Resolved: Liberalism is inherent with Socialism
(This argument is drafted by LibreOffice because MS Word is Janky)
Definitions
According to Merriam Websters dictionary, a reputable source:
Liberalism[1a]
Socialism[1b]
Inherent[1c]
Burden of Proof
Pro, as the instigator and claim-maker, must prove that, without exceptions, that ALL examples of Socialism contain liberalism, in order to win. Pro did not define his terms and Pro did not set boundaries for the ideologies, such as defining the ideologies as Leninism and Social Liberalism, et cetera.
Argument 1:Socialism without Liberalism
A source and I can pretty muchagree that Stalin-era Soviet Russia is socialist[2], since Communismis a variation of socialism[3]. If you wanna critique these twoexamples, please use sources to do so, as Pro holds the BoP bydefault.
Stalin
The definition of Liberalismstates that Liberalism stresses Individual freedom[1a], and Stalindidn’t do that.
[4]
What Stalin did was constructGulags, which isn’t respecting individual rights at all as laborersin the gulags are treated like slaves. People are collectivized,which is authoritarian and not liberal. In fact, part of middleclass(the richer peasants) was obliged to partake in mandatory laborand others of the same class were killed because they are seen as athreat to the rule.
What is more, Stalin attemptedto rid everything that could potentially harm him. This resulted tothat hundreds of thousands of people being arrested and 83 of thehigh-ranking officialed being punished. People are terrified and aconsiderable proportion of the party is wiped, resulted in anotherfamine. Not even the leader of the police was spared and when he isexecuted, he was deleted from the pictures.
Within the late stages of WW2,Stalin issued the Order 227, which illegalizes any act ofpanic-making and cowardry. This is not respecting individual rightsat all. This is oppressing the citizens
With all that is done withJoseph Stalin, who runs an authoritarian Socialist nation, we canconclude that there is at least one example of Liberalism not beinginherent with Socialism. Thus Pro’s point is disproven, I win.
Argument 2: Liberalismwithout Socialism
Classical Liberalism
We can pretty much agree onthat Classical liberalism is “liberalism” by definition becauseit:
- Is progressive
- Works towards the whole humanity
- Stresses for economic freedom[5]
This agrees with thedefinition[1a].
[5] also shows that ClassicalLiberalism is capitalist, as it favors a laissez-faire economy andpeople can open businesses freely. That is not socialist as Socialismfavors corporations to be controlled by a government[1b], which isnot what is going on with Classical liberalism. Since this is a typeof liberalism without socialism, the other interpretation of theresolution is also proven false.
Conclusion
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://tiny.cc/votingpolicy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty much cite how "CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory" and likewise how at least one of those many sources supported this.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
Benjamin
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Sources:
No sources from PRO. He referenced some literature but it does not even compare to CON.
Arguments:
PRO did not fulfill his BoP with sources. Nevertheless, CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory, fulfilling BoP.
Sorry, in r2 I was meant to say that Stalinism is communisT and communism is socialisT, not M. Typo.
And all I'm saying is that that is a generalization
Modern liberalism oftentimes aligns with socialist economics, that's all I'm saying.
I wouldn't say so, I'd say people who are modernly liberal happen to agree with socialism, they aren't intrinsically linked. Socialism is an economic structure, modern liberalism is more about social rights.
...LibreOffice is still janky, but at least it is better.
He may not, but modern liberalism is very close to socialism.
And I don't think this person knows what socialism is.
Idk what kind of liberalism he's talking about, he didn't specify. But I think that there's always liberalism implicit in socialism is his resolve
Is he arguing that There is always socialism in liberalism or if there is always liberalism in socialism? I can argue both, but I want to prioritize the correct interpretation.
Maybe modern liberalism. But not classical liberalism.
As a Chinese citizen and long-time Reddit Dweller, I disagree fully.