Capitalism is bad

For a Brief Road map i will be going down the flow- First off- My opponent totally ceded the fact that capitalism is the root cause of war, actually all she said was "well.... your wrong... and war has been around since capitalism... next off" THAT'S IT! THAT'S ALL SHE SAID! SHE MASSIVELY UNDER COVERED THIS CONTENTION. You vote pro alone on the fact that she assumed my WARRENTS were assumptions when they were not at all assumptions the Person who said this was a man named John Bellamy Foster an editor of the prestigious US-based socialist journal Monthly Review prefer my evidence over her analytics. And even if you don't buy that she also says that war has been here longer than capitalism so capitalism couldn't have started war right? WRONG Ok im calling my opponent out on this i want her to name a time in mans history where we havent had a free exchange of wealth in our society because that's essentialy what capitalism is. oh wait SHE CAN'T WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE FREE FLOW OF IDEAS AND THE FREE FLOW OF MONEY AND THE FREE FLOW OF "CAPITAL" IN OUR SOCIETY THUS PROVING THAT CAPITALISM WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE WAR EITHER WAY YOU TOTALLY DROPPED THE FACT THAT WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER GREED AND CAPITALISM IS ALSO THE ROOT CAUSE GREED. So soley on this fact alone you vote pro because she functionally dropped my first contention. and onto Respect: THAT ANALYTIC WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF MY TIME I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR RESPECT I CARE ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENTS. And next onto more war crap- Your right capitalism does not cause war by itself but the people that produce the capital do again extend the phenomenal piece of Foster evidence that says we are meirley producers of capital and that capitalism by it's very logic is a global expansive system and that capitalism will no matter what fight just to get a buck also just use your basic logic capitalist countries will also do whatever it takes to win a war hiroshima and nagasaki imperialisticly prove that the capitalist u.s. was going to do what ever it needed to do to win a war even if it required harming generation upon generation of japanese CIVILIAN?! and that's another thing i can't hardly think of another country that all they do is set up puppet governments just to make a buck "GET OIL" And onto the god card you tried to pull that's like obama pulling the race card saying vote for me im black your essentially saying vote con because were christian. ACTUALLY YOU SHOULD VOTE PRO JUST FOR HER DOING THAT! And onto your next point - First off yes there is a reason to demonize making money but uhmm yes there is a reason to demonize making money under your framework of what "PURE" Using that logic i could go sell some four year old kid some cocaine.. because ya know im just wanting to make some money without government interference HAHA NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS NECESARY TO "KEEP THE PEACE" Because capitalism without some socialism mixed in would be a bit melting pot of sweat shops drug dealers and a bunch of people working for pennys an hour all for the purpose of just making a buck. And onto your last attack on my points - you attacked the fact that Non- Capitalist econemies are more productive and create more wealth than capitalism Your only attack on this was some article from 2004 saying that well Europe doesn't make more money than capitalist united states and this is a key factor in why your losing the round. Fine i'll concede that in 2004 Europe was poor'er than the U.S. HA BUT MY EVIDENCE IS FROM 2008 YOU TOTALLY CONCEDED THE FACT THAT BETWEEN 2004 AND 2008 THE EURO BECAME STRONGER THAN THE U.S. DOLLAR SO IN ESSENCE YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY OUTDATED MAKING IT NON UNIQUE TO THIS ROUND MEANING THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT FLOWS PRO. Then You kind of beat around the bush on my contention that says capitalism is the root cause of environmental degragation but you cede the fact that china and india are a big contributor to global climate change. But you make a critical error by stating that they are becoming more capitalist. So in essence you concede that china and india haven't been big polluters in the past but until recently they became more capitalist they became bigger and bigger contributors you cede the link that capitalism is a big cause of environmental degregation and that environmental degregation leads to environmental collapse which leads to extinction turning your entire con case either way you didn't even provide an impact in the round so eveybody must default pro because i provide the impact of extinction of man if you don't vote pro. Then you just kind of for no apparent reason name off some different types of governments for no apparent reasons i guess so you can just look smart. So seeing that all you did was attack my arguments and never actually extended upon your own arguments i see no other option then to default pro in this round.