Question: Should Social Security be Transformed into a Private System?

Eliminate Social Security
Let's delve into your initial points: "Point 1: Social Security offers no future for America; Point 2: America is unable to maintain the Social Security system in the present and future; Point 3: Workers should have the autonomy to manage their retirement funds." Firstly, you're correct that Social Security may not propel the country forward, but it's not inherently negative either. Many individuals lack financial acumen and wouldn't know how to invest effectively. Without Social Security, they might end up destitute in their golden years. This program was established precisely for this reason. Secondly, your assertion that America can't support Social Security isn't entirely accurate. The imbalance you refer to, where retirees outnumber workers, is largely due to the baby boomer generation, a period of lower birth rates. If we don't encounter another similar demographic shift, Social Security could be sustained, provided people secure and maintain employment. The Social Security system is robust; the issue lies with the people. Without it, individuals would lament the government's lack of support if they're unemployed, but with it, some people might retire prematurely. If people held onto jobs longer and retired at a more appropriate age, the system could be viable. The problem arises when people don't hold jobs for extended periods or retire too early. Thirdly, regarding your claim that individuals should control their retirement funds, it's worth noting that Social Security participation isn't mandatory. As Wikipedia states, "There's no legal requirement for individuals to join the Social Security program." If one wishes, they can invest elsewhere; it's not compulsory to be part of the program, although most choose to be. You argued that the funds aren't invested or saved, but Wikipedia clarifies: "When revenues surpass expenditures, as they often do, the surplus is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds." So, some funds are indeed saved, not all are spent immediately. You're correct that the system can't be fixed because, as I've said, the system itself is sound. The real issue lies with people retiring prematurely and possibly the amount being disbursed. Now, be truthful. If you were given an extra $20,000 annually due to the absence of Social Security, would you invest it? For you, perhaps yes, perhaps no. I would. However, many wouldn't. They'd likely spend it. Then, upon retirement, they'd have no savings and blame the government for not supporting them.

Response Point 1: Ok. Scandinavia is an exception. One, Government instituted healthcare education usually only work in small countries with little diversification (like Scandinavia), and two, you must have a good Government to institute the policies (like the US's is terrible, but Scandinavia's is pretty good). Few countries can institute these policies well. But private education and healthcare is still better because it allows for competitition to lower prices, and to increase the standard of healthcare. Like what usually happens with most monopolies, they charge an exorbitant price and the standard is horrible. Same goes with most Countries' policies. "it can work in a small homogeneous population, which is all on the same page - same religion, same values, same culture, and a small population - provided everything stays that way.": http://ezinearticles.com.... Response Point 2: Response Point 2:

This is a 4 round debate. For the first round give 1 paragraph about your side. I am on the side of abolishing the Federal Reserve. It wastes tax dollars because it is a private company. The IRS is also private. This is also a scary thing because this means that a private company has control over all of the money we use, they could do anything they want with it.

So basically for this debate im going to go with an overview of a universal health care and why it would not work in our current system of government. 1. There isn't a single government agency that is up to the task of implementing a universal program effectively. 2. If anyone hasn't noticed the economy in the US government is in the largest recession it has ever been in. To ask people to pay there way through this is absurd especially through taxes. 3. Profit motives and competition have lead to better programs offered right now as a way to lure people to work for them especially qualified personal. 4. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 5. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. This has been proven in countries with a universal health care like India. 6. Healthy people who are hardly ever in the hospital will end up paying for people who smoke or do other harmful things to their body. Which if that is the case why should they have to. 7. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs and business closures, people who are already in work now 8. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Because face it as it is now people are opting to become doctors because of the fame and money. 9. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a right by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove it once costs get out of control. 10. As it is now many people come from all over the world to be treated because in the status quo we have the most effective and clean medical industry especially in fields of specialization. As a final note I think its safe to say everyone wants a universal health care, heck ill admit I would but the fact of the matter it is just not possible to do and maintain all the things we take for granted in our current society.

I like Bernie I agree with Bernie on his policies, But the term socialist is so misused today. H e doesnt advocate changing a market system to a state system, He merely advocates radical reforms, To our present Capitalist mixed economy to make it more like Canada or Europe, Not to make it like Cuba, Venzuela or, North Korea, Or even China, Social democracy is very very different than socialism. . Or do you disagree?

Wikipedia defines capitalism as "an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy." Capitalism is efficient in the sense that it achieves its goal: those who privatize trade and industry make money, and they make a lot of money from it. If making money is your only worry, capitalism is good--but making money should not be the government's biggest concern. The biggest concern of the government should be providing for its people, which capitalism doesn't have room for. In 2012, 15% of people in America (46.5 million) were in poverty. 14.5% of people (49 million) didn't have enough to eat. Of course our capitalist country offers food stamps, but that's hardly enough to live off of. $4.50 a day is all food stamps offer, and that's barely enough to buy a meal at McDonald's much less buy something nutritious. In a socialist government, there is cooperative management of the economy, meaning everyone owns and everyone gets money out of it as opposed to capitalism, where (nearly) everyone works and if they're lucky they'll make enough to support their family. It's give and take, but it's extremely slighted to those who are already rich.

By "better", I mean an overall smarter and more efficient plan. That's what I plan to prove in this debate. W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs, it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things, so they can learn to make more themselves. Of course, some people would still be on welfare, such as disabled people. Once W-2 is finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k). Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government.

