Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism

Also no more new arguments/ evidence please. First off my opponent has already lost the round for three reasons: 1. My has adequately negated, the burden for the negative as specifically stated in the resolution was to prove that the merits of Socialism are better than those that the Capitalism has to offer, and as a result we have nothing to compare Capitalism to than itself and the arguments I present. And because their has been no good of socialism presented in a case, all I must do is prove one part of my case true in order to win. 2. My opponent provides no solvency so we can vote for the Affirmative prima facie because even if all his arguments are true Capitalism still remands the only economic choice we have. 3. He never explains how Socialism even achieves Economic security, as I have. On to the case "The USSR is one of the worst case studies done on socialism. .. " This entire argument is merely saying that socialism is misunderstood he however does not give evidence to support how it was misunderstood, as well as the fact that he only addresses the USSR. And Second of all if we are to say somethings not bad its misunderstood why not go ahead and say homicide is misunderstood their is reason behind the murder of an individual. So when we justify history as a misunderstanding we basically are consenting to accept every misunderstanding as the nonexistent good my opponent is claiming. My opponent has failed to attack the Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. card I present, as a result we can assume the empirical evidence presented its entirely true, and if not entirely true, enough so to point out why Socialism is evil. 1. Capitalism means freedom Sure capitalism means freedom. ." In response: 1. He agrees first of all and secondly he later goes on to say the con of Capitalism is the fact that it only allows the hard workers to prevail, considering how A) he doesn't back it up with any reputable evidence, and B) He libels Capitalism to the maximum potential by making absurd claims against it, and C) He never touches upon the American card, so we can extend that argument and thus another reason to vote. 2. He doesn't refute the fact that individuals must buy form the government as well as he claims, all individuals are payed the same and when your smart enough your forced to be a doctor and do more work, and when your smart enough your forced to be a menial. However the impact of which is hard work is no longer rewarded as it customarily has. Therefore extend both the impact I point out and the claim my opponent makes. 2. Private property is essential to the human race "to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future. " Doesn't negate that modern medicine invented under capitalism saves lives. Therefore the inadvertent result of this contention is Capitalism saves lives, so we drop the private property is essential to human race aspect and adopt "Capitalism saves lives" 3. Socialism is condescending, inefficient, and immoral According to my opponents definition of socialism. .. The government does actually limit liberty by paying equally and taking out the pay for hard work the government is assuming the education required to perform menial tasks is equivalent to that of a doctor when it comes to all aspects of life, including saving and spending. therefore when we pay people evenly we re not allowing their liberty to spend earned money that they earned. No we are only assuming everyone has the capability to spend and save equally, and because they don't Socialism is condescending to the very intelligent. Socialism is inefficient - My opponent has failed to show me in a logical manner or factual manner how a lack of profits, losses, market prices, market, or competition leads to inefficiency. I provide plenty of Empirical evidence that is very logical, as a result I can't see where he is coming from here. I can point to many examples of nonprofit organizations that are extremely efficient. "He hasn't done so, and no new evidence is allowed so we must dismiss the refutation. " Socialism is immoral - I thank my opponent for TAKING ME OUT OF CONTACT. .. he has abused me by trying to portray me as a hypocrite I say it is immoral to take form another, which is stealing, the sentence before. So please not only dismiss his argument but his credibility. 4. Worldwide success can be attributed to capitalism. My opponent builds his argument on the entire theory that people will not invent anything if they are employed by the government. However he gives no reasoning as to why their capability of inventing new processes and things will be inhibited by being employed by a governmental agency. "My opponent has failed to give any logical proof . .. " I have no obligation to support analytical evidence to support my side when i presented adequate empirical evidence to support my contentions. Furthermore on the subject of illogical assumptions to reprimand me for them would be blatant hypocrisy oh his behalf when look at his UNWARRANTED refutations. Thank and And I urge a Con ballot because I have clearly been able to pass at least one, if not all of my arguments past the solvencyless, inadequate "case" of the PRO.