice the government runs, to various degrees, almost everything. In this regard, while Norway is technically capitalist, its version of capitalism is far too crony to just say that it is capitalist and leave it at that.

    There are also systems with very solid economical freedoms, but restricted social freedoms - UAE and Singapore come to mind. Then, there are systems with incredible economical freedoms in some regards, but restricted in other regards - Switzerland is a prominent example, with its low taxes and strong private market, but some indirect price controls and labor union privileges.

    I am just saying all this because I loathe to see yet another debate over what is capitalism and what it socialism. Real-world systems cannot be characterised thoroughly with one short word, and you always have to look at the details. Nuance is important.
    대왕광개토
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    I don't want to live in a "socialist country", nor do I want to live in a country of uncontrolled capitalism …. like todays Russia. We need a balance of socialism AND intelligently regulated capitalism in a successful democracy. The freedom of a democracy gives U.S. a chance to use the best of both …. if we can prevent would-be oligarchs from taking control of, or joining with, an authoritarian leader. Socialism considers "the people" where capitalism considers profit …. ONLY. We need BOTH, within reason, within democracy. Without both, the "people" lose, the few become lords. We go back to life similar to a monarchy, (or worse), which is what The U.S. was founded against. 

    We must stop "Trumpism". (AKA, Putinism).
    YeshuaBought
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI You are either a socialist on the left, or not. On , you only defend leftist causes. How balanced of you.
    AlofRI
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Although I'm not exactly sure what country your in, I'm pretty sure that all the regulations that I'm going to discuss will have an equivalent law in your country as well. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

    There are more than several ways our governments do not let private businesses conduct business on their own accord, one such being antitrust laws. These laws purposely inhibit business conduct that is deemed to aggressive. Breaking these laws gives the government the power to force a private business owner to sell huge portions of their assets so they can no longer make money off those assets. These laws prevent companies from becoming "to large", and makes it illegal to sell products for less than what it costed to produce them. They do that so giant conglomerates cannot set up shop right next to their smaller competitors and sell for less until the smaller business goes bankrupt leaving no more competition for the large business. There are more just those restrictions that antitrust laws place on businesses, so I posted the link above for everyone here to see how businesses are controlled by government.  A good example would be governments across the globe who are trying to shut down Facebook.  One reason they want to do that is because Facebook has become a real time information outlet that anybody with a smart device can use to post live streaming videos which have disrupted governments ability to control its citizens. Facebook should have the right to freedom of expression and personal economic freedom, but since it's being run in a socialist environment, it may be forced to shut down or be broken into several different businesses with no association with each other. That does not fit the description of capitalism that you provided. It fits in precisely with your definition of socialism. 

    https://www.thebalancecareers.com/list-of-employment-laws-2062282

    Another way governments control businesses are employment and labor laws. I have no gripe with rules to ensure employee safety or compensation for injuries that happen on the job, but minimum wage laws, and laws that force companies to negotiate with striking unions are purposely made to not let businesses decide how much to pay their employees, who they can and can't fire, and for what reasons people can and can't be fired, and how much vacation time a company must pay each employee regardless of that employees value to the company. These are more ways governments control businesses and they certainty do not fit in with the description of capitalism that you provided.

    These are just a few among a myriad of regulations on businesses that don't have to do with employee safety, or compensation for injuries that happen on the job. They were created for the sole purpose of taking individual rights away from private business owners, and enforcing collectivist economic rules. These rules fit in with the description of socialism that you provided, and it is how businesses are governed today. It's also worth noting that socialism is considered a "transitional" economic and political system, so it's not just an economic system. It's considered a transitional economic and political system because the next step after socialism would be communism.   

     

         
        
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    You dont like laws it seems that apply to everyone in business and you seem to think it grossly unfair that workers have a right to a decent rate of pay and living conditions. 

    You're only stating your likes and dislikes regards regards business practice and a code of ethics that is agreed on when it comes to one doing business and one that does not in any way force a person to open a business , you don’t like societal rules we all are governed by well tough.

    So tell me if a Capitalist own his own business and means of production how is that Socialism which is the total opposite?