Thanks for the argument, Con. Well, it is quite apparent that my opponent has dropped a few of my points. I had more than 7 points while he had only 5 in rebuttals. First, allow me to rebut the one's he did actually refute, and then I will display the arguments he didn't even touch. 1. Lands can benefit the collectiveMy opponent concedes here that this is simply a matter of opinion. That's not a very good way to refute an argument, however, especially no in the last round. We have differing opinions and no one proved it either way. Luckily for me, my opponent has the BOP. It was his job to convince the audience that this would indeed benefit the collective, he did nothing of the sort. All that my opponent is saying on this matter is that "I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. " Saying you think one way or another is not proving a point. This point is effectively shattered. (I'm lumping the second paragraph in my next rebuttal. )2. Land UseThis is a fine demonstration on how the land would be divided up, by isn't my opponent getting a little ahead of himself? This seems pretty far from anything I said in the debate, so it must not be a rebuttal. I'm not sure why at all this is necessary. I actually never questioned how the land would be cut up or challenged the idea that giving the same amount of land to all poor would be unfair. Again, it is a nice demonstration and equation, but has no bearing on the case at hand. My opponent claims that the average private (sort of) farm given to poor families would be 1000-3000 acres. Lets just make it 2000 for simplicity. I'm going to try my hand at some math here as well. Since m opponent did earlier say, "Millions of workers operating private farms for free. " earlier, I think I can expose a fallacy. I'm still not clear on my opponent's intentions. He claims that receiving land would now be based on your income. However, there is a problem with this. Not everyone with a low income can be given land. The U. S. government simply doesn't have enough to do this. Lets just take one million private farms (that is what my opponent proposed is it not? ) and times that by 2000 (2000 acre farms). The number you receive is 2 billion. Yes folks, that's 2 billion acres my opponent think the government has, ready for farm use. That is preposterous. We have millions of acres of government land, not billions. My opponent's idea is much smaller than he imagined. However, no matter the size, it wouldn't even work.3. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI find this point to be very, very weak. First off, my opponent claims that "operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. " I honestly do not see what you are getting at. What is the connection between the case at hand an average real estate bids? Audience, please ignore that point, it has no connection to the case. My opponent also brings up the USDA trying to push for an agricultural surplus. This may be true. However, the U. S. is not "sitting on all the land we need to do this. " My opponent completely ignored my point about the ways in which this land actually is being used. These uses included recreation, energy production, animal grazing, and many others. See my link in round 2 for more. "We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. "Don't be misled by this nice plate of word salad. Since people are spending no money? Which people is this referring to? The U. S. citizens I know spend their fair share of money. My opponent claims that somehow this statement shows how farms can be run and operated for nearly free. However, this does not really make sense. No matter what, tractors must be purchased, diesel and gas must be supplied, seed must be bought, repairs must be paid for, and taxes must be fulfilled. That seems like a good number of expenses there. Farming is hardly free, even sharecropping.4. Success on the homesteadI'm certainly glad my opponent clarified himself. However, I have little to refute here because I have now been using the idea of sharecropper farms for all my rebuttals. I do want to highlight one thing though. "Under the supervision of the government. " This may not be a problem, but again it may. I'm not saying the government is corrupt or something, I'm simply saying that when things are fully in the hands of the people, they seem to be much more effective and productive. I want talk to much about this point, but I thought I should point it out. My opponent's explanation of the housing on these collective farms is fine, I suppose I have no real problem with that. However, it doesn't really correspond to any of my arguments. Again, I think my opponent is getting ahead of himself. He is trying to start the project before he has been granted approval (by the audience that is). I can see my opponent has put a lot of time into developing his idea, but I am sorry to say, it wouldn't work. 5. I will concede this actually. I thought that by "distribute" my opponent meant to just give the lands away. This makes more sense. I'm glad we are now on the same page. Don't think this has much bearing on the debate though, audience. This point is relatively meaningless. We have been debating over the leasing idea this whole time anyway. DROPPED POINTSMy opponent has completely dropped a few of my points. I won't restate them, but I will list them here. Point 6 regarding the rancher scenarioPoint 1 regarding land usagePoint 2 regarding future developmentPoint 7 regarding the purchasing of equipmentCONCLUSIONMy opponent strengthened his case perhaps, but not considerably. He still fails to show that his would benefit society as a whole, how operating expenses would be paid for, and what land the government actually holds that could accomplish this. Pro had the BOP on this one and he did not fulfill his burden. The resolution has not been proven and is therefore, null. Thanks for an awesome debate ChosenWolff. This really was a lot of fun.

O.k I concede i accidentally screwed up the names but my points still stand that there isn't an agency that could do a universal health program. Its really regardless. 1. All my opponent has done is say that as of now there are people without coverage and even Medicare and Medicaid cant solve it all. For this point to really have merit please try and present a organization that is up to the task. And as to what you were saying about the secretaries. All they are is advisor's and the president doesn't completely run the country thats why it is so great. There are three main branches and each branch is split up into smaller sections. But still no organization that could run the program offered by my opponent. 2. So on this part of the flow my opponent says when charges go up we take it from programs, when it goes up again we tax the affluent, when it goes up again...... It might seem to be a long run or short term fix but it isn't at all. There still isn't an answer id like to point out to my answer about the recession and how the transition would impact it. Oh and if you haven't been watching the news rates have been severely dropping and its up to the employer most the time as to which insurance you can get so rarely do people end up with a terrible one once employed. 3. Thats what im saying im saying you cant have private practices and a universal health system together it completely contradicts each other because if its universal it cant be private. While you say that inflation wont happen in the new system you give no reasons why, it still will because due to the loss the hospitals lose they will overcharge to compensate. 4. Again look to above sorry for mixing them up but it wont lower taxes it will raise those looking to some of my original arguments. And if the hospitals got less money they would be as poor as other countries. As Ill get to a bit lower. 5. Ill get to most this arguement about comparing countries a little later but it cant be too enlighting but if you want to compare sources http://www.news.harvard.edu... 6. Well for one the affluent in the country eventually trickling down to the middle class like I pointed out above. Also you think 25% is out of control once the universal health care program is implemented it will spiral out even more only now you cant do anything about it. Keeping the status quo is still the best system to keep. I'm sorry for your girlfriend i am, but if we were under your program any extra costs above the single pay would cost me or the government a lot of excess money for something not involving me in any way. 7. So Doctors would enjoy having worse condition and lower wages. Using some of my arguments from above. Why would a nurse use that much of her wage on such a trivial matter. That is a useless waste of money and Im sure there is alternative reasoning behind her problem. 8. I can concede that yes thats a small role in why people become doctors but people do become doctors for other factors like the fame and money, there would be a decrease in doctors no where near an increase. 9. I did mis read this a bit but in all it isn't a "right", it is something that you work for and pay for its not something to be handed to you. Hell i could consider welfare a right even though i don't need it. But id take it any way because its my "right" 10. Before you consider this argument you put up look at the actual source link on that page and read it all. It ranks the US in the issues that matter, timing of service and quality of service. The rankings were placed as they were based on how cheap each operation is. If you did go to a place like Canada the wait for an operation takes months if not years to actually get to the top of the list. This is because of how poor the actual system is and once they are in it it's impossible to change back. Thats why we must keep up the working program we have now.

