Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism

My opponent clearly fails to understand the scope and aim of my arguments. The resolution was "Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than capitalism". My opponent assumes that showing positive proof for Socialism is the only argument. However my opponent fails to recognize that the two following statements are equivocal in meaning: Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism. Capitalism is worse at achieving economic security in comparison to Socialism. Therefore, as the pro in this debate, I have the option of showing how Capitalism does a worse job of that achieving that security than does socialism. This is an option I have chosen to pursue as my opponent also centered her arguments in that way in R1. Implicitly my opponent has given us the definition of "economic security" (as it is an extremely broad term) through her contentions in Round 1. By negating more than half of her contentions, I have thus negated the phrase "Capitalism is worse at achieving economic security in comparison to Socialism. " and therefore proven the affirmation. Only in a case of X is better than B can you use negation as proof by negating that B is better than X. My opponent fails to understand that in a X is better than Y debate the burden of proof falls equally on both sides. By defending capitalism and negating her points I have shown Socialism to be the superior of the two choices. Thus it is the final round and my opponent has done an excellent job of allowing me no counter arguments. 1. I have been denied an entire round due to a forfeit. 2. My opponent has axed any counter argument I would have to her rebuttal of my refutations of her contentions which were subsequent proofs for my affirmation in the final round by stating: "Also no more new arguments/ evidence please. " Since there is equal burden of proof and my opponent has made an attempt at rebutting my rebuttals to her contention, then I too have that power. The main debate consists of proving six contentions for either side, these are freedom, private property is essential, condescending, inefficiency, immoral, worldwide success. 1. My opponent uses misquotes my rebuttal in a weak attempt to affirm her position that capitalism provides more freedom. My entire argument that money equates freedom when it comes to basic economics. Under capitalism, the upper class control the majority of the wealth, while under socialism the wealth is shared evenly. Thus more individuals as a whole experience freedom. As the majority of the populous as the average working man has more wealth/freedom under socialism than under capitalism. In capitalism you are restricted from gaining freedom my natural intelligence (IQ), your parent's financial situation (funding for better education), and who you know (determines which job and pay you receive). Wheras under socialism you aren't restricted based upon the situation you are born into. In economics money equates freedom. Comparing socialism and capitalism, socialism provides more freedom to the average person than does capitalism based on the sole point that wealth is shared rather than unevenly distributed. My opponent fails to even attempt to defend this attack capitalism and instead labels it as "libelous and absurd" however she fails to give any reason of why it is such? It is implicit in the definition as well as by simple logic the points I have made. 2. My opponent fails to explain, why her contention that private property is essential to the human race. She then relies on the burden of proof to give her the argument by default. I do not have to provide any sort of solvency as it is well-known that private property is by no means essential as there have been numerous past examples of societies that have no private property, however they do not dissolve due to this matter. Such would be making an argument that "it is essential to the human race that everyone have their own house" which is an audacious claim which clearly holds no water. 3. My opponent automatically assumes that those who are born with more intelligence should automatically receive more than those who aren't. My opponent also assumes those who become doctors have to pay for their own college and are given no money during college. This is false. Those who go to college receive free college and are given the same amount of pay as those who are working. It is not condescending to give the same amount of money to those who are born with less ability. How on earth can you be blamed for your natural intelligence? In capitalism however you are faulted for the situation you are born in. It is capitalism that is condescending and not socialism. Furthermore by not rebutting my claim that she was wrong about socialism controlling the distribution of goods then it is safe to say that she has accepted the fact that she was wrong on this issue, and instead made an entirely new argument. 4. "I provide plenty of Empirical evidence" You provided two sentences on the subject your entire debate which essentially say that it makes "economic calculation impossible" This has no explanation nor any logical meaning whatsoever. Worded differently my opponent's entire argument is Socialism is inefficient because it isn't Capitalism. The argument makes absolutely no cents (a pun) at all. Socialism is more efficient then Capitalism because it allows distributes wages evenly, so no one has more power or control than their neighbor. 5. "He hasn't done so, and no new evidence is allowed so we must dismiss the refutation. " I have not done so because they come to mind without saying. The Red Cross, The Boy Scouts, The Girl Scouts, The Salvation Army, etc. 6. "he has abused me by trying to portray me as a hypocrite" Really? I abused you? "please not only dismiss his argument but his credibility" your entire definition of morality was: "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. " This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude. " If I use your definition against you, then it is not my fault at all but yours for a poorly worded definition/description of morality in application to economics. I stand by my position that Capitalism is more immoral (by my opponents definition) than Socialism because it allows people to make profit off one another. 7. "I have no obligation to support analytical evidence to support my side when i presented adequate empirical evidence" You do have obligation as this is a better/worse than debate and the burden of proof falls equally on both sides. Your argument holds no logic, and I'm positive you are mistaking the words "Empirical Evidence" for the words "Baseless Conjectures". My opponent has provided no real arguments to further her side while I have used logic and simple reasoning to promote Socialism. Throughout the Final round my opponent has claimed to have plenty of "empirical evidence" however I have read her words over and over again and can find nothing but baseless conjectures that use no logic or reason. I have proven plenty of my opponent's conjectures to be false. In this debate the burden of proof is even.