    AlofRI
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought ;

    I am NOT a socialist. I defend "leftist causes" that I see as defendable. I find few "rightist" causes that I feel I can defend. In like manner, I see no "leftist causes" defended by YOU. Let's not get TOO hypocritical here, is doesn't flatter you. 

    I believe in capitalism, I believe in democracy, there is a danger to democracy when EITHER capitalism OR socialism is unbalanced. There is also a danger to democracy when too many people become unbalanced. The current "administration", which seems to have only one "administrator" is, IMO, totally unbalanced (toward capitalism) and dangerous, …. to the world. In this case I see little to defend on the right. I hope that changes so I can be more "balanced". :pensive:
    Dee
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    I believe that the United States, should be represented Fairly and Equally by every political representative, that were voted into their Political roles by the overall Public.

    Because Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, Warren, AOC, Green, Harris, and Booker, and the current POTUS, all need help, in how to manage their political stances.

    "Half of Americans under 40 say they would prefer to live in a socialist country"


    Those below, 40 year old Socialists thinkers, don't know how to wipe their own noses, unless someone else is doing their nose cleanliness maintenance for them.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    @Dee

    I've discussed how private business owners do not have control of their company, the state does. The state controls how much employees must be paid, no matter how valuable that worker is or isn't. The state controls the criteria on which any employee can be fired. The state forces employers to give their employees sick time and vacation time, not matter how valuable the employees are. The state forces employers to provide healthcare coverage for all employees and their families (in America). The state controls how much all companies and individual workers must pay in taxes. With all these regulations in place, and all the others that exist, the state effectively controls how much profit each company can make from their products or services. There is nothing in these regulations that is anything like your description of capitalism. But it doesn't really seem like your even contesting that point any longer, and now you've totally dropped that point and dove headfirst into defending the corruption of socialism and the corrupt and misanthropic people who embrace it as a viable political and economic philosophy. 

    I don't think it's unfair that workers get a decent pay, because I believe capitalism actually gives them the best opportunity to chose for themselves what company will pay them best, and what job will be the most rewarding to them. Not everyone on here is a one percenter like you who believes everybody should be told what job they have to do, how much they get paid for it, and what socioeconomic status they and their families must remain in for the duration of their life. For the rest of us who aren't blinded by our seething privilege, we have the ability to understand that raising the minimum wage dually raises prices on everything, which in turn raises the cost of living. When those on the bottom receive a government enforced pay raise, it doesn't end up helping them that much because everything they need to buy becomes more expensive, but it surely makes the cost of living go up for everybody else also. If socialists could see past their misanthropy, they'd maybe realize that if we truly want to give those on the bottom a real chance at getting a decent pay rate, we should abolish the minimum wage, and cut taxes, instead of making it more expensive for everybody to live because of a half assed attempt at population control. These points are based on objective economic truths instead of "emotional" social rules.  

    Because socialism is a transitional economic and political system, the next step would be communism. Communism isn't an economic system, it's a government distribution scheme. In no time in history has a communist country not had a ruling class that controls the mechanisms of distribution. Embracing the "merits" of socialism is also an acceptance of being a slave to the ruling class. But if it makes you feel better to think that it's a noble cause because it's all "for the good of society", then you do you. But I'm not convinced.         
                             
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    @Dee

    What does it mean to own something? First and foremost, it means to be able to decide how to use that something in a consensual interaction with others.

    In this regard, people barely own anything in the modern Western world. You cannot even legally sell a pack of chips to your neighbour without interacting with the Big Brother, that requires that you obtain a business license, and that you also pay the sales and income taxes. This is not how ownership works.

    You know how, when you finance a car loan through a bank, you do not get the title until you have paid off the entire loan? It is because the bank is the owner of the car. You may drive that car, upgrade it, etc., but you are not the owner, and the bank can, in principle, take your car away at any point, as long as it pays you a proper compensation as stated in the contract.
    Well, the government just as much owns absolutely everything. You do have some freedom in what to do with "your" property, but every commercial usage, and most non-commercial ones, has to be approved by the government, either in the form of "This does not violate our laws, so it is okay", or in the form of obtaining a government-issued license.