I already explained why the housing market crash was due to a socialist related program. Let me define socialism properly rather than how pro has defined it. Socialism is: The means of production are controlled by the state. This can be applied to varying degrees; from programs to the entire economy. Socialism causes a loss of freedom because the government ends up in control of the supply of food, housing, clothing, and also medicine. Taking resources from one person in an excessive manner with out due process of law is the same as theft. The government becomes no different than a thug sanctioned by a portion of the population to mug another portion of the population. It's based on petty jealousy and conspiratorial thinking. If you read some of what pro says; socialism is based on thinking the worst of our neighbors all in the name of justifying our theft of their property by means of the government. Socialism doesn't work because it circumvents the mechanism of price. Price serves as a natural mechanism to coordinate and balance all the sectors of the market and supply and demand. Price fixing throws this balance off and is usually a disaster. The fixing of the price of gas in the 1970's by President Nixon is an excellent example of this. Central planning doesn't work because it's impossible for people to have sufficient knowledge to properly coordinate the economy's supply and demand and to know just what the producers can and can't actually do. The farmer knows best what grows in his field and what doesn't. When a socialist planner tells him what to grow in order to fix an imbalance in the market it might not work because the farmers land or knowledge might night support the order. Profit motive is what drives a market. People don't do things for the benefit of everyone else. They do it for themselves and their family. The more a person stands to gain the better his performance is likely to be. While in theory socialism might be possible without tyranny in reality it comes out as a tyranny. It requires government interference because socialism is by definition control of the economy by the government. I wonder if pro fully understands what socialism is? As far as the negative things pro mentioned about the US for instance; we ended up bombing Japan because it was a tyranny not because we were. It would have cost vastly more lives to not use the bombs and we dropped leaflets on the areas and tried to warn people ahead of time what was coming. Further more, by way of comparison, capitalist societies will not have anywhere near the record of atrocities that socialist countries have. One of the reasons is simple. The capitalist countries can't. The people control much of the wealth and means of production. In socialism the government controls much of wealth and means of production which makes it easy for it to commit atrocities. It's easy, just take away the peoples food.

True, unadulterated capitalism has periods of insane growth followed by periods of insane "busts" in an almost saw tooth pattern. These boom and bust cycles are one of the flaws and foundations of pure capitalism. The Great Depression was part of the bust side of the boom before it, and 2008 would have been another depression style bust side of a prior boom had the government safety net and Federal Reserve bailouts. These actions to prevent the bust cycle from destroying a collective economy relied on a central government. The idea of a progressive payment into a centralized fund for protection is nice, but is similar to a tax, but instead of handing the money to a centralized government, the money is handed to a privet entity which isn't bound by laws. How would laws be created? How would the be enforced? Though privet enterprise. There lies the problem of justice. The punishments and trial aren't left to an un-bias public arena, but to privet enterprise. This can lead to a very corrupt society as the defense firms could make it "law" that if someone didn't want them to destroy their property because it was deemed "threatening," this could lead to people having to pay every single group simply to keep their lives and property. While I can understand you retort about environmental preservation, if such a statement is true on a full scale, why aren't these actions taken by every company in the modern world of today? My simple explanation lies in one word: greed. You've also failed to explain what is being used as currency, as without any form of central government, no uniform, standard currency would be issued, thus I'm left to assume that privet banks begin to issue their own notes. Such was the case before the United States began printing it's own paper money, and banks would issue bank notes form their own bank (oft backed by gold). This was fine as long as one did business with other customer of the same bank, Bank A we'll say, and everything was all fine and dandy. The issues arise when one decides to either travel or does business with someone who uses another bank, let us say, Bank B. Bob is a customer with Bank A, he regularly does business with other people who are customers of the same bank so his bank notes are perfectly fine to use as payment. Bob sees a new sushi shop open up down the block form his house and wants to try it out, but when he goes to pay, the owner tells him that he is a customer of Bank B and not Bank A, but because the Banks are within the same town, they've worked out what the exchange rate for their notes are and everything is okayish. Bob then finds out he needs to go to a large city for work and upon arriving wants lunch. Bob goes and orders his lunch and goes to pay, but the cashier won't accept his bank notes as they have never heard of Bank A and use Bank C. The idea of a uniform, standard currency while perhaps possible to be create using a your ideal "governing" body is improbably is the idea is that the market should decide. These market failures are perhaps the reasoning behind Money isn't the only example of what a market could very well fail to do, there are so many more such as roads, clean water, ensuring that food and medicine are safe, people are granted safe working conditions and many more among other things. A completely free market with no centralized government regulation could, and has been disastrous for the majority of the population.


Question: Should Social Security Be Transformed into Private Accounts?

The Social Security system should be dismantled.

Social Security is a flawed, disorderly, and dishonest program that should be dismantled immediately. I strongly advocate for the abolition of Social Security for the following reasons: First, it has no future in America; Second, America cannot support the Social Security system's demands now or in the future; and Third, individual workers should have the freedom to manage their retirement savings. Under Social Security, lower and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent, ostensibly for their retirement security. However, this money is not saved or invested but rather transferred directly to current beneficiaries with the "promise" that future taxpayers will support current taxpayers when they retire. This system creates no wealth, and any benefits one person receives in excess of their contributions come at the expense of others. The amount one receives, whether it's twice as much, half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians, making the system inequitable. The Social Security system is unsustainable and cannot even guarantee future retirees the amount they contributed. Despite 17 payroll tax increases since 1935, the system is still in crisis. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people, marking the beginning of the end for Social Security. According to the New York Times, by 2010, while 41 million new workers entered the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers entered retirement, an impossible situation for the Social Security system to handle. Retirement planning should be left to individuals, not the government. If Social Security did not exist, individuals could use that 12 percent of their income to invest in stocks or bonds, work past age 65, or invest in their own productivity through education or starting a business. This would encourage Americans to work for a better future and make their own retirement decisions. In conclusion, I urge my fellow debaters to vote in favor of abolishing Social Security.

