Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

I'd like to acknowledge my opponent's conclusion, it seems he has left the best arguments until last! I do, however, have some responses to give: Pro's rebuttal #1: Minority persecution is a policy of communism, and therefore not a policy of socialism. In fact, this is false. The social organisation of socialism inherently disadvantages the minorities. Minorities always have inferior political bargaining power, because everyone has equal capital. Thus minority groups are never listened to, because their voices don't matter anyway. This would happen whether the political structure is communist or democratic. Remember that one of the democratic ideals is minority consideration. Pro's rebuttal #2: Capitalism can exist under many political structures, thus no structure is inherent to capitalism. My opponent does not answer the second part of this case, which is the historical precedent for socialism to have a particular political structure attached to it. I notice now that I repeated myself in the last round, and I'm very sorry about that. The second counter-argument should have been that the distribution of political capital under socialism favors a political structure with all power vested in a single leader, because a socialist government that is not bureaucratic cannot reasonably provide state employment for all citizens, and a bureaucracy without a single leader usually falls apart. That is why all socialist societies before now have not been run by elected governments. My final answer is that just because there is no structure inherent to capitalism, that doesn't mean capitalism is not a pre-requisite for democracy. That argument, still unrebutted, is the economic political-capital case I ran in round one. Pro's rebuttal #3: Socialism gives political bargaining power. Precedent is still on my side here! Besides, why is the disconnect between a socialist and a capitalist worker and their superior, be that a board or a government, any different? My opponent has not made the causal link. Finally, political bargaining power comes not from having a united voice, but from having the resources to back that up. Under a socialist structure, the government controls all resources. Where is the political capital in that! ? Pro's rebuttal #4: Wealth is not distributed arbitrarily because the government distributes a set amount rationally. Yet I am not speaking of the amount paid being arbitrary, I'm talking about the distribution. Socialism takes no account of the individuals - their production or their services - and pretends we are clones. We are not, and thus an "equal" distribution of wealth is in fact unequal. That is why I maintain equity over equality. Pro's rebuttal #5: Equality is necessary for Democracy, not equity. He points you back to round #2. I too recommend you read his round 2 case, and then my round 2 rebuttal of that case. I think my opponent is running out of ideas. Contention #3a: Socialism gives life. Just as socialism does this, it is perfectly possible for a capitalist government to do this, for example by giving minimum wages. It's not inherent to the socialist structure. Perhaps it's social spending, but here my opponent makes a political argument, not an economic or social one. Besides, the higher work efficiency of capitalism means that governments are able to provide superior health care, as seen by the considerably higher life expectancy in say, Japan over Cuba. Contention #3b: Socialism gives liberty. Liberty in context means economic freedom. This means that you have the freedom to produce and get rewards for producing, according to your production. Otherwise you would either not be at liberty to produce or you would not be at liberty to receive, which are the two integral transactions of any economy. Socialism limits both of these. Capitalism does not necessarily limit either. My opponent says that once a citizen reaches a certain level of economic power, they can infringe on anther's rights. Apart from his lack of a clear mechanism, when you are thus infringed the answer is easy under capitalism - produce some more and your rights are there again. Under socialism there is no such counter-mechanism. Contention #3c: Socialism gives the pursuit of happiness. My opponent says that more money does not give more happiness. I agree. Equal money does not give more happiness either. You can pursue happiness in either socioeconomic structure. Happiness is so subjective that you can find it at all times in all corners of the globe. Thus I think this argument is, at best, moot. Just like bombs beat cats in real life, democracy tends to favor capitalism over socialism. I have presented many reasons why, my opponent has not proven why not. I have answered every one of his contentions, and as you can see from my analysis above, none of my opponent's critiques of my argument remain valid. Ladies and gentlemen, democracy is in danger. We need you to save it from the socialist menace. Let democracy choose democracy. Giving a strong capitalist vote will ensure that democracy is safe for generations to come.