Democratic Capitalism (pro) vs Libertarian-Socialism (con)

Capitalism is economic freedom. A man can be born poor and die rich in a capitalist system, but not in a socialist one. The guiding principle for socialism seems to be resent for the rich and admiration (or at least advocation) for the poor and underprivileged, but instead of providing the latter with a means to reach the income level of the former, socialism brings both parties to a sort of dreary middle ground. It is impossible to stress how important having the liberty of class migration is to society.So, what is the benefit to (at least having the ability to) owning great wealth? Every aspect of life improves. Being free from economic constraints means living a much more fulfilling, stress-free lifestyle. Parents can afford to take time off work to be with their children, and send them to decent schools. People can treat themselves and generallly experience a higher quality of life and social status. Rebuttal "I would say it's because we live in a capitalist society. Let's go back to when feudalism was the majority system and capitalism was in the minority for centuries. Just because something is the majority system, doesn't mean it is the better system. Feudalism was once the majority, so we could technically apply this argument to when capitalist businesses were just barely being introduced. Let's suppose capitalist businesses were once only .3% of the businesses out there and feudal lords owned everything else. I'm sure my opponent would agree that in spite of feudalism being the majority, capitalism would be better. Now, to further explain why cooperative are very much in the minority, there are many things in our society that promote capitalist businesses. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[10](despite the fact that the ones that do exist are generally more successful than their capitalist counterparts as established above), the government only ever bails out traditional businesses and never cooperatives, cooperatives are not generally set-up to out-compete other companies either[10], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is[11], I personally didn't even know what a cooperative was until I was 20, but I could give you a basic idea of what a capitalist business was before I was 10. I think I can safely assume that a vast majority of people have heard of and can define what a traditional/capitalist business is like, so most people shop at those and people looking to create a business probably never thought about making it a cooperative instead of a traditional business since most don't even know what one is. Also, I would argue that the business owners who do know about co-ops, they don't want to create one because they would rather be selfish and keep the business under sole-ownership for themselves. This is probably one reason why feudalism was in the majority once in society: most of the feudal lords were selfish and wanted to own the means of production by themselves." Saying co-ops aren't prevelant because we live in capitalist society just isn't true. There are zero constraints co-operatives face from capitalism. Also, capitalism did exist during the later feudalist period from what I understand, and the two go hand in hand (I think). Perhaps the fact that 90% of Americans can't define a co-operative is something to do with a greater lack of outside knowledge. Co-ops are very un-American, as is, say, Afganistan. 90% can't point to Afganistan on a map of Asia. Or maybe people don't know what co-ops are because they aren't particularly relevant, or useful. I'm not going to pretend that I knew how a co-op worked before i started this debate. Blaming society for not knowing what a co-op is isn't fair, so perhaps it would be better to question why public perception is so bad. My opponent's suggestion that sole ownership of a business is selfish really grinds my gears. Is building up a business from scratch, navigating all the complex issues that come with running a business, and risking your own capital in the vague hope of returning a profit selfish? Would it be better to hand out your money to a bunch of workers who haven't gone through university, haven't risked anything and put in varying degrees of effort into the business? No, of course not. And the suggestion that there is a conspiracy to hide the potential benifits of co-ops is ludicrous. I'm sorry I can't put more into this round but I'll have to leave it there. There are a few more errors and fallacies in my opponents arguments which will have to wait for next round.