Okay, since this is the final round, it is mostly for rebuttals and any last proofs to support your position. President Barack Obama is not a Socialist. We haven't heard Obama saying, "Let the Federal Government nationalize Best Buy and the rest of private America!" Obama and the Democratic Party is still incorporating Capitalist, albeit slightly left wing policies. These policies are not to massively redistribute the wealth, to tax the rich of all they earn, to nationalize all private property, and to have collective farming. I looked and found the ten planks of Communism: 1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3) Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. 10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production. Now, America has A CAPITALIST MIXED ECONOMY, which I said earlier in Round 2 is: An economic system that allows the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises. Obama has not been a foe of Corporate America. The Stimulus Program resulted in raising Corporate Profits to record highs, and Obama has put many Corporate officials in Government offices to help stimulate economic growth by having Smart Government working with Private America to have the best outcome of all, because, as President Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand," and having people say "Government is the cause of problems" is taking out a factor that can help improve our nation. Obama has instituted less new regulations than President Bush up to this point in the presidency. Plus, Obama's regulations have cost less than other Republican presidents', about $8 billion compared to Reagan's 1988 $16 billion. Also, to help wrap this up: - Obama has been supportive of Capitalist America, and liberals such as him are supporters of Private Property rights and Capitalism - Obama has called for a tax of 39.6% on the wealthy (Clinton era levels), not much if you consider how a Progressive tax helps society when implemented the right way - The estate tax does not "eliminate all inheritance" but allows rich inheritors to need to work some to make the nation more progressive and equal, and prevents us from fully relying on our parents for money - Obama hasn't called for ending private property rights, liberals and him support individual rights. - The Federal Reserve maintains the stability of the financial system of private America and is needed to prevent frequent recessions/depressions that occurred before the Fed's creation, helps maintain private banks by setting interest rates/ Fractional Reserve Banking - The Federal Gov't does regulate environmental protection, this is the most I can think of - Unions among workers are voluntary - The government has not interfered with this point at all - We have banned child labor, and have free education. However, private charter schools exist, and Obama supports them as well to maintain healthy competition in education As you can see by the points, our nation has not become Socialist. We have a Capitalist Mixed Economy, where both the public and private sectors work together in different ways, but the private sector has more influence in the U.S. economy (Government has only 20-25% of total spending). Obama has not supported Socialism, will not call himself a Socialist, Socialists say he is not a Socialist (why abandon a potential ally? I rest my case). Obama is a Capitalist Mixed Economy supporter, the system that promotes overall a market economy with necessary government intervention. Liberals and Obama support Capitalism with necessary government intervention to maintain the law. They are Democratic Capitalists. Now, Socialists say, "Let's abandon Private America for good," but we don't see anybody doing this (besides real Socialists such as Brian Moore). Lastly, why would Obama put Corporate executives in power in the government if he "was a Socialist", who would eventually eliminate private business??!? http://www.education.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ontheissues.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huppi.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have accepted your argument. Now, I want to clarify my position on this debate: I am NOT advocating a complete Socialist revisioning of America: You won't see concepts such as advertising and private ownership of land disappear off the face of the Earth. I am of the opinion that Socialism still has a place beside Capitalism in this country, and I firmly believe that there is no freedom to be 'made a complete mockery of' in using this system.

Well, you could have tried to argue how money and private property enslaves us, rather than just claiming it does(claims need reason/logic or facts to back it up). Perhaps the character limit you set on this debate made it so that you couldn't really argue for it properly, but I think there was sufficient room for a reason or two. If you provided reasons formoney and private property enslaving us, I may have agreed with you and conceded the debate. It would certainly be easier to convince a socialist to turn communist than a capitalist to turn communist. We could make a debate specifically on how money and private property enslave us, if you want. I would be up for that. If the claim is "Money and private property enslave us" you would take the pro position and I would take the con position. Feel free to challenge me again if you think you have good reasons for believing money and property enslave us.

So you're saying a 74 year old man (75 if he were elected president) has bones as strong as someone who is in their 30s? That for the most part is wrong. It is possible but very unlikely. There is now way that he can hide his disability as easily as FDR did. This is not the 1930s this is 2015. We have YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and tons of other sites where people share pictures and videos. There are 1000s of sites dedicated to leaking information. It would get out there very quickly. It could not be hidden "in the same manner." So what if Elizabeth Warren was a college professor? She didnt attend Harvard as a student. She attended the University of Houston. Then later on she attended Rutgers School of Law. She was actually the first to graduate college in her family. Where as Bernie sanders went to college at University of College and Brooklyn college. Bernie sanders college was actually more expensive than Elizabeth Warrens. If we do cut the military fund and stop sending our troops to other countries that would be terrible for many reasons. We are fighting to protect civilians all over the world from there governments who are trying to kill them but I guess you're right we should just pull out of there and let countless people who have no possible way to defend themselves die just because we want more money. Maybe we should let ISIS run rampant through the middle east destroying historical sites, kidnapping people, and killing thousands of innocent men women and children. Also Australia does not have there minimum wage at $19 an hour. They use a different currency than we do. The value of there currency is different than ours. Also Australia has 14% of their nation in poverty. So they do indeed have a problem in poverty. It may not be as bad as ours at 15% but its absurd to say that have no problem. Also if we raise minimum raise companies will have to pay their employees more money. Where will they get this extra money? They will raise the prices of their products to obtain the money to pay their employees causing inflation. Also people make a living off of working with hair which gets them money so they can buy food to survive. So it is pretty important! It creates jobs so we have less people in poverty! So yes I would compare it to life.

Well, I think the burden of proof lies with you to show that money, and private property enslaves us. There's not much to respond to here until I see a good reason to believe these things are enslaving us.

I would expect there would be many to challenge this argument. The reason for that is because of the carrot on the stick dangling in front of your faces. A Capitalist Society gives off the belief that we can "get a piece of the pie" This keeps us blinded on what is right for our people and our country.The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man. Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being.I will leave much out to give anyone a chance to respond...

you shouldnt get caught up on labels because your idea of capitalism could be entirely different from someone elses. for instance you are arguing for capitalism while offering up solutions that most people would consider to be socialist and that doesnt really help an argument for capitalism. this doesnt surprise me because not only do you call yourself a socialist on your profile but you have told me that you agree with my side in the comments and you keep saying that you are just playing devils advocate. currency is useful if people are wage earners, but if machines take over all the jobs, then there will be no wage earners so the system must change from the current economy. obviously all industrialized nations use currency, technology isnt advanced enough for the economic transition. the fact that there are greedy people with money is the reason we might end up destroying ourselves rather than making the transition. either way, there will be no room for wage earning jobs when machines advance. the proof for a technological singularity is all around you. your average person or even poor people today have a better standard of living than royalty did in the middle ages due to innovations. if you went back a hundered yrs ago, many people wouldnt believe that people would be walking around with a wireless cell phone getting on the internet, so you cant just underestimate technology by claiming that this stuff isnt possible. i know that greed played a role in microsofts development, but once innovators achieve success, they tend to play money games a lot with their products. you must understand that im not claiming that capitalism isnt working, im saying that its time is coming to an end because of human advancements. so our success is putting us out of work and no work doesnt mix with capitalism. in conslusion, i want to stress that i am not against capitalism as my opponet who advocates socialism seems to be. i am only stating that humans are evolving and that our system will evolve with us. this isnt something i nessecarily want, but there is no choice. i know that a lot of people will just vote based on pre concieved notions but i dont think you can vote for someone who tells their opponet that they agree with them and still have a clear conscious. please help me by voting for con. even if you disagree with me, atleast recognize that my opponet made no points, and gave no reasons for his opinions. thank you.

