Socialism is better than capitalism

An analogy that I often use to explain why countries that call themselves socialist are relevant to the debate over socialist is to imagine a man who says to his friends that, if he jumps the right way, he will fly. So, he runs and jumps off of something. Not surprisingly, he falls and gets hurt very badly. So, his friends all tell him that he was obviously wrong and he could not, in fact, fly. The man then looks at them angrily. He insists that of course he can fly. He just didn't jump the right way or the conditions weren't right. Some of his friends are convinced by his argument. So, they try jumping too, but they all fall and get hurt the same way he did.Finally, somebody asks the original man what makes him think that he or the other people can actually fly when they fall every time. His answer is that he knows he can fly because, when he described what would happen before he jumped, he can fly.Of course, the man in this story sounds insane to anyone who reads it. But, amazingly, this is basically what socialists are saying today. Every socialist country has failed miserably. And, this is perfectly in line with what the capitalists have said all along: socialism doesn't work and, the mythical socialism that we hear about in books, could never exist. But, to the socialist, the very fact that socialism in practice does not match what their literature said socialism was supposed to look like in practice is evidence that it has not been done right.It would be different if we had one large scale example of real socialism working well over the long run. Then, we could actually argue over the merits. But, until that examples comes, it seems that the capitalists were right all along.Now, socialists can go on and on about how every socialist state had dictatorships and whatever else. But, of course, if you had read Hayek and other anti socialists, this is exactly what you would predict: socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship.Now, on to my opponents R1 arguments:InequalityMy opponent claims that socialism reduces inequality. However, he does not even establish that less inequality is necessarily better. If this is not established, this is a useless point. Furthermore, my opponent also does not offer any empirical evidence to support this.Political FreedomMy opponent claims that socialism would increase political freedom. This is astounding. After all, the implementation of socialism has, in every instance, involved brutal political repression. Now, my opponent would claim that this is becaus they aren't "really" socialist. But, as I explained above, this is not really an adequate response.Also, in R2, I provided evidence that capitalism INCREASES political freedom.RightsMy opponent claims that socialism would be better for rights. The question is: what rights?Property? Liberty? It's hard to think that socialism is equated with any of the things we think of as rights. Again, we have to look at the evidence. Although I offered evidence in R2, it does not take a historian to know socialist states have not been stella in terms of rights.EconomyMy opponent claims socialism would be good for the economy. An astounding claim with only theory to support it. It is not surprising that theory, and shoddy theory by the way, is brought up. After all, socialism has been an economic disaster. I showed this in R1.Evidence matters here. But, as far as the theory goes, it is based on demand. But, my opponent must remember that capital accumulation is required to have long term growth in the economy. This means saving. Economies are driven by investment and productivity, not demand.And, as far as the economy goes, what does my opponent have to say about central planning? Incentive problem?These are major problems for socialism.ConclusionSorry, I rushed on this round. I look forward to R4.