- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
So far all the arguments presented against socialism have failed to take into account two things, among them:
1) What socialism isn't
2) Socialism in a modern context OUTSIDE the United States
1) Socialism isn't communism. Socialism doesn't lead to fascism (since fascism is essentially the OPPOSITE of socialism.)
Socialism is NOT the government taking total control of the state and its people, as seen in Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, and Stalinist trains of thought: those are variants of fascist-tyrannies.
Socialism is the intervention of the government in critical areas of public sector services- it is the provision of universal healthcare, the provision of public services (and the maintaining of said services), and the protection of the economy by said government.
2) Moving on, repeated claims in this argument have claimed that "socialism" will (or has) failed America already. Addressing this complaint is easy: socialism has NEVER existed in America. That point is moot. The economy failed BECAUSE of a lack of government regulation.
Let's look at Canada, for example. By NOT privatizing their banks, the Canadian economy has managed to do reasonably well, weathering the recent recession with minimal damage. The "slippery-slope" fallacy fails upon any close inspection:
Canada is not run by tyrants. Canadians, for all their self-depreciation, have some of the highest standards of life in the world. Lest you forget that other countries exist outside North America, socialism also serves countries such as Sweeden and Norway very, very well.
Are you insane?
Imagine if America was run by fascists.
Would you want to live there?
Imagine if America was run by people who you didn't like.
Would you want to change that?
Liberals want to change because they think things are wrong.
They're THINKING about the situation rather than ACCEPTING what's given to them, blindly.
It is by the very definition of liberalism that a liberal is more patriotic than a conservative:
Where a conservative is unwilling to change from the status quo, to "preserve" a a country, a liberal is willing to make radical change- to do what is necessary.
Where a conservative is unwilling to do anything that might contradict so-called "traditional values," a liberal is unconcerned with that, so long as nobody's rights are violated.
Where a conservative is unwilling to help those who are downtrodden, the liberal is willing (and, hopefully, so are his or her constituency) to spend money to help.
That's why liberals are more patriotic.
You're forgetting that humanity means nothing. We have observed 3000 galaxies, and that's only what we've seen. You're telling me that out of an estimated 500 billion galaxies, not to mention the possibility of there being more than one universe, that the chemical / physical reactions couldn't at least create another planet with life?
Remember that we're not even breaching the realms of other life, such as non-carbon based lifeforms- or for that matter, OTHER DIMENSIONS.
Think your statement over again.