CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Fundamental principle of Socialism: "I'm breathing,I'm living, give me bread", what the hell, why? Right to live, Right to have bread without working for it is itself immoral; how can u argue for it ? Capitalism calls for voluntary transactions where I can go to a butcher shop and ask for a slice of bread and in return give the butcher a $20 dollar bill;
As far as economic viability, capitalism calls for limited government where there is a direct linkage between big corporations and people and if the people are dissatisfied with the quality of the products on offer, they can penalize the corporations and there would be no question of government bailouts using tax-payer money; If the business can't stay in business, it gets out
Fundamental principle of Socialism: "I'm breathing,I'm living, give me bread", what the hell, why?
They are human beings man. You are supposed to help your fellow man.
Right to live, Right to have bread without working for it is itself immoral
No it isn't. Making sure people eat is very much moral. That's exactly why churches are known for feeding people. Plus, it isn't supposed to be without working for it. Everyone is supposed to work.
how can u argue for it ?
Someone randomly picks you to defend it. :D
far as economic viability,
The debate is about equality, not viability. You are off topic.
If the business can't stay in business, it gets out
And if you worked for that business you wouldn't have the $20 for the butcher any more. How is it moral to allow that to happen?
"They are human beings man. You are supposed to help your fellow man."
No doubt they are, but they would have to work to live, simply forcing a guy to take medical studies so that he can go to medical school and later provide him medicine isn't moral
"Making sure people eat is very much moral."
Really even if they don't have the money, by the way, that is what capitalism calls for "Voluntary transactions" which will give u the money
"And if you worked for that business you wouldn't have the $20 for the butcher any more. How is it moral to allow that to happen?"
Well then I've to get into another one which stays in business-again-"Voluntary transaction and consensual relationship b/w employer and employee"
doubt they are, but they would have to work to live, simply forcing a guy to take medical studies so that he can go to medical school and later provide him medicine isn't moral
That's also not communism. You have to work in a communist system.
Really even if they don't have the money, by the way, that is what capitalism calls for "Voluntary transactions" which will give u the money
That actually proves my point. You are arguing that capitalism is moral because it provides the voluntary transactions that allow someone to eat. Your argument that helping people eat is immoral then becomes false.
Well then I've to get into another one which stays in business-again-"Voluntary transaction and consensual relationship b/w employer and employee"
That isn't a voluntary transaction. Being forced to find a new job is not voluntary, it is by force.
Really what did Marx say ,"You earn two dollars take one and contribute one to the society" and the reason he said that was to ensure the big governments can offer their bailouts, give money to the native disenfranchised, who don't work, purely to remain in power, how is it justifiable ?
"Your argument that helping people eat is immoral then becomes false."
I've said unless you earn you can't get food, you can't put the gun on someone's head and say take one dollar and give me one so that I can have food, which is immoral.
"Being forced to find a new job is not voluntary, it is by force."
The reason why somebody has to find a new job is because his previous job is bankrupt and that serves as a penalty to big corporations who can't stay in business and willingly ask the government for bailouts.
I notice you didn't provide the quote where Marx said feed people who don't work.
Taking your money isn't immoral since the government is giving food to you in return. In communism everyone gets food from the government, not just those that don't work. The government redistributes everything to everyone. They take your money and give you something back. Just because it is involuntary didn't make it immoral.
The big corporations going out of business are penalized as well as the workers who didn't do anything wrong. Penalizing people who did nothing wrong is immoral.
The number 1 issue the Republicans have is that they discuss politics in terms of viability and efficacy and not in terms of morality, which the Left uses to back its lies-look at Sanders, he does not care about what works , he cares about what's right, what's moral, so the best way to debate a guy on the left is to discuss in terms of morality, and that's what I'm doing, Cartman
Bullshit. Republicans only talk about morality. They only try to get elected on banning things they think are immoral instead of proposing the correct solutions to our problems.
Sanders proposed the systems in Europe that are working.
the best way to debate a guy on the left is to discuss in terms of morality, and that's what I'm doing, Cartman
You fucking idiot. There is no moral high ground in politics. Everyone has to lie in order to get elected which is immoral. The Republicans have been trying to pay the morality card for over a decade and it isn't working. When you debate someone in the left about morality they think about someone on your side who is immoral and assume whatever moral argument you made is bullshit because they can claim it came from an immoral source. The only way to debate someone in the left is to debate what actually works instead of just pointing out what doesn't work.
who will debate u, who have always got the backing of IAmSparticus, or whatever his name, simple up vote and down vote and no logic, down vote this one as well, let see whether u do it or not
You weren't making any good arguments before he started downvoting you. That's why he downvoted you. The debate score is meaningless. Provide a real argument. As a sign of good faith I am clarifying here so it won't add to my score.
