Socialism is better then Capitalism

Unfortunately this debate has turned into a BOP argument. I claim my opponent has not upheld his BOP(he hasn't) and my opponent says that I have not upheld my BOP. However upon looking at my opponent's profile I see that he only joined 2 weeks ago. So, I will take a moment to explain the nature of BOP in debates on this site in particular. From what I have seen in my time on this site, when someone initiates a debate where they are affirming the resolution(unless otherwise specified), they retain the BOP. It is their responsibility to affirm the resolution. It is then whoever is taking the Con position to the resolution's responsibility to negate Pro's arguments. In this case however it has proven difficult for me to refute my opponent's arguments, seeing as he has argued as if they are trying to refute someone else's argument, rather than bring up their own. So far in this debate all my opponent has done is talk about the evils and inefficiencies of capitalism while not doing anything to affirm the resolution by showing that "Socialism is better". Now that that is out of the way I can move on to my opponent's closing arguments. Now in place of arguments, my opponent has decided to forgo empirical evidence and historical examples to write about how socialism would work in some sort of utopian future. He maintains that if implemented correctly, socialism can work better than capitalism. However my opponent is employing a clear double standard. His critique of capitalism is based on examples of it being put into place. He claims that the inequality among social classes is due to capitalism. However cannot I just simply apply my opponent's exact refutation of my argument to his? Just like he brushes off the historical examples of socialism being implemented as not 'true' versions of socialism, I can say that a society of inequality and poverty is not the 'correct' implementation of capitalism. Any problem that my opponent brings against capitalism I can simply brush aside as not 'real' capitalism. My opponent employs a clear cut No True Scottsman Fallacy and since my opponent retains the primary BOP as instigator and Pro of this debate, one should vote Con automatically. My opponent's next argument is what I would call the argument from democracy. He writes: //"In socialism, you will help make the decisions now made by the president and board of trustees of your university, by the boss on your job, by your landlord, by the owners of newspapers, TV stations, movie studios, and sports franchises, and by government officials at all levels."// His argument could be summed up as 'Socialism means democracy and democracy is good.' However what warrant does my opponent bring to show that democracy is A.-An efficient system in general and B.-An efficient system when applied to economics. My opponent assumes too much in this argument. He does not back it up with any rational arguments. Honestly, I would rather have some CEO with a profit incentive and experience in business making high up economic decisions than a career politician who is supposedly acting for the "common good". My opponent then argues that socialism would do a few things. Specifically he argues that it would: //"showing an equal concern for preserving the environment, protecting workers' health, and reducing work hours"// My opponent again does not show specifically how socialism would achieve these ends. I would also like to say that all three of these things can be done in a purely capitalistic society with no need for government interference. I'll just throw up some very brief descriptions on how this could be done. I will not go into too much detail though seeing as I'm already halfway through my character limit. I will say though that these solutions are speculative seeing as there does not exist any pure capitalist society. Preserving the environment.- Corporations that do work that may involve harming the environment have a financial incentive not to do this. Unlike governments, corporations have a reputation to keep up and can lose money when their reputation goes down the drain.(e.g.- Chick-Fil-A taking a position against homosexuality). A government obtains it's revenue coercively through taxes while corporations rely on voluntary associations. It is in a corporation's best interest not to completely rape the environment for the world to see. Protecting worker's health.- Basically the same concept as for preserving the environment. Because people who work for corporations do so in a voluntary manner, if a company gets a reputation for poor working conditions, that corporation will necessarily suffer a shortage of applicants. Also, a company's reputation for quality products will suffer seeing as workers in terrible working conditions will consequently produce inferior products compared to if there were better working conditions. Reducing work hours.- Here, my opponent seemed to be too vague. However, the same principle applied to a corporation having a financial incentive to protect their worker's health, a company of course has a financial incentive to not work their employees to death. Of course I will again tell readers that these three scenarios were speculative. However I showed how a capitalistic society would be able to deal with these three issues in a more rational manner and in more detail than my opponent did.(He simply claimed that socialism would fix these problems) My opponent throughout the rest of the last round simply described a utopian socialist society where everyone selflessly works together for the good of society. Again, my opponent in no way showed why this was a plausible scenario and not simply a made up scenario. My opponent most certainly did not uphold his burden in this debate and so I urge a Con vote by default.