Cooperative/socialist businesses(pro) versus Traditional/capitalist Businesses(con)

First, I would like con to explain what exactly they mean by "impact calculation". Does this mean to determine what sort of impact traditional businesses and cooperatives have on society? Since they said to state impacts in round 3, I assume I can just go on ahead with my arguments and wait for them to answer. Since this is not technically part of the debate, con may answer this question in the comments if they don't want to use some of their characters for this. I just put it here since I didn't need to use all of my characters for this argument, I barely used more than half, and I believe my argument is sufficient the way it is. How do Cooperatives and traditional businesses compare?Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [4] Additionally, In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burd"n and Andr"s Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment. [5, pg. 520] In addition to this, average wage remained higher in worker cooperatives than in capitalist businesses. [5, pg. 523]Can cooperatives be successful?I will point out that it is possible for worker cooperatives to be extremely successful and that they can turn over profit at a rate as good, or even often better than traditional businesses. Mondragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country." [6] Therefore, it is not the case that traditional businesses have a monopoly on profit turnover. In addition, cooperatives, on average, are larger than traditional businesses, where 69.3% of traditional businesses in France have 6 or fewer employees, compared to 52% of cooperatives in France, and in Uruguay, the percentages of them respectively are 64.1% and 8.6%[7, pgs 7-8] In addition it's been found that "in Italy the median capital per employee is higher in worker co-operatives" [7, pg. 17]Potential argument against cooperatives:"If cooperatives were so much better than traditional businesses, then we should see cooperatives out-competing traditional businesses, but traditional businesses are still the majority"While cooperatives are so few and far between, the primary reason is because the system is constructed in such a way that favors capitalist companies. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[8](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[8], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is[9], 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. Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businessesTraditional businesses are immoral because they have an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. The bussines owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business. The fact that cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives above. Essentially, a cooperative gives a level of consent not seen in traditional businesses. A person has to work in order to survive, so the fact that business owners know this mean they can have outrageuous demands on the workers, since they may not have any other option. It often takes many applications to jobs to finally get one, so a person is desperate enough to make a living that they will be forced to put up with a tyrannical business owner. However, if all of the businesses were cooperatives, the worker would have a say in business rules, decisions, etc. Similar to how governments that don't give a consent to the governed are immoral, so are traditional businesses for the same reason. Sources:[4] http://www.uk.coop...;[5] http://www.sciencedirect.com...;(Note: I used to use a different link for this peer-reviewed article which provided the article for free, but that link no longer works[maybe they got in trouble for offering other people's work for free]. Unfortunately, this one you have to pay for to have access to, maybe you can find this article free elsewhere if you want to look for it) This is the original link, but I'm pretty sure it won't work: http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...;[6] dragon_Corporation">https://en.wikipedia.org... dragon_Corporation (if part of this link is not hyper-linked, simply look for "Mon dragon Corporation" on wikipedia)[7] http://www.uk.coop...;[8] ;[9] http://www.geo.coop...;