iMedia: Policy Debate

Being a policy debater, I happen to think that policy debate is the single most intense intellectual activity that a high-school student can join.

This picture epitomizes that which is policy debate.  Two people, each wearing button-up shirts and a tie, staring down a camera.  Evidence lies around the make-shift podium, and expandos are scattered around haphazardly.  The intensity of the coming speech sits in the eyes of the coming speaker.  Even the manner of the picture seems to suggest intensity.

To me, this picture is the stereotype of what I want to be in terms of a debater.  Of course, I don't want to just replicate this situation, but all debaters may want to aspire to be something like this.  The amount of work that went into creating the evidence, highlighting the evidence, and knowing the evidence is all evident in the debaters.  The exothermic nature of their intensity is what should be modeled here.

Of course, not everyone wants to be a policy debater.  Some people have other things they do for fun, and that's okay.  They can at least appreciate the work that goes into the activity.  But those that do want to succeed in a competitive framework should do all they can to learn as many tricks as they can from other people.  Even other competitive activities may be able to extract a few lessons from this activity.  The intensity, preparedness, and practice that goes into debate are all things that should go into every activity.

Dialectics: Capitalism and Socialism

What is Capitalism?  For the purposes of this entry, Capitalism is the idea of the free market.  Governed only by the law of supply and demand, you can sell anything you want at any price you want, and your success will be determined solely by the will of the market.  There are winners and losers.  Some people will be incredibly rich, some will be incredibly poor.  It may seem unfair, but that's just how it works.

What is Socialism?  For the purposes of this entry, Socialism is the idea that government owns everything.  Without any limits, government decides what you do, how you do it, and when you do it.  Everyone will "win" just as much as everyone else.  Everyone spends 8 hours sleeping, 8 hours working, and 8 hours studying/having fun.  It is the epitome of government regulation; it is the epitome of fairness.

What is the status quo?  The status quo is a mixture of the two.  We obviously live in a capitalist society.  However, take a look around you: the police, the income tax, and market regulations are not very capitalist.  We would like to believe it is pure capitalism, but it is not.  It is capitalism sustained by socialism.

Suppose, for a moment, that the United States took a radical step away from Socialism.  This would present some obvious problems.  If someone robs your house, you have no one to go to.  If you get lied to by an insurance agent, you have very few resources to utilize to hold him to it.  If you apply for a job, you can't ensure you will get a fair wage.  This is why the government is crucial to sustaining any capitalist society.  A truly capitalist society can not sustain itself because of its very nature.  A business tries to maximize it's profits by lowering wages.  But the price of its product remains the same.  Which means people have less money to pay for the same amount of goods, which is inherently unsustainable.  This is empirically proven with healthcare: the price of insurance increases, while wages stay the same, and we have a crisis.

This would also present some advantages.  A truly capitalist society would allow everyone to have a chance to make it big.  It would allow the maximizing of profits.  It is also good for peace because countries that give everyone their own shot tend not to go to war with one another.  They tend to govern themselves in a more peaceful manner because there is a higher standard of accountability.

Suppose, now, that the United States took a radical step towards Socialism.  This too presents some problems.  How do we employ people?  Who determines how much everyone gets paid?  Who determines who does what?  In a socialist society, people have no choice.  It may be more fair, but any value to life that is created in a socialist society is taken away by the fact that they are stuck without a chance to make it big.  They are frozen with nowhere to go.  They can't succeed because that would be a break in the system.  Plus, there can not be an economy, by definition, because it would be entirely regulated and invented by the government, which would be detrimental to the United States' hegemony.  

This too has some advantages.  It allows for greater value to life among the poor.  Those who lose in the capitalist system are allowed to succeed in a world of socialism.  They have a home, a life, a job.  They may not have a chance to succeed, but at least they have something to come home to.  They are not cast out of society as failures, they become productive members of society.

However, it appears that capitalism is inevitable.  If you go to the poorest areas of our society, the people there are not looking to overthrow the government.  They are looking to succeed within the system.  They want jobs, to start businesses, to buy a home.  They will not spew speeches about the horrors of capitalism, instead success within the system is favored.