The speaker is defending capitalism in the affirmative.

points brought up by the opponent: (CON) ledhead818(383)

counterpoints by the speaker: (PRO) nonostrum

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"Hmmm I don't see the connection

between government or collective ownership of production of

goods and services and the government running your life."

(PRO) nonostrum- I bring your attention to the example of the Ukraine in 1932, where Stalin starved 7-11 million people to

death under a system of socialized farming. This is known as

the Ukrainian genocide. The connection between government

control of resources and controlling peoples lives is clear.

Stalin's Starvation of Ukraine – Seventy Years Later,

World Still Largely Unaware Of Tragedy

By Askold Krushelnycky, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

http://www.ukemonde.com/news/rferl.html

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"some industries in the United States

are already socialistic: fire departments, police departments,

public schools and universities, utilities, social security,

government owned airports."

(PRO) nonostrum- All forms of government provide services like fire and police departments, so this does not distinguish

between socialism from capitalism; which is necessary to

answer the question: "Socialism or Capitalism? Which one

works better?".

-Calling this level of local control a form of socialism is an overly broad use of the term, especially within the context of the question "Will Socialism or capitalism help the people or the economy of the of the U.S.A", which is referring to the country at the national level. There is no national police or fire department in the U.S.A.; when your house is on fire, you call

the local fire department.

-these cannot honestly be called socialism because socialism is

a top down power structure, whereas fire and police

departments are local affairs controlled at the town and city

level.

-this says nothing against private fire departments, which exist

and serve a function that is unfilled by the public sector.

-public schools do not work; they fail to educate school children

adequately to first world standards. Indeed they lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in essential skills of math and

science.

U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html

-Some public schools are also physically dangerous

environments filled with gang culture. These schools must

resort to using metal detectors and police guards in an attempt to control the violence.

-Anyone that can afford to send their children to private

schools sends their children there rather than to public schools, because they know the private schools are better. A prominent example of this is the Obama family's choice to send Sasha and Malia to Sidwell Friends, a private school.

-As for public universities, they like the fire and police

departments are controlled at the local or in this case,

sometimes state level, and are controlled by the people of that city or state from the bottom up, rather than from the top down as under socialism.

- the same can be said of public utilities, which are again locally controlled.

-Social security is an unsustainable disaster, and will be forced

to cut back on promised benefits. Or as Allan Greenspan,

ex-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board put it- "Because

benefit cuts will almost surely be at least part of the resolution, it is incumbent on government to convey to future retirees that the real resources currently promised to be available on

retirement will not be fully forthcoming. We owe future retirees as much time as possible to adjust their plans for work, saving, and retirement spending. They need to ensure that their personal resources, along with what they expect to receive from government, will be sufficient to meet their retirement goals."

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Future of the Social Security program and economics of

retirement

Before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate

March 15, 2005

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/ testimony/2005/20050315/default.htm

-Government owned airports are part of a necessary national

defense plan, regardless of the style of government.

Moreover, there is no evidence that they perform any better

than private airports, which there are more of.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"I am going to assume..."

(PRO) nonostrum-presumptuous and therefore spurious

argument

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"...that you are not a conservative

because if you are and you just said "Who do you think should run your life; you, or the government?" then the hypocrisy

would have caused your head to explode and you won't be

able to respond anyway."

(PRO) nonostrum-ad hominem attack

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"The answer to the question depends

on the situation. "

(PRO) nonostrum-waffling

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"Some things are most efficient with a capitalist model and some things are most efficient with a socialist model. "

(PRO) nonostrum-That is besides the point, that is not what is being argued. The question is not which system is more

EFFICIENT, but which is BETTER. These are not the same thing. The question was "Socialism or Capitalism? Which one works better?" The socialized farming programs of Stalin in the Ukraine may have claimed higher efficiency, but it was certainly not better; millions of people died of starvation as a result of this policy.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"Capitalism encourages competition

and innovation,..."

(PRO) nonostrum- I thank ledhead818(383) for making a case

for capitalism. Capitalism does indeed encourage these good

things, something which socialism does not do; and actually

discourages.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"but there are some instances known

as market failures when the free market does not work."

(PRO) nonostrum-fails to give any instances.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"I will use the example of utilities."

(PRO) nonostrum-This is a hypothetical, not an example. The

hypothetical is a weaker argument than an example.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-" If everyone had a different company

for their phone, electricity, etc. then each company would end

up making ways to transport their service to customers. This is incredibly inefficient."