Socialism is an economic impossibility. The basic problem of economics is scarcity - limited resources and unlimited desires for those resources. Every economy must thus answer these 3 questions: What goods to produce? How to produce them? Whom shall receive them? Since socialism doesn't have a price system, it is impossible to effectively address these issues. Without a price system, how do you answer the problem of scarcity, and the "3 W's"? By a government survey? Since capitalism works based on a market based on private property, a price system, and incentive for profit, resources will be used most efficiently since the producers, consumers etc. themselves decide the answer to these questions. It is impossible for the government to know the answers. Historical experience clearly demonstrates that price-fixing in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela created massive shortages of all goods and services, even essential ones like food and water. And the reason is obvious - because there's high demand but little supply to satisfy all those wants. Working on a for-profit basis with free market principles is vital in this regard. Every individual person wants to maximize the use of their private property. Once a good or service's price is reduced below market level or is free, there is no longer any incentive to maximize its use - in fact, people will use more of it without regard to its scarcity, or dispose of it altogether. Accordingly, when governments take this course, lines and lines of people can be found in all stores and so on. If gas is [artificially] only $1.50 (fixed price) down from $3.00 (market price), why not buy as much as gas as possible? An inevitable shortage is the result. The only way to address a shortage is by rationing, further exacerbating the problem. In the free market, there was never a shortage of anything that consumers wanted and producers were able to sell. It only occurred when the government stepped in, like in the 70's with the oil embargo. Even Germany, more dependent on oil than we are, didn't have massive waiting lines. Thus, Socialism is an economic impossibility.

The first points I brought up were about minimum wage. My opponent begins by countering this by declaring that those hiring people would pay less in order to keep more money for themselves. This, however, is untrue. Many people now are more likely to do that due to the fact there's minimum wage laws in place. When there's a certain amount you're expected to pay to each employee that leaves less money to keep your business going. As a result, employers would be inclined to pay less to save more money to run their business more efficiently. Secondly, employers would be inclined to pay fair wages anyway. One advantage to a free market is that you can choose where you want to work. As a result, if you don't want the low wages you can go work at another business that offers higher wages. Businesses will continue to compete with each other to get employers by raising wages at rates that they're able to afford due to current market conditions. Minimum wage laws, on the other hand, hurt businesses in times when the economy is bad as they have less money to work with. Without such laws they can adjust accordingly. Thirdly, my opponent pointed out that the unemployment rate in Michigan is about 15%(without sourcing it so I'm not sure how accurate that information is). I will like to point out that these high unemployment rates exist due to the minimum wage laws due to factors I've mentioned before, employers can't always afford to hire as many people if they're required to pay them a certain amount. Certain countries such as Singapore(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and South Korea(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) have market based economies and some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Singapore has an unemployment rate of about 3%(. https://www.cia.gov...) while South Korea has an unemployment rate of just under 4%(. https://www.cia.gov...). These are both pretty excellent rates compared to the rates in many European countries which tend to have more socialized economies. Spain, for example, has an unemployment rate of about 18%(. https://www.cia.gov...). These are just some statistics to prove that a free market is more efficient for society. The next area I addressed was welfare/social security. My opponent claims that with less social security(which means less taxes) that less people would donate to charity. This is also untrue. It has been confirmed in the United States that among the most generous states are "Red States". . http://taxprof.typepad.com... This could be a result of more liberal minded people feeling less need to donate as they probably have a mentality that the state will help them more. Another important factor, as I mentioned in the first round, could be that with less taxes people have more money to donate. With huge portions of their pay cheques being deducted for tax payment people become more concerned about finances and where they spend their money, with charity probably being on the bottom as paying their own bills would be first. With lower tax rates this isn't as big of an issue. As for people born into poor families, they have opportunities too. While it's true that those born into wealthy families often have an easier time at making a living it's not impossible for the poor. Anybody could develop a special skill and make a living that way. For example, if somebody is really good at cooking a certain dish they could spend the few dollars they would need for supplies for that. They could then cook it up and sell it for a few dollars more in order to make a profit. Eventually these funds earned build up enabling the person to better their business. They could start by buying better cooking equipment to make the food even better. More people would buy it thus more funds would be earned. Eventually, there would be a point where said person could open a restaurant. This kind of incentive and opportunity for growth doesn't exist in a socialist society. A person would especially feel good about themselves knowing all their money was earned due to their hard work rather than just being handed to them for nothing. Lastly, abuse in the welfare system was discussed. While this may not be a huge problem it does still exist. one thing that was suggested was drug testing. However, such actions require taxpayer's money to be able to afford. That would just result in even higher taxes. Also, most sane people wouldn't want to be using their own hard-earned money to support lazy bums who refuse to work. The system in itself isn't entirely fair. Thirdly, even with things such as drug testing it would be impossible to catch everybody. There are still those who abuse the system who aren't drug addicts. I'll now be handing this over to my opponent. Thank you again for responding on time and good luck in the next round!

