CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:25
Arguments:17
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (17)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(20736) pic



What the Socialists know...

It's way easier to take away the rights of...


Desperate people...

It's way easier to convince people of Socialism if people...

Are desperate...

So... they need more people in their countries to be desperate...

The inherent quality of Socialism is to never allow people to ever have enough to not be dependent on them. Dependent people do as they are told.

Add New Argument
2 points

Many nations adopting socialist policies (Canada, Australia and many others) are quite well off. While I agree desperation can cause people to look to socialism (just look at how Communism started in Russia), people also tend to look to it in times of prosperity because it is much more affordable. From my observations, left-wing economic policies are often implemented in times of low employment and economic flourishing because helping those who are struggling is much more affordable.

0 points

Yes. It's hard to find the money to help those who are struggling, can't afford a good education for their children OR themselves, when most of the money is invested in mansions, yachts, country clubs and robots. Terrorism will continue as long as the "struggling ones" are prevented from decent living, while pay is divided 300% (or more) to the elite, and 1% to those who have to work two or three jobs to pay the bills! (Or work two or three family members and STILL struggle!) Capitalism is great …. when REASONABLY regulated! When Obama was in office, "elite" was a dirty word! Now Trump revels with what HE calls the "elitist of the elite" … and for some strange reason it's great. We NEED democratic socialism, capitalism is out of control!

5 points

Yes. It's hard to find the money to help those who are struggling, can't afford a good education for their children OR themselves, when most of the money is invested in mansions, yachts, country clubs and robots.

Owned by rich, pro police state liberals preaching socialism. No red flag or lessons from history there...

Chris454(19) Disputed
1 point

Thanks for your response! :) The problem with taxing the rich is that then far less will invest in the country or will resort to hiding their money in overseas bank accounts leading to less tax revenue. A proposed alternative to help those struggling is to put more money in their pockets by deregulating the economy (as countries are more prosperous with economic freedom (1)) and not excessively taxing the rich which will lead to them investing in our economy leading to greater prosperity. Lower taxes meaning more investment is well supported by the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand. The more investing in a country costs, the less people will be investing in it. Also, not taxing the poor so much, which I'm sure you support, will help them afford their needs much better. In the United States people with a poverty level income are taxed at 15%!

1. http://www.econpage.com/202/handouts/Index2006_EFCapita.gif

Amarel(3451) Disputed
1 point

It's hard to find the money to help those who are struggling, can't afford a good education for their children OR themselves, when most of the money is invested in mansions, yachts, country clubs and robots.

This zero-sum-game view of economics is the fundamental error most utilized by the left. Bill Gates’s wealth does not equal someone else’s poverty.

Terrorism will continue as long as the "struggling ones" are prevented from decent living

You must not be paying attention to the reasons terrorists give for their acts. Many of their martyrs are highly educated and successful.

while pay is divided 300% (or more) to the elite, and 1% to those who have to work two or three jobs to pay the bills!

Nevermind that your numbers are off, income inequality does not mean that pay is divided. Just as productivity inequality does not mean that GDP has been divided up.

Capitalism is great …. when REASONABLY regulated!

You don’t know what reasonable regulation looks like. You see less as unreasonable and more as better.

When Obama was in office, "elite" was a dirty word!

No it wasn’t. They just convinced you that government elites where not really elites.

We NEED democratic socialism, capitalism is out of control!

The economy is booming and employment is maximized. Being more “democratic” won’t make your socialism more economically viable. Besides that, the democratic process won’t allow democratic socialism in this country, which means it would have to be forced. You are talking like a mindless ideologue.

outlaw60(12301) Disputed
1 point

Socialism is going to help the cause ?????? What cause is that AL ??????????

outlaw60(12301) Disputed
1 point

Yes. It's hard to find the money to help those who are struggling, can't afford a good education for their children OR themselves, when most of the money is invested in mansions, yachts, country clubs and robots. Terrorism will continue as long as the "struggling ones" are prevented from decent living, while pay is divided 300% (or more) to the elite, and 1% to those who have to work two or three jobs to pay the bills! (Or work two or three family members and STILL struggle!) Capitalism is great …. when REASONABLY regulated! When Obama was in office, "elite" was a dirty word! Now Trump revels with what HE calls the "elitist of the elite" … and for some strange reason it's great. We NEED democratic socialism, capitalism is out of control!

What a rant AL but you have not told us the Nirvana that Socialism is !

outlaw60(12301) Disputed
1 point

AL will a Democratic Socialist win over the American Voter in 2020 ?????????????

I always see you attacking socialism and hyper-simplifying it into this stereotype that the far right has established which only applies to certain brands of authoritarian socialism. There are many different "shades" of socialism bronto. Are you aware that when you pay taxes that go to police and fire departments you are contributing to a socialist program which is funded through collectivism? Do you think the police and fire departments should be privatized?

Dermot(5360) Disputed
2 points

Try a new account Nom , you’re so obvious it’s hilarious .................

1 point

There are many different "shades" of socialism bronto

Yes. Communist, less Communist, and not Communist yet.

Amarel(3451) Disputed
0 points

I always see you attacking socialism and hyper-simplifying it into this stereotype that the far right has established which only applies to certain brands of authoritarian socialism.

The common counter argument against anti-socialist rhetoric is an overly broad application of the definition of socialism to include everything that is government. This broad application is applied to necessary government functions, which often cannot be reasonable privatized, in order to pretend that socialism is a necessary good. Of course this argument precedes arguments in favor of actual socialism. This bait and switch turns a defense of appropriate government into a defense of socialism (government ownership and administration of the means of production).

Government and socialism are not synonymous.

0 points

The common counter argument against anti-socialist rhetoric is an overly broad application of the definition of socialism to include everything that is government.

No not all governments have elements of socialism, just the functional ones.

This broad application is applied to necessary government functions

Necessary government functions which are socialistic in nature, so you agree that some socialism is necessary.

in order to pretend that socialism is a necessary good.

Is that so? or are you pretending socialism is just this evil thing when in reality you just admitted we need a healthy bit of socialism, when taken to the extreme socialism is no better or worse than capitalism taken to the extreme. What seems to work best is a healthy balance of both.

Of course this argument precedes arguments in favor of actual socialism.

I'm not a socialist, nor am I a capitalist, Bronto is merely attacking socialism with a hyper-simplified and narrow idea of what socialism is. Socialism isn't a "you are or you aren't" type of thing, it's a spectrum. You simply want to have a little bit of socialism and deny that it has anything to do with socialism because you don't know what socialism is.

socialism (government ownership and administration of the means of production).

That's the authoritarian version of socialism, what you just said is the inverse equivalent of saying "Free market capitalism is when the government is a corporation and corporations control the means of production".

In sum, you admit we need at least a little socialism but deny that it has anything to do with socialism, you think socialism is strictly about the government controlling things, and you are a narrow minded and dogmatic simpleton.

I’ve paid taxes for other kids school - I don’t have kids. Is that not socialism?! If it’s not then it’s not fair. Only people who choose kids should sacrifice for them. Fucking lil brats

outlaw60(12301) Disputed
1 point

No DUMMY it's called taxation ! Thought you Leftist liked taxation ???????????