Capitalism

RebuttalThe fact is, you defined the debate about Capitalism in general, not America. Your motion was "Capitalism" and that you were against it, and you said in your opening round, you were arguing that Capitalism is not the way forward, yet you seem to be stuck in a bubble that America is failing, therefore Capitalism is bad. Your BOP was to prove that Capitalism is not the way forward, and to say, "because it is failing in America" is a fallacy. I could just as well pick country like Japan and instantly counter your argument. You have not debated a single fundamental point about Capitalism, but rather America. I urge you to be more international thinking because this has failed you.Firstly, you made an interesting case about GDP. By not actually making a case and posting a link. I read the article. I'm not ignorant of economics, this article is just very Keynesian in its economics. I'm fine with that. I mean, you did simply skirted over the myriad graphs I have about the correlation in general all over the world between GDP and a plethora of other things, instead sending me to an article about how Americans are annoyed. GDP, on the large scale, is a good measurement. It is, in a rudimentary form, the sum of what is produced without including capital. If more is produced, one can infer not only that the country has more goods and services produced therefore mre money to do so, and more people in jobs to produce those as well as more people buying so that there is the demand for those to produce them. It is simple logic, which you have dismissed so to rather post a link on an article you saw. I had graphs above for all the evidence one needs for how GDP is not useless.I concede that America has a straining economy on a short term basis. But as I said before, firstly, America =/= the world. You are failing your BOP with only one example. America's case is quite special. The 2008 recession did not happen because of Capitalism. It happened because of the housing bubble burst, which is one feature out of a plethora that makes Capitalism. Secondly, other countries are doing better. We cannot pick examples that shallow. What you are saying, syllogistically is:P1: America is failing.P2: America is capitalist.C1: Therefore capitalism failing.This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. It is incorrect and you have failed to make an actual fundamental case about why Capitalism is failing and needs to changed, instead just pointed to articles about America. I;m not going to read any more of your articles, because you have not argued anything, which is what is judged. Economic gaps and inequality is due to greed, which is a part of human nature to want more. As I have shown, Socalist countries seem to suffer from more inequality, as I have shown, and you have just glanced over it! Inequality happens everwhere, so making this claim is once again using the fallacy of the undistributed middle term!In America, the rich are better off than the poor! Yes! Fine! But America is not Capitalism for goodness sake! You could find tons of examples, and I don't mind examples. But exampes in a debate are to show examples of a claim you make! You aren't arguing anything! Just using examples and u.expecting them to extrinisically show how Capitalism fails! In Norway, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Qatar, Liechenstein, Japan, we see a success in capitalist endeavours, but you have glanced over this point!You argument about how having education is syllogistically this:P1: Education is good.P2: Education is part of SocialismC1: Therefore Socialism is good.Fallacy of the composition, this claim is void. True for some of the parts does not mean true for all.In the end, I urge the floor to see that even as the holder of the BOP, I have negated every point and still have a plethora standing. I urge voters to vote for me. There is not much more one can say. Sources:As before