PDA

View Full Version : "Socialism does not work"


Leif
03-24-2006, 06:12 AM
Come on. Eugenics, protectionism, nationalism, pro-civilization, market socialism - what's so damn bad about it? Asides from the fact that economic socialism simply doesn't work.

I challenge this.


1) The topic of the debate.

The viability of socialism as an economic system.

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Myself and Anticitizen One. However, I am unopposed to someone acting as his proxy, if he wishes. I will be arguing the position that economic socialism works, (I assume Anticitizen One is arguing it does not.)

3) The scope of the debate.

This will require a consensus. I would have no problem with the scope being theoretical, historical, or both.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

I have little preference, it should be left to the other participant.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Suggestion: the debater asserting the positive, that socialism is viable, should provide initial arguments and evidence. Then, the debater asserting the opposite should attempt to disprove the statements and arguments.

Thus, I offer to go first.

6) The maximum length of each statement.

Infinite?

7) The time limit between statements.

Several years ago, when a similar debate format was given, I believe the limit was three days. This is agreeable. However, if the scope of the debate includes both theoretical and historical aspects of the topic, I suggest expanding the time limit to seven days.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

No limit?

9) The starting date of the debate.

It will be decided after the format has been agreed upon.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

I suggest:

Specific time limit extensions should be granted if both parties consent. This will remove the possibility of uncontrollable factors from ending the debate.

Certain definitions should be arrived at prior to the beginning of the actual debate. (The key definitions being socialism and the determining conditions of a viable or working economic system.

Anarch
03-27-2006, 05:46 AM
Very well then :) Feel free to define socialism, we'll no doubt squabble over whether we agree or disagree it is a 'viable economic system'. I agree to the rest.

Helios Panoptes
03-31-2006, 10:46 AM
Leif, are you composing your opening statement?

Anarch
03-31-2006, 11:19 AM
Leif, are you composing your opening statement?
Give him time. I'm sure he's working his whole argument so it'll be impeccably strong and unquestionably bulletproof. That would be why he's scratching his head in his avaturd ;)

EDIT: Nice avaturd Helios.

Leif
04-08-2006, 12:20 AM
I need the following questions answered by Anticitizen One:

What is the scope of the debate? Theoretical, historical, or both?

Any specific number of rounds? I vote no limit.

Any maximum length for statements? I vote no limit.

Time limit between replies? (I favor 7 days)



Proposed definitions:

[economic] Socialism: An economic organization in which the means of production are owned collectively, as by the state or other central organization.

A viable economic system should be defined as one that reproduces itself through economic growth.


I need your input on those...

I can have my first statement made by next Friday.

Anarch
04-08-2006, 04:39 AM
I need the following questions answered by Anticitizen One:

What is the scope of the debate? Theoretical, historical, or both?

Theoretical.

Any specific number of rounds? I vote no limit.

No limit.

Any maximum length for statements? I vote no limit.

No limit.

Time limit between replies? (I favor 7 days)

That's fine.


Proposed definitions:

[economic] Socialism: An economic organization in which the means of production are owned collectively, as by the state or other central organization.

Ok.

A viable economic system should be defined as one that reproduces itself through economic growth.

This means nothing in itself. Define 'economic'. This is important.

I need your input on those...

I can have my first statement made by next Friday.

Sure. Sounds great.

Leif
04-08-2006, 05:34 AM
This means nothing in itself. Define 'economic'. This is important.

Economic- related to the production and distribution of material goods.

Revised defintion:

"A system of production and trade/distribution which satisfies the material needs of the people composing a society."

Anarch
04-08-2006, 05:58 AM
Economic- related to the production and distribution of material goods.

Revised defintion:

"A system of production and trade/distribution which satisfies the material needs of the people composing a society."

That sounds rather familiar :p

Feel free to assert your positive, with arguments.

Der Sozialist
04-11-2006, 03:56 AM
That sounds rather familiar :p

Feel free to assert your positive, with arguments.

Leif is banned, and I am not sure how long that is going to last (possibly indefinite).

However, if you wouldn’t mind, I can take leif’s position (defending Socialism).

Anarch
04-11-2006, 12:28 PM
If you must, that's cool with me.

Der Sozialist
04-11-2006, 05:13 PM
If you must, that's cool with me.

:p

I don’t want to waste your time, so if you would prefer not to I wouldn’t feel offended.

However, I would prefer if you begin with your set of arguments (I am better at contradicting)--- and could we expand the limits of this debate to include historical arguments as well?

Anarch
04-11-2006, 11:08 PM
:p

I don’t want to waste your time, so if you would prefer not to I wouldn’t feel offended.

Nah, it's alright :D If you want to do the debate, that's cool.

However, I would prefer if you begin with your set of arguments (I am better at contradicting)--- and could we expand the limits of this debate to include historical arguments as well?

I am better at contradicting :p We could expand the limits of the debate to include historical arguments, except I really can't be bothered reading ten thousand pages on the USSR's economic/political history, so I'd prefer not to.

Der Sozialist
04-12-2006, 12:10 AM
We could expand the limits of the debate to include historical arguments, except I really can't be bothered reading ten thousand pages on the USSR's economic/political history, so I'd prefer not to.

Trust me, I don’t want to read a 1000 + pages on Socialist history either—however, since history is the ultimate test of the viability of an economy, I am at a loss as to how we can confine ourselves purely to the theoretical—since, after all, in the theoretical, Socialism works better. :p

I am better at contradicting :p

Damn you :D

Okay, look for my response in the next couple of days (it will be vague but I have feeling that our focus will narrow a bit as the debate goes on).

Incidentally, what do you mean exactly when you say this: “Socialism does not work?”

Anarch
04-12-2006, 12:23 AM
Trust me, I don’t want to read a 1000 + pages on Socialist history either—however, since history is the ultimate test of the viability of an economy, I am at a loss as to how we can confine ourselves purely to the theoretical—since, after all, in the theoretical, Socialism works better. :p

Theoretically even socialism doesn't work, actually.

Damn you :D

Okay, look for my response in the next couple of days (it will be vague but I have feeling that our focus will narrow a bit as the debate goes on).

Incidentally, what do you mean exactly when you say this: “Socialism does not work?”

Your position is that "Socialism works as a system of production and trade/distribution which satisfies the material needs of the people composing a society." Mine is to prove you wrong. The definition of socialism is in the first page of this thread.