Results 1 to 6 of 6
Doing a debate for my English class on Socialism
It's an LD topic, so what's a good value and value criterion, and contentions? I don't want you guys to write it for me because I'm lazy, but just wanting some input or help. The topic is "Capitalism is a better system for socialism." I'm negating that
LD topic?
Since socialism defined as post-capitalist society has had no empirical existence this will be extremely difficult to argue in favour of in a short time period. So you will probably need to define socialism (wrongly) as at least including (besides the USSR) something to do with workers' cooperatives and then point out to its advantages. Presumably, your opponents will focus on Sweden and/or the USSR and have no counter-arguments to workers' cooperatives.
pew pew pew
I think he's referring to this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debate
I'm not sure though.
I am. And Tim, I realize that, so I'm thinking about just defining it as social ownership
1. Capitalism is inherently wasteful (poverty in the midst of abundant resources).
2. Capitalism can't properly address externalities (environmental damage, hazardous health effects of profitable products, and the aforementioned wastefulness).
3. Socialism could meet peoples' needs more effectively in ways capitalism cannot, and this is so because it uses resources to benefit everyone individually and collectively, whereas capitalism uses resources to benefit a few at the expense of many (and ultimately even possibly the few where things like environmental damage are concerned), and because aforementioned problems are not set aside as externalities.
There are other ways to approach it of course, but those are a few suggestions. Whatever you do, definitely define your terms (socialism, capitalism, etc.).
I'm not familiar with LD, unfortunately. I've done most of my debating in the British or Canadian Parliamentary formats. The general rules still matter, though. If you can, narrow it down to a few enumerated points under an argument with a general theme, and spend a reasonably balanced amount of time on each. You could just get up and rant and make great arguments somewhere in it, but being concise and systematic will help whoever's judging it follow along and should help you stay focused.
One last thing is to try to anticipate some common counterarguments to any points you come up with. I'm not sure how LD handles interruptions (whether you have allotted time and can't be interrupted during it or short back-and-forths might happen).
Sorry if a lot of that was generic/obvious. It's just stuff I've gotten used to repeating and hearing repeatedly since I got involved in formal university-level debating.
Good luck!
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
Everything said is right, but some statistics go along way to help prove it.
1) The US government estimates that 20-30% (They have a solid number, I've just heard both before) of natural resources in the US are not being used, which if they were, the wealth created could be in the Trillions of dollars. We also have 34 million of US citizens who are unemployed, along with the tools and machinery necessary to do the Jobs collecting Rust and Dust. But Capitalism is a system that can not put these things together.
as to 2 and 3, this short video will give more in depth examples to use.
billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-capitalisms-destructive-power/
