Which side makes a better case?
avatar
18 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 12 days ago

    sound corrupted can’t hear debate. Maybe be my remote poor wifi

    • 12 days ago

      War on poverty has not worked, and most madmike stated was mad.

      • 12 days ago

        Mike is winning because he is first defining the debate.

        • 12 days ago

          We are a social democracy with a capitalist economy.

          • 12 days ago

            Confusing democratic socialism with economic socialism is a massive error right from the start

            • 12 days ago

              Now ary is about to promote the false idea that we are not a democracy. A republic IS a democratic form of governance. Again failing on basic definitions

              • 12 days ago

                Yep we have democratic socialism... point to mike

                • 12 days ago

                  Art is failing on basic definitions.

                  • 12 days ago

                    Arguably with so much money in our politics we are ni longer a republic but an autocracy or plutocracy.

                    • 12 days ago

                      Like they cant dump pollution

                      • 12 days ago

                        Not even close Win for Mike.

                        • 12 days ago

                          So free market choices that limit certain parts of the capitalism are actually socialism get out of town.

                        • 12 days ago

                          Well done - Aryan Dua . My only suggestion is to slow down a bit. You have a ton of information to get across - but better to be a tad slower and not be 'rushed' even though you don't get everything across that you want to get across.
                          You made good points - and Mike's challenges were 'off the mark.

                          Michael H. gets it wrong, IMO, that having government regulate industries is 'democratic socialism' (DS). AND - he confuses what capitalism wrong - and assumes that regulation is both D.S. and is moral. He is wrong that government in education is to make it affordable - when the reality is that government involvement in things makes things MORE expensive. Education would be less costly if the free markets work. Health care would be cheaper if free markets work. What Mike calls DS - is cronyism and protectionism at best - and corruption at its worst.

                          Just because government funds it (military) -doesn't make it DS and doesn't make it anti-capitalist. Silly argument.
                          AND - Mike suggests that ANY support for government is essentially blessing DS and is not capitalism.
                          Mike makes faulty assumptions on minimum wages - fact is - sure - a company could offer super low wages (below living standards) - but corporations run the risk of losing workers. Ford, back at the turn of the century - didn't raise wages so that his workers could afford to buy the cars (the common trope) - but because good workers could move to other better paying jobs. SO - Ford elevated the wages to keep them around! That is the way markets should work - and that is the point that Aryan made!

                          Overall - Aryan made solid points - and Mike recycled talking points.

                          • 12 days ago

                            @mvineyard what? You? You don’t agree with me? I mean, you’re like the most liberal person I know with the most rational view of the best economy and political system! ;)

                            To deny that it is necessary for the government to intervene to protect the workers from the known pitfalls of capitalism, or to deny that when the government does do this is makes the country stronger is simply naive, in my opinion.

                          • 11 days ago

                            @madmike If you consider the definition of 'liberal' to be what it was 200 years ago - yes, I am liberal. By modern times -I am libertarian/conservative.

                            I do believe in the Constitution and limited federal government. I don't think that capitalism or free markets (close to the same thing) are inherently evil or dangerous to workers. IN FACT - capitalism/free markets is very beneficial to workers.

                            Consider the excavation company with 100 workers...lots of shovels and wheel barrows. Their wages is based on work that can be done. A 'capitalist' buys an excavator or two, maybe some other heavy machinery - and then you have 4 or 5 workers doing the work of the 100 ....and the cost to the customer drops- and the capitalist who bought the heavy equipment gets money to cover his costs and risks.... The workers - they get higher pay. The 95 out of work - they move on and find something else....and in a society that encourages growth and innovation - innovation happens in many places - and over time -we see the overall improvement - like the difference between workers in year 1800 and year 2000. If you have blocks to capital investment - you have workers still using shovels and wheel barrows....and innovation is stifled.

                            I disagree with minimum wage laws (and so did the Supreme Court in the 1920's). But - I agree that there are reasons for safety standards, environmental protection, etc...(so long as they are very reasonable.)

                          • 11 days ago

                            @madmike He didn't even bother catching the sarcasm. I love it.

                        • 11 days ago

                          "Capitalism Works" So does Socialism, as demonstrated by the massive advancements in the general population of the USSR, and as demonstrated by the Spanish Worker's Revolution of the 1930's.
                          "Capitalism is moral" Argument from Emotion, and also false. A system that allows and encourages a monetary value be placed on people's lives is not in any way, shape, or form "moral"
                          "Capitalism Allows and Encourages Innovation" This is something Socialism encourages, actually, because of the way Capitalists need stagnation of innovation to continue amassing wealth for themselves, i.e. big oil companies putting out bad science to make fossil fuels look less harmful than they actually are, or to make green energy alternatives look less effective than they actually are. Look, for example, at the literacy rate of the USSR before it became a Socialist state and after. Consider, for a moment, that the citizens of the USSR were consuming more calories daily than WE were. Consider that the USSR was the United States's closest competition in the Space Race, whereas less than 50 years prior, more than 70% of the people in the USSR were completely illiterate, much less capable of the mathematics and physics and engineering and all of the other sciences required to put a man into space.
                          "Capitalism is, by definition, liberty" that's not actually an argument, it's also, by definition, false.
                          "And, Capitalism helps the poor" again, this is an argument against capitalism. If you want to help the poor, you can't also logically support a system that attaches arbitrary values to necessary items, healthcare, food, water, shelter, clothing, etc., and then, when people can't afford some or all of those things on a consistent basis, blames their laziness as opposed to the capitalist system that they're in assigning values and then not providing wages that can pay for those necessities.