Response to C1:It seems to me that you are quoting Professors, and then summarizing their views in a few short sentence after doing so. It is your job to be providing reasoning, not quotes.The United States of America has a Constitution, by which everyone with the boundaries of the US s forced to abide. Our Constitution lists the specific job of the legislative branch of government, and then adds in an amendment that anything not specifically listed as a job of the national government is a ob for the states; with the consent of the people.[1] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Article I, Section 8)[2] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Amendment X)Healthcare/medical aid is not listed anywhere as a job for the federal government. Because our Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything it is no explicitly permitted to do, the federal government cannot provide healthcare.Response to C2:Your whole argument is that federal healthcare could do better than completely privatized or state-run systems, because other countries that are better than us use a federal system. I would like to point out that our current system is heavily flawed, due to government regulations on jobs; specifically doctors. If doctors could be judged by consumers, instead of his behind the government's overbearing wall, then healthcare would be cheaper, and also more reliable.Do you realize how small an amount $6500 is? That will barely cover a mostly healthy person for a year. Cancer patients would have no hope. With that little money, people would be forced to provide self care, only visiting the doctor when death is near-certain. You expect universal healthcare to solve all problems. What about the people who smoke? They are still killing themselves; healthcare would not fix the root cause. What about people who go around having sex all the time? We would be paying for their birth-control, and then still having to watch as STDs increased in number. What about the people who eat McDonald’s or fried food everyday? We are still having to pay for their bypasses. Giving people universal healthcare will not magically fix their problems which make them unhealthy, it will only discourage being healthy. If I can eat junk food and go have sex all the time, and know that everyone else is going to pay for my medical are, then by all means (religion aside) I would go do it!Finally for this section, you said that giving people universal healthcare will stop bankruptcy. Really? People still have to pay for their healthcare one way or another. If one person isn't paying, then another one has to pick up the slack. If someone is out of work, then they still cannot pay for their healthcare, the will just get it for free. Eventually, the wealthier and healthier people will quit paying into the system, because they will be supporting everyone else.Response to C3:Again, all you are doing is quoting Professors. his is rather irritating, as I am not debating with them, but with you."You" say that people must be healthy in order to enjoy their rights, because being unhealthy requires dependency on others. How will receiving healthcare from the government make you any less dependent on a hospital doctor than private insurance? Not only are you dependent on any doctors, you are also dependent on the government, as well as every single other citizen! If you get sick, then you are sick. Making healthcare universal will not just magically fix that. The only thing universal healthcare would do is provide a guaranteed source of payment for the medical bills, to an extent.It is then stated that people who get universal healthcare will be more inclined to work harder. How does that work? If I say that you will get something no matter how hard you work, then you won't work very hard, if at all.You then say that there will be an even mix of well and ill people n the "pool." Again, how does that work? Can you predict how many people will get sick, and what their disease will be? Medicines and treatments can cost from a few dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars. Money would have to be in abundance to allow for the care of anyone with cancer, or anyone requiring a major surgery. You also claim that universal insurance would fix the "problem" of having to pay for insurance. People have to buy the insurance, whether it is through a private company or via taxes. Like insurance as it is currently, if you get sick, the payments (taxes) will have to go up to account for the expenses. The only difference is that everyone has to pay more because a single person gets sick.Some people naturally have stronger immune systems. They get sick less often, and therefore would require less medical care, as well as less sick days from work. Why would they keep working to pay for someone else's healthcare, when they don't get any money back?Your actual point for your entire "b" point is that "Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone." The only evidence you provide is, yet again, a quote. That is quite inadequate.I will not waste time in replying to point "c," because that is a purely philosophical statement, which you claim is true, because Prof. So-and-So said it. If you wish to bring philosophy and religion into this, I would be delighted to do so, with more wide-known sources than your professors.Cross-Examination:Do you agree with Obamacare?Do you agree with Socialism?Do you agree with Communism (Totalitarian)?Do you agree with Social Democracy?Do you agree with a free-market economic system?Do you believe that philosophy/religion should be brought into politics?Do you agree with the US Constitution?How would universal healthcare be paid for?Would universal healthcare be provided in an "account" for each individual, or would it be distributed from a pool to those who had need?For your next argument, please formulate some real points, instead of quoting and agreeing with others. As the Pro, it is your job to prove that the US should offer federal universal healthcare. If you would like to use statistics, please find some that are not contained within a quote, and please use sources for citations.Thanks.


Question: Should Social Security be Transformed into Private Accounts?

Social Security should be means-tested for the affluent. Social Security should indeed be means-tested for the wealthy. An individual earning $150,000 is in the 90th percentile of income. Eliminating benefits for the top 10% could reduce Social Security expenses by more than 10%, given they would otherwise receive significantly higher than average payouts. Reducing Social Security by 10%, 15%, or even 20% would significantly contribute to budget balancing. If we trimmed the entire budget by 13%, we could achieve balance. I'm merely suggesting that Social Security shouldn't be immune to cuts. I'd prefer not to reduce their benefits, but we must identify areas for reduction to balance the budget. Could you propose how you would tackle the financial crisis without cutting benefits? Or do you believe everyone's benefits should be slashed, not just the rich? Should defense spending be decreased more? If you advocate for the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, you still have to demonstrate how you'd finance benefits for current and impending retirees. This issue will take decades to resolve. The current retiring generation has been borrowing against Social Security to fund government and defense spending. It's only fair that we concentrate on not allowing them to pass the buck to the next generation by trimming their benefits somewhat.

i've agreed with most of the things you've said so far, but I still think you're twisting the definition a bit. Indeed if we could learn get along better, stop using money we don't have, and worry about more than our own personal gain, we could live far better than we do now., but private ownership isn't to blame. It's our imperfections. Our greed, our stupidity, our love of power... it's the fact that we're human.. And as always, thank you for the debate.

This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.

In recent times, threat to social security has been at the forefront of society. Governments had a sharp wake up and found themselves facing a terrible trouble - terrorism. I truly believe that it is fair to say that the majority of terrorists are religious, and it needn't be said that the worst overwhelmingly are. This perpetual danger forces leaders of great, secure countries, like the US and Britain, to transgress some of our most basic rights in the name of counter-terrorism. I'm absolutely confident that both you and I would rather not have our legs rubbed up and down when trying to travel through an airport. It isn't just modern religion that is dangerous, it is also the remnant of the archaic and outdated religion that poisons our society. The most prevalent are, of course, Islam and Christianity. What I mean when I suggest that religious is poisonous, is that it infects us in our most basic integrity, and spreads lies such as 'you cannot be moral without God.' How insulting and offensive is an untrue statement like that to an atheist? I don't want my basic moral values to be credited to a fascist Big Brother in the sky. I'd like the credit to go to the ones who have raised me, like my mother and father. Now onto the family matters. The Roman Catholic Church, very recently, introduced a basic code to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This was called the ABC policy, which was: abstinence, being loyal to your partner, and, if all else fails, condoms. It's true that abstinence and being loyal can prevent the spread of such a disease, but why can condoms not be a first resort instead of the last?! I'd like you to bear in mind, while reading this paragraph, that this was the exact same church that spread the devastating lie to African countries that condoms actually have small, microscopic holes in them that can actually increase the number of cases of HIV/AIDS. Now, how dare the Roman Catholics call me, as an atheist who likes to think of himself as a morally adequate person, a morally EVIL person, when they are directly causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of Africans who will never know any better? The Catholic Church seems like a very easy target, though. So why not go onto not a different denomination, but a whole new religion. Islam. The most morally inept, destructive and sickening religion known to man. This is a religion that, when guiding a middle eastern theocracy, sets down laws that state a woman cannot be executed if she is a virgin, but imperial guards may rape this woman and then kill her. What a sickening though, and even more sickening to think that things like this happen on a day to day basic in these vile countries. I am not blaming the people of the country though, they are only victims of this totalitarian regime that dictates to them what food to eat, what clothes to wear, who they can go to bed with and what they can think. I believe the final dictation in the previous list to be thought crime, something that George Orwell used to exaggerate the consequences of a hypothetical situation where a totalitarian government sat in power. Finally, I'd like to close my opening remarks by borrowing a question asked by the late Christopher Hitchens: Name an ethical deed or statement said or done by a religious person that couldn't have been done by a non-believer. If you can't do this, then do the following: name me a wicked deed or statement said or done that could have only been done by a believer. Who says we get our moral values from religion?