(PRO) nonostrum-This is the argument for the development of natural monopolies, which may naturally arise under capitalism, as apposed to being forced into existence under socialism.

-Additionally capitalism produces the highest quality at the

lowest price by responding through the free market system.

This is what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand of the

marketplace". In socialism, companies must bribe the

government policy maker to survive, which is the only basis for decisions made under socialism.

-But even so, the efficiency argument is not relevant to which is better.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"Another example I will give is fire

departments. If a bunch of houses are on fire, multiple

companies will respond. They might get into each others' way

and not cooperate. Also they would compete to gain a

monopoly over areas by making their own interfaces for fire

hydrants and then patenting them. Then they could make the

price of their service very high and consumers would have no

choice."

(PRO) nonostrum-Another hypothetical is given, not an example.

-The fire hydrant interface scenario is one which is found in

fittings between electrical components. This is solved by the

creation of common standards by non-governmental

engineering societies, such as the IEEE. Manufacturers

voluntarily follow the standards of such organizations to assure intercompatibility so that their products continue to be salable. So there's no need for government control here.

-consumers have no choice under socialism, which has a state

monopoly on utilities.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"In general market failures exist with

economies of scale.That is why almost every economy of scale

is publicly owned or publicly regulated. "

(PRO) nonostrum-Unsupported general statement, no examples.

-Economies of scale simply refers to the efficiencies gained by

manufacturing at large quantities. An excellent example of this

is Henry Fords factory system; a brilliant case for the success

of capitalism. Henry Ford was smart and figured out a way to

build cars people wanted cheaper than anyone else ever. No

socialism needed there.

(CON) ledhead818(383)-"So some situations call for socialism

and others for capitalism."

(PRO) nonostrum-again waffling.

IN SUMMARY

-All my opponents points against capitalism and supporting

socialism have been defeated.

-My opponent has made a definite point in favor of capitalism,

regarding competition and innovation.

-In conclusion, my opponent has failed to make the case that

socialism works better than capitalism.

If you believe the Presidential debates were handled fairly, you were not paying attention.

The most striking examples are CNN's exclusion of Mike Gravel from the New Hampshire debate, and the attempted exclusion of Ron Paul from the debates by ABC and Fox news.

Mike Gravel is a perfectly qualified contender and ex-Senator from Alaska. He was responsible for the bill which helped pull us out of the disaster of Vietnam, and is a true American Hero. Moreover, he exhibits the characteristic so rare in politics and public life: sanity.

The debate where Gravel did appear, he was passed over in questioning until he was forced by this abuse to speak up and demand an opportunity to be heard.

Ron Paul was at the time and still is a sitting congressman from Texas, and had as good a following to qualify for the debate as any of the supposed more qualified individuals such as Fred Thompson.

When finally given the opportunity to appear, he was asked rigged questions by the moderator such as Do you have any credibility? This is tantamount to an outright ad hominem attack. This shows very bad taste on the part of the moderator, and the Fox network.

The nature of the presidential debates in general was less a forum of debate, then of question and answer of unsubstantive vetted questions by the moderator, who represented the interests of their network, and not those of the country at large.

By shaping context of the debate, both in persons, and in questions posed, the debate ceases to be a debate, and becomes instead the statement of a singular policy. This is what you saw.

The presidential debates were far from fair, they were not even debates.

more on ex-Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel being excluded from the New Hampshire debate:

http://www.mikegravel.us/?q=node/471

more on sitting Congressman from Texas being bullied from debates.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ron_paul_excluded_from_fox_debate/

Each individuals personal eating habits are their own decision.

No adult should be stopped from buying and eating whatever foods they choose. Neither should any vendor be forced to accommodate the whims of the state; as has been done in New York restaurants with respect to restrictions on hydrogenated oils and portion sizes.

Fast food used to mean just that: food that was served quickly. It has come to mean food that is generally unhealthy. There is no reason why this reputation should persist, should the foods healthfulness improve. If consumer demand shifts to a more healthful variety of food, then vendors will respond to this. Then we can expect fast food culture to become both convenient and healthy.

This is really a personal decision.

Basically, this boils down to one question:

Who do you think should run your life; you, or the government?

