Capitalism is better than Socialism

Thank you for challenging me and I would like to say sorry for not writing this sooner :P First off I will state some definitions that should be aboded by. Socialism: "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"[1] "Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy. And when we say "collectively own," we are not talking about homes, or cars, or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want."[7] Industry: "Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories"[2] Capitalism: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"[3] My interpretations: Socialism is where the government owns big businesses ie. raw materials ect, whereas the people own small businesses and even though the government owns big business, the people work for the good of all. Capitalism is where the government owns nothing and doesn't medal in the affairs of the industries and businesses of the country. Do you accept these definitions? My case: . Is socialism inherently bad? Not in the least. Considering we (a country with enormous influence over other countries) are in an economic recession, we would assume other countries' economies are going down the pooper as well. In some regards that is true but there are quite a few that are minimally affected by this economic downturn. Those are either countries that produce massive amounts of goods [China and India] or are socialist/social democracies. Australia, a country that uses a social partnership economy, is the country that is surviving the economic recession the best. Odd isn't it, a country that is based around socialism is surviving the economic crisis the best.[4] We will now look at the satisfaction with the health care system in America (capitalist) and Canada (a social democracy). In Canada, 57% of people are very satisfied with the affordability and availability of the health care system compared to the 26% of Americans who are either "somewhat satisfied or satisfied". Inversely, 76% of Americans are dissatisfied with the health care system in America says Rick Blizzard D.B.A. (Figures may vary)[5] So as we can see, socialism isn't a bad system at all considering a) The country least affected by the economic recession is Australia (a social partnership) and b) People in countries that use some form of social health care are noticeably more satisfied with their system than those without it. Moving on; The main problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work for the people as a whole, rather the elite few as the definition implies. In small doses this is not full on bad but when we have the elite owning everything (which is what happens in a capitalist state) it eventually becomes indistinguishable from a futile totalitarian system.[6] Nextly, in a capitalist system, one where people own industries ie. Oil, coal ect, there is much less regulation and the probability of a disaster is higher. This is due to the fact that since the business owners will only strive to make tons of money they will either a) shove the worker down or b) not abide by any sort of regulations (although there wouldn't be any) and that opens the door to more economic disasters. Socialism also promotes harder work and the betterment of life due to the fact that if the industries are owned by the collective rather than the few, the people will work harder because they know that the fruits of their labor directly goes to them and not some business owner miles away.[6] With socialist systems, most if not all of the profits from the sale of businesses goes to the workers themselves. "Under capitalism workers receive only a small fraction of the wealth that they alone produce, while the lion's share goes to the capitalist owners and to the bankers, landlords, insurance companies, lawyers, politicians, and all the other parasites who live off the back of labor and perform no useful work. By ending this robbery of the working class, socialism will enable workers to enjoy the full fruit of their labor."[7] I could go on but I feel that this is sufficient for now but I reserve the right to add another argument or two in round 2, NOT 3. In round three evidence may be added but no new arguments (the style of policy debate). In conclusion, socialism promotes harder work, it benefits the people better in health institutions and socialist countries are proven the best to survive the recession. I await my opponent's rebuttle. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com... [4] http://www.labnol.org... [5] http://petersaysstuff.blogspot.com... [6] http://politicsreport.com... [7] http://slp.org...