A system of true Capitalism is the most beneficial system for the world

Thanks to Con for the debate, and also my apologies. This is easily the worst debate I've done recently because of how rushed I was while writing each round (including this one). Maybe we can redo the debate eventually. == My Argument == To summarize -- I argued that capitalism is based on a set of principles which in theory function to drive the economy and allocate resources in a maximally efficient manner (which is necessarily the 'most beneficial' for the world). This was backed up with: (i) the fact that economists universally accept the accuracy of these principles as fundamental assumptions necessary to continue with any study of economics (ii) the evidence that the closer a country is to the ideal of 'true capitalism' (i. e. the more economic freedom a country has), the more prosperous it is. Now to address a couple of the objections Con brought up. a. Just because I didn't quote parts of the textbook doesn't mean voters should dismiss it offhand. My point was that the principles which form the theoretical basis of "true capitalism" are so fundamental to the study of economics that they are explained in literally every introductory economics textbook. In other words, economists universally accept that the principles governing "true capitalism" work as they should. b. Con misunderstands my Heritage study regarding economic freedom, perceiving it to mean "freedom" in the traditional sense of the word. However, in the context of my source, "economic freedom" specifically means having a lack of government intervention and allowing private institutions to control the economy; thus, true capitalism is essentially the epitome of economic freedom, and my source demonstrates that being closer to that ideal results in greater prosperity. c. Communism isn't even close to theoretically perfect; economists have identified multitudes of problems with it on the conceptual level, such as the lack of incentive to work and Marx's theory about labor defining a good's value (rather than supply/demand) being fundamentally wrong. Moreover, whereas I have been able to provide evidence that "true capitalism" is empirically beneficial, no such evidence exists for communism-- most communistic societies have crashed and burnt. d. None of Con's claims about the alleged irrelevance of Adam Smith's ideas are sourced, and should be appropriately dismissed. The human tendency to pursue self-interest in their transactions has not changed since the 19th century, and therefore the principles of economics which Smith popularized still hold true today. Furthermore, Con does not show that the non-inclusion of Marx's ideas is a bad thing. .. as he himself noted, most of Marx's economic ideas were flat out wrong. e. It is worth noting that the current world order is NOT the result of "true capitalism". It is the result of imperialistic actions in the past which were violations of others' property rights and therefore inherently ANTI-capitalistic. f. Con's claim that a good economy isn't necessarily good for society is absurd. A good economy is *by definition* beneficial because it means that resources are being distributed in a way which increases utility to society. ** Re: Environment / Unsustainability ** I argued that because environmental harm results in the violation of people's property rights, even the minimalist government of "true capitalism" is allowed to place regulations on corporations to prevent them from destroying the environment. Con just responds by emphasizing "minimal", but like I said, the definition of "minimal government" in the context of libertarian 'laissez-faire' capitalism is that it only intervenes to preserve people's rights. Since environmental protection is a form of rights preservation, a minimalist government *is* allowed to put such regulations into place. - == Conclusion == Now onto the reason why you should vote Con in this debate Last round, I brought up the criticism that without presenting an alternative system and showing how it's better than capitalism, it is impossible for Con to negate the resolution (because as long as capitalism is the only potential system in existence, it is technically the 'best' one). The only way Con really responds to this is by pointing to a statement he made in Round 2: "What's the alternative? Government intervention. Governement control and regulation. The government needs to force corporations to use methods that are not the most profitable, but instead the most sustainable and the least invasive to the planet. " Not only is this alternative incredibly vague, but he never actually shows how it would solve for any of capitalism's problems; the only thing he says is that government intervention could solve the problem of environment unsustainability, but as I have already explained, even the minimalist government of "true capitalism" could engage in such intervention, so that's a non-unique advantage. So as far as this debate is concerned, we have seen three "systems" mentioned. The resolution asks which one is the "best for the world". -- Communism, which Con concedes is a terrible system. -- "True Capitalism", which I have demonstrated with theoretical and empirical support to be the best system (because it allocates resources in a maximally efficient manner i. e. generates the most utility to society). Con lists off a bunch of problems with it, but the world has scarce resources, so it is to be expected that even the best possible system will have problems. Con must show that some other system has *less* problems in order for his arguments to have any impact. -- Capitalism w/ government intervention, which Con has failed to give *any* positive argument in favor of, or demonstrate *any* actual advantage it has over "true capitalism". It is clear that, out of these three, "True Capitalism" is the best for the world. The resolution is affirmed.