You haven't lost the argument, and I know that the dunning kruger effect may have convinced you otherwise, but I don't feel like you've proved anything

Nobody does

I feel like I wasted my time

Place your ego aside

Do you really think you made a good argument here?

I have

Well, I don't, and I think you're retarded.

If I had nothing to say, and wanted to kick you for your views or for me not having an argument, I wouldn't haveopened the door for you to offer a challenge

You don't argue like that in a semantical argument, especially

<:ohno:520006095125872641>

Since it's literally about definitions

Both participants

think they have the correct one

restating the same one over and ovr

will get you nowhere other than pissing the other person off

This is correct

thank you

I will argue not so.

But not for the reasons you stated

Only in the marxist-leninist definition is it correct

Socialism is seen as the transition from capitalism to communism

Remove marxist-leninism

And it makes no sense

Socialism has it's goals to abolish the market

Market socialism?

Not really

Doesn't exist

i will argue the definition above is incorrect since it only makes sense under one version of socialism

it doesn't exist, but the concept does

Marktet socialism is as real as libertarian socialism

it directly contradicts socialism

That is the purpose of a semantical argument, we're literally... arguing definitions

...but you just said

state intervention is socialism

so

Yes

a socialist policy

The USA has a market economy

correct

So is it market socialist?

No it's just a mixed economy

So it has aspects of market socialism, a position I don't agree with, but it's the only one that makes sense