“ The seizing of your own property and wealth is immoral. It is theft, just by the government.”
- Let me ask my opponent a question, are you an anarchist? Because since you’re against the redistribution of wealth/taxes, then you must be against the government in general due to the government being RUN on the redistribution of wealth.
Assuming my opponent is an anarchist I will address why anarchism has never or will never work at all, however assuming my opponent isn’t an anarchist then this is a glaring contradiction.
“ The next reason why it's immoral is that taxpayers are paying for people who do not have the ability to live very well (the poor).”
- Very false accusation to make, according to the NCSL in 2019 only 3.8 % of Americans were unemployed which were presumably mentally ill people, cripples, or old people. Or perhaps those who cannot find unemployment.
The fact is the majority of society poor people included are indeed working and contributing. For those who aren’t it’s not that they don’t want to it's just there are no jobs available at the moment most likely. The rest are simply those cheating the system which is a VERY small minority mind you.
I mean does my opponent believe that rich people don’t benefit from an educated, healthy, and abundant workforce to perform jobs?
Free college would increase the number of educated employees in the workforce, national healthcare would increase the number of healthy employees thereby increasing worker productivity, and welfare help stabilizes their workers.
Think about it like this, you have two sandwich shops,
Bob's sandwich shop:
- Doesn’t offer the workers a good healthcare plan and as a result, the workers are always sick which decreases their productivity.
- Doesn’t offer his workers educations which makes them prone to mistakes and less capable.
- Spends his surplus money instead on a new house and a jet, however since his workers aren’t smart nor productive his business is slacking.
Bobby's sandwich shop:
- Offers his workers a great healthcare plan which keeps them happy and increases their productivity.
- Offers his workers education which makes them less prone to mistakes and more capable of their jobs
- Spends his money on a new house however couldn’t afford his jet this month, however, his business is growing due to his workers being healthy and smart which as a result is making his business boom more then bobs.
The problem with my opponent's attitude is that he/she is acting as though poor people are nothing but parasites and produce nothing of their own which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Another analogy would be that let’s say you have a poor person who was starving to death and dying of cancer, well if you provided them with food and cancer they could, in turn, enter the workforce and contribute or said another way, you give a poor person a sandwich however since now they’re alive they also make sandwiches.
The bottom line is people don’t just drain resources, the more healthy, educated, and abundant workers are, the more people there are to contribute thereby aiding society.
“ Also, you can not set your own prices. The government decides how you sell your own services.”
- This, in turn, prevents greedy corporations from charging 4,000 dollars for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make.
This is exactly why 45,000 Americans die yearly due to privatized healthcare and another 150 million Americans are left uninsured or go bankrupt due to healthcare costs.
“ This completely reduces any chance of me wanting to go to school and earn myself a good job, why not just make pencils in a factory for eight hours and go get free things”
- Absurd argument to make, by this logic how about we decrease poor peoples working conditions. We make the plumbing horrible, don’t spray for rodents, and keep the windows broken.
We should also get rid of thermostats, tv’s, and computers for them. This way they’ll have a better incentive to work more and get richer.
SOURCES,
I'll let bsh take a look, though I'm pretty sure this qualifies as a FF.
He made an argument in round 2 tho..?
Aren't full forfeits all of rounds forfeit not some?
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
*******************************************************************
Fourthly, the rules specifically state you cannot vote against someone for purely conduct points for just FF one round
]Considering that my opponent didn't PM me or argue against the definition in the debate and also considering he argued with the definitions I gave, it's HEAVILY implied he agrees with the definitions.
The redistribution of wealth is mostly exclusive to socialism and it's other forms. Capitalism does not call for the redistribution and believes in the private ownership of property and the free market.
Both of which are contradicted by the redistribution of wealth since if you believe in private ownership, you cannot believe in the redistribution of wealth. Free markets can’t really be “ free “ if the government is redistributing money to other people.
While the redistribution of wealth isn’t exactly only exclusive to socialism, my opponent very clearly demonizes the redistribution of wealth and since we’ve already established the redistribution of wealth pertains to socialism, this means my opponent dislikes socialism which is absurd or logically inconsistent.
You can’t be arguing for a free market and free private ownership but then also believe in the redistribution of wealth as capitalism contradicts that belief.
It should be noted however you can have a capitalist economy with redistribution of wealth which would be a mixed market. However as my opponent already stated, he/she is against the redistribution of wealth and socialism in general. The government literally runs on the redistribution of wealth so by this logic my opponent must be against the government.
Thirdly, you do bring a good point on the BOP, my opponent does actually state the BOP mostly rests on me. However I already gave part of my case regarding this with me giving a case for socialized medicine, education, and other social programs. All of which are government owned through the redistribution of wealth and could be argued they pertain to the means of production.
He did not agree to your definition anywhere.
You are not arguing for or against Socialism, which is a specific economic plan. A government may redistribute wealth from one private sector to another private sector - it isn't particular to socialism, or any economic system for that matter. Though, another thing to note - the description specified you must prove to him Socialism is not evil. So, in this specific debate it is up to you to prove that it is moral.
