Socialism is better then Capitalism

Before we begin this debate I feel we must define the term of the resolution. My opponent has neglected to so I will do so here. Capitalism will simply be defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion. Socialism will be defined as an economic system which consists of public or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion. My opponent also somewhat described a primary goal of socialism being to "redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without." We will add this to the definition of socialism, seeing as it would not make sense for my opponent to say it had we not. I will also ask my opponent what form of socialism he is defending. I will, depending on his answer, offer a full critique of it in the next round. Different forms of socialism would be state socialism, pure communism,and left libertarianism. For now I will simply focus on my opponent's specific points. As for the definition of better, this seems tricky. Because the term 'better' can have so many different meanings, I will list a few so as to give my opponent and readers of this debate the best understanding of the term. Better: of superior quality or excellence[1] Greater in excellence or higher in quality[2] something superior in quality or condition or effect[3] I, for the sake of this debate, will ask that my opponent not bring any semantical arguments to this debate. For this debate, arguments which attempt to negate or affirm the resolution on the basis of definitions alone should not be used. It is only because of the vague nature of the term 'better' that I ask this. I will ask that my opponent acts in good faith. Now as for my opponent's arguments I will try to list them below and refute them if necessary. The BOP will necessarily be on my opponent as Pro and instigator of this debate. (A)""The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none."" Either-or fallacy. Why must all wealth belong to everyone or no one? (B)Rich have no reason to work. Here my opponent argues that because the rich are rich "they have no incentive to use their land productively." Ignoring the fact that my opponent here fallaciously assumes that all rich people were born rich and does not in any way account for people who personally made their own fortunes, this point of my opponent's completely contradicts another point which he brings up later in his case. I quote my opponent: //"Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man"// In this quote my opponent argues that people can be just as much motivated to work to help others than for profit. So I ask my opponent if people can work without a profit incentive, then why should it matter that rich people have not as much to gain y using their land productively? Also, seeing as for this scenario, the rich are assumed to be using the system of capitalism as opposed to socialism. If we are to assume that they are in a capitalistic setting then they will always have the profit incentive. There is no point that one becomes so rich that it is not possible to be richer. In fact the "rich" would have more incentive to use their wealth to acquire more seeing as it would be easier for them to do so considering their access to more resources. I would also like to use my opponent's own point as a critique of his own system of socialism. It is actually when a system of socialism is in place, that there is no profit incentive. My opponent admits this saying that people would "share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind". But I will ask the readers, what force is strongest in the world currently? Charity or selfishness. Of course when I use the word 'selfishness' I do not mean it in the general negative connotation of one who only cares about one's self and will trample over anyone to get what he wants. I simply mean it in an egoistic sense of caring for one's survival. The difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialism is completely run on moral principles of egalitarianism and equality. However this is the very reason that it does not work. Because these qualities are not dominant in the human species. Humans are biologically programmed to care for themselves and their progeny. Capitalism utilizes this fact to provide services that others want and need. Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's. This is all I will write at the moment. I do not think I can write more without knowing what specific form of socialism my opponent is advocating. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn