Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

"The amount of hard work you put in equates to the amount of money you will get out." This is simply false on many levels. First, there are people that make 100x as much money as I do, however, they do not work 100x as hard. Many do not work hard at all, while some do. The amount of money you make in a capitalistic nation does not depend on how hard you work, but how much others want your skills. If you hav skills that require little actual "work," but has huge demand (and little supply), you'll likely make a lot of money without doing a lot of work. We also see that many people put a lot of work into a new company, yet most new companies fail in a couple of years. The simple fact that effort was done does not guarentee that money will be made. "Under a communist system the two guys sitting next to each other at the factory are getting paid the same." This is true under capitalism as well, so it really isn't an argument for or against either. Everyone in the same company as me, doing the same job as me, gets paid the same as me. All our factory workers get the same hourly rate. This doesn't really mean anything. "The employees working for the privately owned business are motivate to sell the next car or furniture. Why? They will make more." That is only true if their pay is commissioned based. Most companies choose to not pay commission based and optionally choose to pay either hourly or salary. In a capitalist state, companies would likely continue that practice (of paying hourly or salary), and so individuals would not get paid more for that extra individual couch. "The government employee couldn't give a damn whether or not the problem they just want their paycheck." This is a non sequitor. In a capitalist economy, people work for the very purpose of making money. In a communist nation, that will not change, people will still work for the purpose of providing for their family. "This I find to be a little inappropiate as leaders of companys are usually educated in the field they work in and also if they are family heirs they align themselves with other top executives that can guide them along the way." In publically traded companies, the share holders pick the leaders. This does nothing to show that share holders are able to pick more skilled leaders than the workers. "For the most part leaders of companies are people who have spent an immense amount of time in their field and know the business inside and out so they would have no problem leading a company." They likely are, but this doesn't change the claim that the employees would be better at picking the leader. "I also understand my opponent is concerned about the process in which a leader will be appointed so I respond with rest assured because I am sure the investors will choose the best leader possible so he can bring in the most money possible." Apart from the fact that "most money possible" =/= best leader for a company. We saw that Ford, GM, and others, chose the short sighted option of continuing to focus on trucks and SUVs. It brought in a short term profit (which the shareholders enjoyed), but it set the companies up for failure down the road. Long term stability and growth is superior to short term profits. I also find that simply saying "trust me, capitalism is better" is not an argument. "I reply with anyone who wants to live a luxurious and wants to put in hard work and effort to be better will live and vote Capitalism. Anyone who wants to make average money be not at all motivated and live an average uninspiring lifestyle with little or no upside may live and vote communism." This is not an argument, but merely pandering rhetoric. The arguments that company leaders appointed by the workers is more efficient than leaders appointed by shareholders hasn't actually been challanged and so stands. There were no refutations against the "communism would have lower poverty" and none against the "communism would have lower taxes" and so they stand.