I'm probably not going to vote, but in the case I do I will give a conduct point to you for his R1 forfeiture.
Very pointless statement to make.
The definitions you sited such as the Britannica version define socialism along the lines of, the government owning the means of production correct?
Well firstly the government is RUN on the redistribution of wealth, and in order for the government to own the means of production they must REDISTRIBUTE the wealth from the wealthy to the government/public.
Not to mention the fact that me and my opponent already agreed on this definition so it's not underhanded. If my opponent argued against my definition then we could have discussed possibly changing the definition.
Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, redistribution is not even a part of the definition. This is clearly dishonest and underhanded.
So, in other words you are not arguing for socialism you are reframing redistribution as socialism and then arguing for that.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
I don't see what the point of that quote is, it was made around 40 years ago.
This is also contradicted by him donating 2 % of his earnings to charity nowadays so it seems he doesn't believe in this anymore.
The article mentioned actually provides no claims of Bernie stating this at all.
No quotes nor any evidence at all.
The statement itself has a link to another article, I am unable to read it due to me not being a subscriber.
However, the portion I can see makes a claim that articles published in the 1970s stated that Bernie was in support of a maximum wage.
This is true that Bernie USED to support the maximum rate. However recently according to the Atlantic, Bernie's tax plan now is " [Bernies] said that his proposed top marginal tax rate will be somewhere between 50 and 90 percent"
Opinions change, Bernie doesn't believe in a top maximum rate anymore just like a lot of the stuff he said back then.
"I don't believe in charities"-Bernie Sanders
https://www.cleveland.com/nation/2016/09/should_there_be_a_maximum_wage.html states that Bernie long advocates for a maximum wage.
When did Bernie ever state he wants a maximum wage? Assuming you aren't joking.
Bernie Sanders supports a maximum wage. If he makes anything over $1 million per year, then he should give the rest of that money away. Not to mention the maximum wage is how you shut down conglomerates since they make this much in a day or so. Taxing them this high gives them no incentive to be open the rest of the year, causing tens of millions of jobs to get lost. Then, American becomes like Venezuela. Bernie Sanders should tour Venezuela.
He puts in his time and donates part of his earnings, I don't see how he isn't leading by example?
If Bernie is a millionaire, he should put his money where his mouth is and should donate all his money above $1 million to charity. He's a hypocrite if he doesn't.
I guess it is unfair, but the thing is Bernie is still a millionaire, why doesn't he lead by example? The poor are getting richer but the rich just get rich faster. Whats the problem?
Comparing the richest person in the world who pays the most money to charity compared to Bernie who only makes 1 million dollars is a bit of an unfair comparison. Wouldn't you agree?
I couldn't care less how much time it takes for the government to spend their money, people make personal decisions of their own it's only human nature.
You also aren't considering the amount of money that goes to social programs such as welfare, social security, and Medicaid.
Or other services such as the police force, medical services, or the fire department.
The government officials itself only obtain a small fraction of their spending goes towards them anyways.
Besides even if it was a decent portion, I don't see as to why government officials shouldn't get paid a good wage considering the stress and skill a job of that nature takes.
Not to mention the fact you aren't considering time either.
Now which person do you suppose is helping the poor the most,
Billy:
- Is a billionaire who donates 500 million to charity yearly
- Doesn't volenteer his time, and if he does it's very few and far between.
Bob:
- Only makes a million a year so only donates 20,000 yearly
- Since Bob is a popular politician he focuses his time on aiding the poor through financing social programs and services such as healthcare for all, free college, and improving the infrastructure.
Of those two options, it's very obvious Bob is likely contributing more to the overall issue.
Also stating Bill Gates gives half of his money is quite simply not true, he does donate a lot but according to philanthropy.com, Gates only has donated 22 % in the last 17 years.
The "people" will get 2 billion in a month. The government spends that in 7 MINUTES. Bernie gives 2% of his money away while Bill Gates give half. He is worse than the Billionares.
Firstly, the redistributed money goes to the people. Some goes to the government however not nearly as much.
Secondly I don't know about elizabeth warren however Bernie actually does donate his money to charity. A lot actually.
I would have waited for King fudge to change the sides.
Please don't use racist nicknames for people.
I feel like these top socialist advisors like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren{pocohontas}are outright stupid. They want to take from the rich and give it to the government which is greed. One of the deadly sins and they are also millionares and they dont lead the example with donating their money. Bill Gates donates half his wealth and Bernie Sanders doesn't.
According To Forbes, Billionares wealth is decreasing>https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#3c5d2de6251c
Too clarify, because my opponent heavily implied in the description that he/she will be arguing against socialism, that's what i'll be arguing against. I realize their position is a bit confusing however judging from the description, it's most likely a simple error we'll brush off as a dumb mistake.
I could honestly argue either side of this, but given the warning from Alec, it's important to give the instigator a chance to clarify his or his stance.
If you think socialism is evil, you should be pro on this debate or just change the debate to, "socialism".
Socialism is built on the seven deadly sins