    You cannot own, really own anything in a system where the market is married to the government. The government always has the final say in what you can or cannot do with "your" property, hence it is not really yours. Not any more than the property was yours in feudal Europe, where your lord could at any point take anything from you away, including your life, by sanction from the crown. The only difference is, the actual property owners are now much more soft than before, and their control is much more subtle, so it is easy to trick yourself into thinking that you actually own some property.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    @MayCaesar

    Yet I actually do own my own property as I have the deeds to my house and government papers stating it’s mine , no one including government can take that from me, unless the government turn totally corrupt.

    Regards paying for a car and not owning it till I do that’s the way we all behave on a smaller scale as in if as a neighbor of mine you agree to sell me your lawnmower and we agree on a price you may let me pay in installments on agreed terms which seems fair to me , when I pay you the last installment I own that lawnmower correct? Or what part of my lawnmower or home do the government own?

    How would society differ without government to set rights regarding ownership? Surely there has to be some common basis we more or less agree on? I’m sure you and I do not like governments having so much control in our lives and some rulings we see as fair and others nor so, but how do we go about living in and setting up what’s deemed a fair society to all?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "government papers stating it's mine" - here is the problem. The government is the one permitting you to "own" your property, and it can revoke your "ownership" at any time, should it decide to change its policies. Whether the government is totally corrupt or not is not relevant here. If the bank you owe your car loan to is not corrupt in the slightest, it still owns your car in the end, even if it does not actually do anything to claim it.
    If there is an entity having the power to take your property away, for whatever reason, whenever it desires to do so, then who is the real owner: you or that entity?

    With regards to your second question, you are correct. But with regards to the government, do you ever stop paying installments? We pay taxes virtually of any piece of property we use, say, in commerce. If you try to use your car to give people taxi rides, then, first of all, you cannot even do this without obtaining a license from the government in most developed countries, and second, even once you obtain that license, you still pay taxes off your taxi income - which is equivalent to paying installments infinitely. If you do not pay an installment even once for a prolonged period of time, the government in principle has the legal power to apprehend your vehicle.
    But even if we assume a hypothetical state where this is not true and you do not have to pay a dime to the government for any non-coercive use of your vehicle, the government is still the one legally approving your claim on it. The laws can change, and you will no longer own it. Whether it will actually happen is unknown, and in a civilised enough country it probably will not - but the potential is always there. The analogy with the lawnmower would be me giving you the lawnmower upon the last installment payment, but reserving the right to nullify our contract and to take your lawnmower away - which I will not do, because I respect our agreement, but in principle I could. With that condition in mind, in the end I give you permission to use the lawnmower, permission I can revoke whenever I desire, and hence in effect you are merely borrowing my lawnmower.

    It is possible to combine the concept of actual ownership with the existence of a state, but only if the state is strongly separated from the market, to the point where it does not have the authority to legally approve anyone's claim on any piece of property. As far as I know, some of the Phoenician cities came close to such a system, although they did have proto-trade guilds that, in turn, were recognised by the government, and in practice monopolised the property distribution, so in a very indirect way the government still had some leverage on people's property.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar


    A good piece and thank you for expanding on it. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say as the reasoning is sound.


    It is possible to combine the concept of actual ownership with the existence of a state, but only if the state is strongly separated from the market, t


    It sounds good , could such a society be brought about in these times?

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    No problem, thanks for a good discussion. It is not often that people with different views on the subject can discuss it in a peaceful manner nowadays.

    I believe that it can be brought about at any point in time, including nowadays, but it would obviously require a radical shift in the collective consciousness. I see some signs of this shift slowly happening, as decentralised consensus, decentralised currencies, data and communication systems become more and more widespread and people see their benefits over the traditional centralised goods and services - but I would expect it to take many decades, if not centuries, for it to manifest in systematic policy changes.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited October 2019

    @MayCaesar

    Thank you also, it’s a most interesting topic. You’re right it would take a radical shift in consciousness as most people are just to busy trying to collect a wage packet and raise a family and that’s the general route up to retirement.

    Maybe someday in the future such a society will be in place as we slowly evolve towards a new economic and social model 
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