Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal

Why are my debates always so long.... Oh well. I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph on the most important arguments you made. My rebuttal will be more concise than my other arguments hopefully and just hit the key points. "1. I understand what my topic says, and I admit that it wasn't the best choice of words. But you're basing your argument on my bad semantics. If I had simply put "Capitalism is the Best Economic Policy In Use," then at the very least, your first point is invalid. In other words, you shouldn't try to win a debate because of (or lack of) semantics." >> Ummm.. You made the topic. The word ideal did not need to be in there but not only did you put it in there but you didn't bother outlining your first contention as if you were talking about real life application. Which left me with two things. A. The definition of ideal which I didn't even need to bother twisting in some strange way. and B. The assumption that we were talking about ideals. Don't shift your advocacy for the debate halfway through. (the next three paragraphs are quotes from you that i'm grouping) "2. Although your second point sounds nice, it isn't very practical. No matter what you do, it is impossible to make everyone "help society." Even if we ignore the real world examples that prove this to be wrong, it's just human nature. Do you honestly expect every single person, or even the group of people in unnationalized industries, to work for the greater good? It's unreasonable and honestly unfair. It's unfair to force someone to work long and hard for someone else who may not be willing to work at all." In a communism [sic] children would grow up with success = help society...." Again, how do would you manage to go about brain washing all children into the mindset of extreme selflessness? People like to prosper from their own success; not to be held back by forced "charity." Can we agree that when you take from someone without asking, it's stealing? That is what you are proposing: legal stealing. People deserve to keep the fruits of their work. "Stop and think for a minute about everything society has told you about growing up and how this has effected your life. 'Go to school' 'Earn a degree' 'Get rich' "Support your family.'" How are any of those things bad? Is it bad to want to better your life by going to school, getting a degree, getting rich, and supporting a family? These things should be encouraged. And, again, isn't it just human nature to want to be wealthy. It's not necessarily greed, it's just wanting to ensure a bright future for yourself, and your loved ones." >>This is why I defined government. No where in that definition does it say that a citizen must agree to the policies of a government. Every citizen is free to leave the country at any point in time. For a sweet example look at the quakers. Nice society, idea of helping each other without modern technology. No not every child grows up agreeing with their governmental system and those children leave. Leaving the people who do agree. Look at America for an example. If you don't agree with America's policies then the ideal solution is to leave. Once again you go back to your legal stealing point. Definitely not true, with each person helping everyone else in a communism a person will naturally receive so much more than they give. Then you go onto tell me that we can't "brainwash" children and turn around and ask me how any of the examples I listed are bad. I'm not saying they are bad or good (personally I feel like getting rich is a lame goal) I'm saying that under our current society you have already been "brainwashed" to see those things as good. In a communism you are "brainwashed" to think that helping others is the way to go (this I agree with) and no, not everyone will agree. But because of the societal influence so many more people will. "Merriam-Webster defines "law" as "the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs."" >>Great but then you go on to link all of this directly to the US. The idea of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all US orientated. And once again you prove my point. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness all US ideals that have been given a new definition under the US. For instance in the U.S the pursuit of happiness is often taken to mean "being free to become wealthy". Where as in my ideal communism it would better be defined as "being free to improve the community as a whole". "In conclusion, you can't say that Communism will produce more innovative products. What will their motivation be? And you can't say "because they want to help society." For most people, they don't care about other people, and that won't change with Communism. Money is a big motivator, and the lack of it pushes people to think beyond what they thought possible. This is how new inventions are born." >> In conclusion I can say it will. Because of the increased efficiency, higher standard of living, and yeah, their want to help society. Maybe in your life people don't care about people; for you joining this communism wouldn't be a good idea. I feel human relationships are a far greater motivator than money will ever be. (Falling in love over winning a million dollars? Which do you choose? Choice is obvious to me) And no that isn't the only reason things are invented. How many famous scientists were also filthy rich? CONCLUSION: Even if my voters do not want to vote on my communism argument notice that my opponent completely drops my Selective Socialism argument. He even says, "I never said that the US was purely Capitalist. I'm just saying, as far as other nations go, we are one of the closest to getting there. So the fact that the US is not purely Capitalist, or is slightly Socialist, doesn't hurt my contention at all." and then goes onto tell me that we still see unneeded deaths in current Selctive Socialisms such as the U.S. So first off notice we are talking about ideals here. In an ideal Selective Socialism this would not be the case. Secondly even in his real world example there are less unneeded deaths in a selective socialism such as the U.S than in a purely capitalist society. Thirdly my opponent drops every point I made on a Selective Socialism still having the opportunities of a capitalism with the added benefit of a fine standard of living. Therefor there is absolutely no reason to vote for a capitalist society when you can have the same opportunities with a higher standard of living. Finally my opponent brings his real life experience from Cuba into this. Cuba is definitely not an ideal communism! But even if this topic just said "the greatest economic policy" I would still oppose such an example. It is not my job under this resolution or that resolution to support corrupt regimes and/or unstable governments.