Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism

Let's kick this round off!First of all, I want to point out that your statistics have two issues. A) They have no URL citations, or even name and date citations to back them up. I cannot attack your sources because of this failure. So due to no citations, these statistics are completely invalid. B) These statistics are neutral as of right now in the round. The reason for this is your failure to impact even one of these statistics back to the resolution in a meaningful way. If you wanted to show us how Denmark being the happiest country in the world helps your points, then tell us that. Don't just leave the statistic, and have us try to figure out why it matters. For that, you should lose points (voters take note please).Now I am going to respond to your statistics anyway.R1: Country figures.You gave us many different figures on how certain "democratic socialist" countries are happy, have the highest living standards, and highest life expectancy. While all these traits may mean a country has succeeded, there are several problems. You need to prove these countries are democratic socialist in nature. Remember that my definition states the socialism and share of resources must be a government and community combined effort. Please bring up proof how the countries you named are democratically socialist. Your say so is not good enough. And the burden of proof rests on you as Pro. Until you fulfill this burden, all these countries have to be considered possibly not even representing your side of the resolution.First of all, happiness of countries is an arbitrary statistic. Furthermore you gave no source when you cited this statistic. As far as I am concerned for this debate, Denmark is not the happiest country in the world. What about life expectancy? First of all, you apparently do not do research. Canada is by no means a democratic socialist country. It is a parliamentary free market society with workplace restrictions, almost exactly like the US but possibly a bit harsher. So Canada does not qualify. Norway may have a high life expectancy, but the life expectancy of people in the US is large as well. So I see this as a moot point. Same goes for Sweden. If people in those countries live just as long as in the capitalistic US, then capitalism and democratic socialism have no real advantage in terms of life expectancy.Now living standard is trickier. You say that Norway is the best according to this study. But let me clarify a couple things for the voters. The study is a UN study, so the credibility could be doubtful because the UN has parts that are reliable, and parts that are not as reliable. Also the HDI of Norway is .944. But the HDI of the United States is .915 and while the difference may seem large, it actually is not. The HDI takes into account numerous factors (something you failed to mention) including: Health, Education, Income, Inequality, Gender, Poverty, Employment, Human Security, Trade, Mobility and Communication, Environmental sustainability, and Demography. While Norway may be better than the US at some of these, the US is definitely better than Norway on some of these. In a large respect, the most telling thing is that Norway's Inequality adjusted HDI is .893 while the US's is .760. This means that the US is more economically equal than Norway. The main point that is proved is that your study you base this off of, which is linked here; http://hdr.undp.org... Is literally considering numerous other factors than straight economics. Some of these factors have only marginal bearing on whether an economic system is beneficial or not. For instance Norway may distribute wealth more evenly, but the US has less of a pay gap than Norway. This study voters, must be taken with a grain of salt.R2: Turing example.You seem bent on using a recent example to justify why one economic system is better than the other. Sorry to inform you, but one example does not justify one entire economic system over another. This type of usage of examples is the same as if I was to claim that I saw a democratic socialist who tortured kids in a basement, and afterwards sold their bodies on the black market. So obviously, democratic socialism is wrong right? Absolutely not, not based on that one example that is. This is exactly why this point is ludicrous. Also let's keep in mind this is only one person, and one company. They may have made that very important drug, but cancer patients get ripped off by charities all the time, and this does not seem to bother you. Instead one time when a company messed up, suddenly equality in medical drugs becomes important. I get it.Now I have some of my own arguments to make. 1. You get to keep all money you earn in a Capitalistic society.When people put blood, sweat, and tears into their jobs, they expect to keep the majority of what they earn. In a truly capitalistic society (1800s America) there are little taxes so people keep almost all they earn. This means that whatever you make, it is yours under capitalism. This is the enticement for entrerpreneurs to start the businesses they start, and the enticement for people to seek jobs willingly. Under socialism, the government takes most of what you earn, if not all of it, in order to make themselves richer, and distribute the money "fairly." Obviously for anyone who has self-interest at stake when earning money, Capitalism is the more appealing option.2. World Socialist Movement admits that Capitalism is all over the world.Because you brought no proof that democratic socialist countries exist, I will bring proof that you are outnumbered, from the very people who think like you do. WSM says that "Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)" http://www.worldsocialism.org... The rest of the paragraph is kept for context, but focus on the first sentence. In it an admission is made that capitalism is a) more popular, b) more heavily tested, and c) has been the reason the global economy exists. So I fail to see how Capitalism is bad. How is socialism going to fill these large shoes? You still have not answered that question.3. Capitalism works best when uninhibited, and is the only way an economy can grow dynamically.According to Columbia University "it has come to be argued that the corporatist economies of east Asia, which had achieved wonders when there was a yawning gap with the West, ran into trouble in the 1990s because state intervention in the corporate sector through permissions, subsidies and guarantees led ultimately to mass overinvestment and insolvency.2 On this thesis, private ownership is not sufficient for dynamism either: capitalism, in which capital is free to go in new directions without a green light from the state, becomes necessary at some point in economic development if dynamism is to continue." http://capitalism.columbia.edu... This is arguing that east Asia economies when capitalistic and relatively free, experienced a significant boom. But when government stepped in, the boom fell apart. Also it is arguing that when capitalism works, it is the only way for economic development and growth to continue. This is because the thoughts and ideas that are new and encouraged, can advance society. The reason that all these assertions should be accepted as true, is because Columbia University is a very credible source on academic matters.So capitalism has economically advanced society, and technologically advanced society, and benefitted individuals within society. This system is a beneficial one. As of yet, you have still given no reason or benefit to uphold your side of the resolution over mine. Doing so in the next round would be nice.With these arguments, I await my opponents response!