Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies.

Nature of this Debate Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate "Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies." "For a point of reference, the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic that has long embraced both capitalism (free markets) and socialism (public schools and universities, and public works – parks, roads and highways, sewer and water, dams, harbors, as well as social welfare, such as worker’s comp, unemployment insurance, social security etc.)."[1] My Opponent's Argument Pro's argument consisted of two parts-- 1. State run programs require selfless administrators to succeed2. Any socialist policies ultimately lead to communism and ruin In round two I provided comprehensive arguments refuting this points. I pointed out the ways America and many other nations limit the power of the state. I also showed serious flaws in his "slippery slope" argument and re-asserted the burden was upon him to prove it. My opponent has not defended his position, and thus we should consider his arguments dashed. with this alone, my opponent has not met the burden of proof, and I should win. In round three Con touted Public Education and Universal Health Care as failures. First, I am not arguing "Socialism always prevails". Rather, he is arguing "Socialism ultimately fails". Thus, my three counter-examples below are sufficient. Second, I assert that merely stating an unsourced cost projection of $300 per citizen per year doesn't prove Universal Health Care will ultimately fail. My Argument For my part, I gave three counterexamples of long-standing programs that my opponent agrees meet the definition of Socialism that have not failed--public libraries, highways, and national parks. These counterexamples demonstrate the opposite of what my opponent claims. 88% of Americans say it's extremely or quite important for the federal government to protect and support national parks such as Yellowstone. Only 4% believe we spend too little on them[1]. 84% of Americans are opposed to the privatization of public roads and highways [2]. 81% of Americans are satisfied with their local public library [3]. Defending My Argument > The percentages fall under the Appeal to the People fallacy, just because those people think these programs are doing alright, doesn't mean they are. It would only be a fallacy if I claimed that proved those programs were successful. Rather, I claim high customer satisfaction ratings are strong evidence those programs are not failures and again remind that you have the burden of proof in this debate. I. The Library System > ? Public libraries are down to only 50% usage between 1991 to 2004, with most books and other media being obtained through privately owned businesses. Your statistics are unsourced and false. First, as evidence public libraries are not failing-- + 81% of Americans are satisfied with their local public library [3].+ 73% of libraries in major cities have seen an increase in circulation in recent years.[5]+ 62% of libraries are the only free source of Internet access in their community[5]+ 76% of libraries are staying modern by offering access to eBooks[5] Second, your unsourced statistics apparently relate to the "Association of College and Research Libraries" and not the general public library system. The articles that I found that note the decrease in the one also note the increase in the other. It's up to you to demonstrate that this policy, which you agreed is Socialist, will "ultimately fail" and I point out you have not done so. The library system was, long ago, run by private institutions. Those failed precisely when they were needed the most-- "In prosperous times, the libraries expanded their collections, increased staff, and extended hours. In hard economic times, contributions dried up, and social libraries often were dissolved. "[6]We can thank Andrew Carnegie and Franklin Roosevelt for our modern public library system. II. The Highway System > "The National Highway System instituted by the United States cost over 5.4 billion dollars just when the act was initially signed, not to mention all the money spent in upkeep." Stating the cost of the system does not demonstrate that it will ultimately fail. You have not made your case, and against I point out most people prefer highways run by the state-- 84% of Americans are opposed to the privatization of public roads and highways [2]. III. The National Park System > "And in the case of National Parks, that is an additional 2.9 billion a year in government spending for some aesthetically pleasing scenery to be kept alive." I again point out popular support for this program-- "88% of Americans say it's extremely or quite important for the federal government to protect and support national parks such as Yellowstone. Only 4% believe we spend too little on them." Your unsubstantiated cost estimates, even if true, do not prove it's a failure. Conclusion Pro has the burden of proof in this argument. In round two, I provided three solid counter-examples that Socialism isn't failing. In round three, I dismantled Pro's arguments. In round four, I successfully defended my counter-examples. Note, Pro also forfeited. Please vote Con. :)Sources [1] http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...... [2] http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org...... [3] http://www.ala.org...... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com......[5] http://www.ala.org...[6] http://www.straightdope.com...;