Addressing your first point, of course there are modern developements in calling legally recognized relationships between same sex couples "marriage", that is why it is worth debating, whereas as little as ten or twenty years ago it was not. I was speaking in the broad scope of human history, and in that great span, this misapplication of the more traditional term of "marriage" to some form of relationship between a couple who are of the same sex IS new and IS unprecedented, particularly noteworthy is the use of the law as a weapon to force the new definition of the word "marriage" on everybody else against their consent in the name of equality and liberty for all.

I assure you words DO have meaning, and pondering that meaning is neither "vacuous" or "pseoudo intellectual". Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western Civilization are on my side on this one. Descarte, Aristotle, Newton, poets like Shakespeare, and Thoreau (who has been speculated as being homosexual by the way) all poured over the fine nuance and meaning of the words they used. And we have benefited greatly from them.

Of course the meaning of words change over time, but the underlying reality does not. Some words are reaplied to have new meaning, but the thing refered to has remaind unchanged in its underlying nature. The same bird is called by different names in different languages; and while some words may change faster than others, changing the word does not change the bird.

Any culture that values its heritage will naturally want to defend that culture from uncontrolled change including its own language, and it is natural and good that it should do this it is the practice of a form of social self preservation. This may sound academic, but it is not! It is exactly what is practiced by the government in French Canadia. They censor and conrol their printed media, street signs, and advertising billboards so as to assure adherence to the standard French language in word use and spelling. This may seem outlandish to the provintial mind, but begs the question...why do they do it? Because they value their own culture.

I do not venture to put myself on the side of government cencorship of all printed media, but surely our American society if it values its own cultural heritage at all, must atleast protect its language within the confines of the written law.

If sufficient demand for civil unions passes the standard of civil debate and law, that is fine. But no equivelant forum exists for the passage of redefining the meaning of words. Unlike in French Canadia, there are no language police. As law is nothing but the accumulation of words, the manipulation and steady curruption of those words will lead to the destruction of those laws original meaning, either in word, or in practice as those ignorant of the past will be unable to understand the true meaning of the words as they were intended.

This is not hypothetical. The Spanish conquistadors destroyed their conquered Aztec subject's written histories and records for a reason, to bring about the destruction of their civilization.

As for interracial marriage, i have already addressed that issue, please read the previous post more carefully.

My 1984 reference was about the ministry of Truth, which systematically corrupted the language by deminishing the number of words and broadening each remaining words application, thereby diluting its meaning. The speaker posits this is exaclty what is occuring in the case of legal use of the term "gay marriage", for the reasons stated in the primary statement.

This speaker did not state "that same-sex marriage could lead to 'a state of total decay and ruin.'" The inner statement was taken out of context, see previous argument. Neither has this speaker sought to discredit same sex unions, either in principle or in law. The speaker wishes to make clear the distinction between using the word marriage in the traditional sense and in the new same-sex sense in which it is being applied. Proponents of the use of language of so called "gay marriage" would have you believe there is no difference between the two definitions, while simultaneously insisting that their new definition be accepted; which is a contradiction.

I have not "derided another's love as unworthy" as you claim.

My argument is not "nothing but a thinly veiled gay bashing." as you claim. I have used only logic and reason in my arguments. You're statement on the other hand is tantamount to calling me a gay basher; it is slander and it is libelous, it is personally hurtful and i would ask that you refrain from ad homonim attacks, and confine yourself to the more respected tools of argument.

If you believe that i am a "gay basher" then i say you have me confused with someone else.

In any event, i would ask that you not resort to personal attacks, especially when this is a forum for arguing for or against a particular question, and this does not necessarily reflect ones personal views but is an exercize in public debate methods, as I'm sure you are aware of.

Now just a minute who is being naive here? I hope Ill be able to change your mind.

jessald said:

"Naivete. Charity is insufficient. Many people will behave selfishly if they can get away with it. Do you honestly think everybody in America is going to voluntarily give up 20 or 30 percent of their income to charity? If they don't then we'll have to say goodbye to medicaid and social security."

And the country would be better off for it.

Do you honestly think everybody in America is going to voluntarily give up 20 to 30 percent of their income for (fill in the blank). Of course not, NOR should they for almost any expenditure. PROTECTION of the public good may be one of them, but not the SUSTENANCE of the public good!, For that would be impossible!

The truth is that "charity IS insufficient", just as you admit yourself. This includes especially government charity. A wise man once said "the poor you have with you always"

Government can only give out in charity what it first takes by force. That is money which is taken out of productive use such as building new factories, providing new jobs, and investing in new capital or research, and is instead now distributed by the government charity to some needy individuals who spend it on their immediate consumption. But lets not forget the added costs of inefficiency in beurocracy in handling that money.

