Capitalism vs Socialism

My opponent has not created a case but a rebuttal. He has not only argued my contentions line by line, but he has not created an effective case for socialism.(Judges Note) My opponent attacks my case with first a outdated source. If you click on his monthlyreview.org, you will find that his source is based in the early 2000s when the economic crash happened. This source is irrelevant because it is outdated and did not see the free market boom with the IPhone. He quotes Studies show that a large majority of economically important inventions come from university scientists, government researchers, and independent inventors, for whom pecuniary considerations are not typically dominant.6". One question I have to ask my opponent is who sold these items. Who sold the IPhone? Who sold the car. Who sold the computers. Businesses. If the government provided food, Food would not get better because the government doesn't have a reason to get involved in that. If the government provided cars, than we would not have alternatives because the government doesn't need to improve itself. By God, I hope this would never happen, but if the government was in charge of our tech industries we would still be looking at gloomy IBM computers. By the way, I would note that the government did create the internet, but if our government decided it would also provide all the search engines. We would have the same slow internet. My opponent also attacks me by giving two flaws for capitalism. The problem with his argument is that he is giving me no other alternative. He is just challenging the idea of money making you happy. Now, lets take this to a philosophical stage because happiness is itself very philosophical. Say I live in communist Russia. I work. Say I live in the UK. I am going to work. Say I live in Saudi Arabia, I am going to work. Say I live in America, I am going to work. The only thing unique about America is that it provides opportunity to build for yourself. To make power for yourself. It is your choice if you are willing to put yourself through the education that will make you successful. In his second argument, he argues that since capitalism is more inclined to profits their not going to support things like NASA. If you every read a page of video game history you would also note that video games manipulated the joysticks NASA used. Also the government created the Internet. Who exploited it for profit? Microsoft. What are we using right now. A thing made from capitalism. He attacks my fast food arguments by saying that these foods are extremely unhealthy. That wasn't m point. The point is that markets can make food better. And look the sources that my opponents are using are products of how the free market work. I purposefully put the fast food argument not because I am an ideot, but I knew my opponent would take the bait. This was an argument that I wanted to put on my case, but I couldn't. Since we have combined capitalism with freedom, reporters are free to report on fast food chains that destroy human health. Lets just say that the government was in charge of food. If a reporter found out that the government was providing food like that, than the reporter would not be able to say that because the government would be forced into having to change their process. Fast Foods are an example. Thank you. Okay, My opponent has some leverage on how the car economy uses oil for their supply. But my opponent has not given an alternative. Sure you can criticize a system all you want but if you can't come up with a model yourself than you shouldn't come at all. China is number one in renewable energy. But, people there have only sacrificed their freedom over "cooperation". My opponent also attacks the idea of money, but he does not bring an alternative. He fails to bring an alternative to the century old idea of currency. Capitalism is the best we have. It is the progression of humanity. It has brought us to the golden age of internet which will continue. My opponent says that socialistic countries take care of you. All my opponent is asking for is a secure future. James Madison once said "If you value security over liberty you deserve none". How true is this quote. My opponents ideas are ideal. When ever a countries governments starts to intervene it becomes corrupt. We can see this in China, Russia, and Cuba. These countries valued security and sacrificed liberty.