While it is obvious that the Pro displays a good understanding of economics, the Pro is still obligated by burden of proof to present why a democratic socialist model is superior to a free market capitalist system which the Con has obviously been unable to substantiate as I will demonstrate below."The Con makes a very good point when he says that the United States is a mixed economy, and I apologize for the semantic error on my part when I referred to "the free market system" as a whole- I recognize that it would have been more accurate to say "the predominantly free-market economic system" (Of the USA) . However, I still maintain that free market policies are predominantly responsible for the banking crisis leading up to the 2008 crash:"It isn't a semantic error. You have provided factually incorrect and misleading information. The United States is as I have stated earlier in the previous round, nowhere near a free market system. It is a mixed economy where the United States Federal Government heavily regulates both the private and public sectors of it's economy.An article published by the reputable Economist describes my point entirely on how completely driven away the United State's economy is from any Laissez-faire model of capitalism. "Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity" - The Economist [S1]"Therefore, it is an overstatement to say that the US government failed to set proper interest rates"It is not an overstatement it is a fact. The Federal governments policies were responsible for the chain of events that led to risky lending and irresponsible lending on the part of Wall Street and it's subsidiaries. If proper interest rates had been maintained credit would have remained more stable and Wallstreet would not have had the ability to lend out risky amounts of capital. "The fact is, under a free-market dominated health care system, Americans spend far more for a far worse service than the Swedes. But how can this be, when the 'invisible hand' of competition should drive prices down and care standards up, when rival firms must compete for customers?"The Con once again displays a lack of understanding as to how the American health care system works. The comparison here is faulty. The United State's health care system is hardly a free market in any sense of the term and to compare it to a socialist model like Sweden is a false dichotomy. Therefore the comparison to Sweden is not only incorrect but irrelevant. To provide proof of my claim I have provided an article from the United State's Department of Justice which thoroughly analyzes the serious challenges the United State's is facing due to a completely over regulated and mismanaged health care system. "Health care is subject to extensive regulation at both the federal and the state level, much of which "arose haphazardly." [S2]Conclusion:As shown through this round of my argument it is clear that the Pro's understanding of American economics is incorrect and the arguments he has presented are fallacious in some portions. Sources:1. http://www.economist.com...2. http://www.justice.gov...

Socialism is a bad idea: Private Property: People should have a right to own and do anything that isn't illegal on their property. Otherwise, people would feel deprived. Means of Production: The government telling other companies what to do would plunge them in to the ground. Distribution of goods: The distribution of goods. You might get it, but the problem is you have to wait FOREVER to get the services or goods. For example, I have a friend in England that had a broken jaw from a bar fight and he had to drive from hospital to hospital waiting to get surgery. Is that how you want it? Socialism is Bad: Prosperity is good, I admit it. But would you like severely reduced rights? Yes or No? China is a fascist-state capitalist country. They just say their Communist. Otherwise, why would their economy be booming? Your rebuttal?

The US constitution protects our property rights. The US constitution considers our personally owned businesses to be our private property. Facebook and other social media sites are privately owned businesses. Facebook and other social media sites are private property and are protected by the constitution. Facebook and other social media sites are not publicly owned, therefore the public has no say in how these social media sites are run. If you, the reader have any qualms with Facebook or other privately owned social media sites, you are free to start your own site.

Let try to see what points you are trying to make 1. people have pride in land 2. i am right about energy 3. live like crap 4. there is unemployment 5. long medicine wait I think the answer is obvious, but what is better Land utilized to the fullest extent to have your food needs met You have pride in land Pride has never and never will be considered a need in any philosophy discussion. Why? Because the notion is absurd. Pride does not outweigh management of land. Good, so we agree we could save our planet by being socialist. I think that makes it a GOOD idea, don't you? You never give an reason why your life would be crap. Go to work. Get paid. Buy stuff. Have government provide your needs. The definition we have used for this round of socialism does not apply a decrease in quality of life. You just randomly bring that point up. I'm sorry this is the last round, but you have no warrant to that claim. There is unemployment. Um, no. Have you bothered an attempt to understand a socialist work center? The government will give you a job. Unemployment is limited only to those mentally or physically handicapped. So your argument, which is little more than a simple claim, falls short of any meaning. Where is your evidence for this? And don't say Canada. Because Canada is not an idea. We agreed to this. You want to break it? Look to China, very very low unemployment. Look to Socialist Germany (WWII) where unemployment dropped from 6 million to to somewhere in the thousands. Do not bring up examples we agreed not to use. So this is the what we have coming from this round. 1. Socialism utilizes land to the fullest 2. Makes people have no pride in land 3. Saves the energy crisis 4. Little unemployment 5. Medicine supplied All the other arguments in this round either relied on Socialism not simply being an idea, or made no sense, or had no reason why. As you can see, 4 out of the 5 show why Socialism is a good idea. And all 4 of them alone outweigh his argument. It is clear from this that Socialism is a good idea.

For those of you that read this debate carefully you will notice my opponent insist I have not met my BOP over and over again. This debate is called "Socialism is better then Capitalism" My opponent, not once explains the opposite. His only statement about Capitalism was. .. . "Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's. "Yet he has wrote nothing to prove this. I am not trying tell anyone Socialism has worked in any countries past, I am saying if it was done correctly it would be better than Capitalism! In place of back and forth banter with my opponent, I will once again attempt to prove my point. In socialism, you will help make the decisions now made by the president and board of trustees of your university, by the boss on your job, by your landlord, by the owners of newspapers, TV stations, movie studios, and sports franchises, and by government officials at all levels. Extending democracy—the rule of the people—into all areas of society is the key difference. It is the socialist alternative to the dictatorship of money, and of those who have it, that dominates life in capitalist society. And everywhere, the aim of maximizing profit for the few will be replaced by the human aim of serving social needs. In the economy, this means making more of the things people really need—which in our wealthy country could eliminate poverty in a few years—but also making them better and distributing them more fairly, while showing an equal concern for preserving the environment, protecting workers' health, and reducing work hours (all important "social needs"). This can occur because all the factors of production available to society would be put to full use. There would be no idle machines, wasted raw materials, and, above all, no unemployed workers. Recall the $13 trillion spent on arms since World War II, the waste in what gets made and in what doesn't, the conspicuous baubles of the rich, and all the money spent on repression and on brainwashing to keep people from asking just these kinds of questions. View all this in light of the rapid advances being made in automation, computerization, and robotizing, and then tell me it can't be done. On the job, wage differentials, though greatly reduced, will exist as long as there are some people who require this kind of incentive to do their best. Over time, as other incentives, such as pride in a job well done, the praise of one's co-workers, and the satisfaction in serving the community, replace the desire to get rich and the fear of being poor (since there will no longer be rich or poor), wages will be about the same for everyone who works the same number of hours. These wages will be more than enough to buy what people want, since many of the things that cost so much today will be free—such as education, including college and other kinds of special training, health care, and probably very quickly, transportation, communication, and entertainment. Other costs will be heavily subsidized—such as housing and basic items of food and clothing. Also, with production planned to serve social good rather than private profit, and with most things we use apportioned by need rather than by cost, money's role in society will gradually diminish, and with it the grip money now exercises on our psyches. Throughout socialist society, in education but also at work and at play, efforts will be made to counter selfishness and the fear of what is different, and to promote the values of cooperation and mutual concern. With collective control over our activities, their products, and social relations, alienation—and its feeling of disconnectedness and powerlessness—would give way to feelings of empowerment, and a sense of belonging to the human community. In the process, freedom, equality, and democracy—all the noble ideals that capitalism (to its credit) first set out, and then (to its shame) undermined and distorted—will finally begin to describe our actual life together. Imagine walking down a clean street, encountering friendly people, and knowing that everyone you see has enough to eat and a decent place to live. You do not fear being robbed or otherwise abused, and the only police you see are directing traffic. Imagine that you are going to a job you enjoy, where you are respected, not overworked, and where all your suggestions are taken seriously; and that afterwards you meet with friends to pursue common interests with no worry about educational or medical bills that spoil most of our good times. Is this heaven? No, it's socialism, and it is better than Capitalism! I believe I have proven my BOP.