Certainly the government officials need to be compensated for making such expert decisions. And they need health and vacation benefits too. After all they're as needy and deserving as the next person. Of course Im being facetious. The point I'm trying to make is that government charity is a terrible excuse for trying to replace private and non government charity's legitimate operations, which they are far more efficient and effective at.

There are four kinds of spending.

1) A person spending their own money for their own good.

2) A person spending their own money for someone else's good.

3) A person spending other peoples money for their own good.

4) A person spending other peoples money for yet another party's good.

The first case is the most efficient. A person spending their own money on their own well being pays very close attention to just how much they spend, and what they are getting for it!

In the second case, the person is now still spending their own money, but now it is being spent for someone else, say a gift. Now the person is still motivated to pay close attention to how much of their own money they spend, but they are not as particular as what they get for it as when they were purchasing for themselves. Now let us skip to the fourth case: a person spending other peoples money for yet another party's good.

This is exactly the situation which you have under a government charity, and it is the most inefficient form of spending because the person has no incentive to watch how much he spends, or what he is getting for it. That is why government is naturally unsuited to run any form of charitable operation, and when it does so it performs miserably next to legitimate charities. This is precisely the reason why non profits exist, to give tax exempt status to legitimate charitable organizations, as a form of recognition and encouragement of their special role in society.

On to your point on selfishness, what makes a person selfish or greedy? Is the person who receives the charity selfish when he accepts it? Are you ever greedy? Or is it only others that are greedy? It seems the general principle of the anti-greeders is that its only greedy when the other guy is doing it. Greed is what makes the world work. It is the reason why people apply themselves to productive activities, because they hope to get something out of it in return for their efforts. Countries that have embraced the concept of letting people pursue their own happiness have become the envy of the world. While countries that have departed from that principle of freedom have suffered from widespread poverty and want.

Nicolaisisd should stay at CreateDebate.

There is no good reason why Nicolaidisd should leave.

Nicolaidisd's posted debate on the leader of North Korea is a perfectly reasonable and worthy topic to bring up. It is also a timely one in light of recent developments.

On the basis of this single post alone, the speaker believes that Nicolaidisd has more than proven his worth in advancing rational discussion on CreateDebate.

Moreover it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or says, it is purely up to each individual whether he stays or goes.

Based on the virtues of promoting the advance of rational duscussion, in particular his post on North Korea, the speaker believes Nicolaidisd should stay on CreateDebate.

Good point about the non verbal communication. I did not think of that one. Also the speed aspect is very good one. Good points.

I started to read your argument and i was in agreement with you until i read this:

"I liked the Presidential debates and thought they were fairly well handled by the moderators in charge. I thought they were very fairly done."

Sir, if you believe the Presidential debates were handled fairly, you were not paying attention.

The most striking examples are CNN's exclusion of Mike Gravel from the New Hampshire debate, and the attempted exclusion of Ron Paul from the debates by ABC and Fox news.

Mike Gravel is a perfectly qualified contender and ex-Senator from Alaska. He was responsible for the bill which helped pull us out of the disaster of Vietnam, and is a true American Hero. Moreover, he exhibits the characteristic so rare in politics and public life: sanity.

The debate where Gravel did appear, he was passed over in questioning until he was forced by this abuse to speak up and demand an opportunity to be heard.

Ron Paul was at the time and still is a sitting congressman from Texas, and had as good a following to qualify for the debate as any of the supposed more qualified individuals such as Fred Thompson.

When finally given the opportunity to appear, he was asked rigged questions by the moderator such as Do you have any credibility? This is tantamount to an outright ad homonim attack. This shows very bad taste on the part of the moderator, and the Fox network.

The nature of the presidential debates in general was less a forum of debate, then of question and answer of unsubstantive vetted questions by the moderator, who represented the interests of their network, and not those of the country at large.

By shaping context of the debate, both in persons, and in questions posed, the debate ceases to be a debate, and becomes instead the statement of a singular policy. This is what you saw.

The presidential debates were far from fair, they were not even debates.

more on ex-Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel being excluded from the New Hampshire debate:

http://www.mikegravel.us/?q=node/471

more on sitting Congressman from Texas being bullied from debates.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ron_paul_excluded_from_fox_debate/