I am glad to see that you couldn't even be bothered to try honestly debating seeing as you made a trees and no question into yes and socialism/communism. That pretty much gives me the moral high ground. Hey, look at that, my side has the moral high ground and this is a debate about morals.
Check my points. I haven't downvoted you at all. The debate is private, but other people can still see our arguments and vote on them. I can't upvote myself and yet I have an argument with 2 points. Plus, the down votes didn't affect the score. You have 6 arguments and a debate score of 6.
You made 8 arguments and got 14 points, an indication that the guy who's up voting u and down voting me is either your 2nd CD account/ someone who's hell bent to prove socialism is a good concept- another palpable #LeftWingBullCrap
I thought you're an all-time leader on this site, why not give u the moral high ground ? By the by, as far as what I've seen you seem democratic so u will have no problem defending the argument I guess
I don't think morality plays into these economic systems. If we take the base systems they don't have any immoral properties. In capitalism you get to keep what you earn. Seems pretty moral to me. With socialism/communism everyone who is in the country is taken care of, which is pretty moral. The problems with the systems come from the actors involved and humans tend to be immoral a lot.
Well the way people defend the concept of socialism is astonishing, especially the blokes on the left, they say" Socialism is a great idea only if it went right", what the hell,? It's just the opposite "Socialism was a bad idea that went extremely good"
Yeah the left has taken it so aloft that it is still considered a good form of government, you see the Bernie millennials who shout raise minimum wage, 'we want wealth and income equality', and then you see Bernie's improbable plan where he says he will provide socialized healthcare by increasing the tax on the middle-class, Bernie says,' gimme 500 bucks,I give u 5000", that's what you call disingenuous
Oh really and then the blokes who raise the $15 minimum wage argument, they are happy to put the gun
on the heads of the CEO's so that they can redistribute their due wealth which they have earned, is that moral, mate? That's called stealing, interrupting the consensual relationship between the employer and employee
really and then the blokes who raise the $15 minimum wage argument,
Sorry, but you are talking about a capitalist system. Pointing out flaws in a capitalist system does not make me wrong.
they are happy to put the gun
on the heads of the CEO's so that they can redistribute their due wealth which they have earned, is that moral, mate?
The last few decades CEOs have walked away with a greater percentage of money, and the workers who actually do all of the work have been getting less. CEOs have never had problems surviving, but now the workers are having trouble. The moral capitalist system is breaking down.
That's called stealing, interrupting the consensual relationship between the employer and employee
If you can't figure out how to generate enough income to cover everyone's salaries you aren't a very good CEO.
"Sorry, but you are talking about a capitalist system. Pointing out flaws in a capitalist system does not make me wrong."
Firstly you've not really pointed to any flaws, you merely said socialist/communist society is economically viable without any logical explanation.
"The last few decades CEOs have walked away with a greater percentage of money, and the workers who actually do all of the work have been getting less."
The reason why CEO's take home more money is because they run the business- it's not their entire money goes into their Bank account-percentage of it goes into other business ventures, part of it into hiring more employees, part of it is to open new avenues. ( and don't forget income tax)
If you don't have the capital and the employer, forget about the guys they are hiring for their projects
"If you can't figure out how to generate enough income to cover everyone's salaries you aren't a very good CEO."
So you are happy having a big government offering bailouts using taxpayer money, you are happy to have someone like David Cameron as PM, who says immigrant force enhances economic sustainability , while his name is linked to the Panama papers.
As for being a good CEO you have to ensure you create jobs for the workforce available and for that they get their due
Firstly you've not really pointed to any flaws, you merely said socialist/communist society is economically viable without any logical explanation.
Flaw: people in a capitalist system tend to be underpaid and the government has to make sure a minimum wage exists. But, you are right, I didn't point out any flaws, that was you doing it.
I never said communism was economically viable, I said it had equality, and I did provide an explanation.
The reason why CEO's take home more money is because they run the business-
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. CEOs walk away with more money than they used to. CEOs have always taken away more money for running the business.
you are happy having a big government offering bailouts using taxpayer money,
You are the one defending the system that leads to bailouts.
for being a good CEO you have to ensure you create jobs for the workforce available and for that they get their due
They used to get their due, now they get way more than their due.