I accept the definition for Socialism that is presented by my opponent. I also thank my opponent for clarification of the " If he is than America is a socialist society." statement. Due to the fact that my opponent offered no contentions or attacks I will proceed to present my own case. In order to properly debate and discuss this topic, two things must be realized. First, many Americans do not believe in or fully understand Socialism. This causes either disapproval or fear of a Socialist. It is for this reason that no politician will admit openly that they are a Socialist. Secondly, we must realize that the only way to properly discuss and conclude that President Obama is, in fact, a Socialist is to examine his past voting choices and his previous statements. With these two realizations in mind I will now move on to my reasoning. Contention 1: Obama's own statements. I would like to present various statements made by President Obama and analyze why they define him as a Socialist. Subpoint A: Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, said Bush's political philosophy consists of giving tax breaks and encouraging "everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement and security, your own child care, your own schools, your own private security forces, your own roads, your own levees. "It's called the ownership society. In our past there has been another name for it; it's called social Darwinism. Every man or woman for him or herself," he said. "We know that government can't solve all our problems, and we don't want it to. "But we also know that there are some things we can't do on our own. There are some things we do better together. "We have an individual responsibility but we also have a collective responsibility to each other," he said. [1] These statements obviously define President Obama as a Socialist. He states, in a negative light, the policies of his opponent, President Bush. However these policies are the consistent with those of a true Capitalist. He then goes on to compare the Capitalist policies to Social Darwinism; a concept that is often looked down upon. Finally he goes on to state that we have collective responsibilities to each other and that there are some things that we do better as a whole people. These statements are obviously in line with Socialist values. Subpoint B: It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you'll play in writing the next great chapter in America's story. [2] As the major goals of Socialism are the furthering of the community as a whole; these statements obviously display a Socialistic viewpoint. He speaks of the need for collective salvation over individual salvation; as well the need to "hitch your wagon" to something bigger than yourself. These statements obviously display a very socialistic viewpoint in President Obama. Contention 2: Obama's health care policies. Ronald Reagan once said, "One of the traditional methods of imposing socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project; most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it." This was during a campaign against socialized health care programs. This applies to the health care programs of Obama. In theory, his programs will force companies to give health insurance to all people. This is blatantly Socialistic. It will lead to eventual financial loss by the insurance companies because they will have to support people that they normally wouldn't have accepted because of the increased risk. So, the health care programs of Obama will take from the wealthy (insurance companies) and give to the poor (those who can't afford health insurance). We must not look at the morality of this but instead how it adheres to the ideals of Socialism. These health care programs obviously focus on the good of the community as a whole versus the ability of Capitalism or the individual to succeed; thus making the programs socialistic. In conclusion, it is statements and policies like these that openly display that President Obama is a Socialist. We must look to these statements and policies said and created by the president as evidence of his obvious socialistic views. I look forward to the response of my opponent. 1:http://www2.ljworld.com... 2: http://www.wfsb.com...

True, unadulterated capitalism has periods of insane growth followed by periods of insane "busts" in an almost saw tooth pattern. These boom and bust cycles are one of the flaws and foundations of pure capitalism. The Great Depression was part of the bust side of the boom before it, and 2008 would have been another depression style bust side of a prior boom had the government safety net and Federal Reserve bailouts. These actions to prevent the bust cycle from destroying a collective economy relied on a central government. The idea of a progressive payment into a centralized fund for protection is nice, but is similar to a tax, but instead of handing the money to a centralized government, the money is handed to a privet entity which isn't bound by laws. How would laws be created? How would the be enforced? Though privet enterprise. There lies the problem of justice. The punishments and trial aren't left to an un-bias public arena, but to privet enterprise. This can lead to a very corrupt society as the defense firms could make it "law" that if someone didn't want them to destroy their property because it was deemed "threatening," this could lead to people having to pay every single group simply to keep their lives and property. While I can understand you retort about environmental preservation, if such a statement is true on a full scale, why aren't these actions taken by every company in the modern world of today? My simple explanation lies in one word: greed. You've also failed to explain what is being used as currency, as without any form of central government, no uniform, standard currency would be issued, thus I'm left to assume that privet banks begin to issue their own notes. Such was the case before the United States began printing it's own paper money, and banks would issue bank notes form their own bank (oft backed by gold). This was fine as long as one did business with other customer of the same bank, Bank A we'll say, and everything was all fine and dandy. The issues arise when one decides to either travel or does business with someone who uses another bank, let us say, Bank B. Bob is a customer with Bank A, he regularly does business with other people who are customers of the same bank so his bank notes are perfectly fine to use as payment. Bob sees a new sushi shop open up down the block form his house and wants to try it out, but when he goes to pay, the owner tells him that he is a customer of Bank B and not Bank A, but because the Banks are within the same town, they've worked out what the exchange rate for their notes are and everything is okayish. Bob then finds out he needs to go to a large city for work and upon arriving wants lunch. Bob goes and orders his lunch and goes to pay, but the cashier won't accept his bank notes as they have never heard of Bank A and use Bank C. The idea of a uniform, standard currency while perhaps possible to be create using a your ideal "governing" body is improbably is the idea is that the market should decide. These market failures are perhaps the reasoning behind Money isn't the only example of what a market could very well fail to do, there are so many more such as roads, clean water, ensuring that food and medicine are safe, people are granted safe working conditions and many more among other things. A completely free market with no centralized government regulation could, and has been disastrous for the majority of the population.