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." As socialism is shown through multiple sources to cover the failures of your proposed successes which have been disproved the case for Socialism is solidified by using the same basis you make for Capitalism and literally taking your points away from you and adding them to my own."My opponent attacks my case with first a outdated source.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.", except the economic crash was in the late 2000's (http://www.investopedia.com...) specifically starting in 2007. Pro may want to check his knowledge of history history. All said in relation to this about the iPhone is wo/ source and since the dating is wrong irrelevant anyway.Also note that source dating for studies goes back about 20 years in normal debates."If the government provided food, Food would not get better because the government doesn't have a reason to get involved in that." not only is this again without a source but it's completely untrue as (http://www.usda.gov...) the United States Department of Agriculture (for example) gives out millions in grants for everything from starting a ranch to research projects for preventing malnutrition by increasing ease of access to people for personal farms in Food Deserts (http://www.usda.gov...) so I have no idea where pro gets his information. Perhaps he did not take a moment to even look?"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." (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) Pro again fails to answer for the fact that the government is building quantum computers while pro is likely sitting at, at best, an x64. Governmental and military technology has a long history of being the best in the world and most innovative (http://www.forbes.com...) of all sectors esp. when compared to private sector [home computing] machinery."The problem with his argument is that he is giving me no other alternative.", that is a shift of burden of proof. "Now, lets take this to a philosophical stage because happiness is itself very philosophical.", no it's not (http://insights.som.yale.edu...) and as a matter of fact it's highly tangible. Human happiness is quite measurable and furthermore as it is studied even more predictable with stronger correlations between various criteria being made over time as research continues in Economics."It is your choice if you are willing to put yourself through the education that will make you successful." Yet 80% of college graduates in 2015 are reported to be outside of their field (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) so there's that idea too."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."1. This isn't actually a counterproof since NASA has never been supported by capitalism as NASA isn't receiving any for-profit treatment or preferences from anyone including those "joystick creators" (contractors? uncited.). 2. Microsoft doesn't "exploit the internet" and actually is a computer OS manufacturer.3. Internet is a telephony service and thus telephone companies exploit the internet for profit.... Pro, have you ever actually taken even two seconds to look up any of this? Not to offend but ... This is Common Knowledge to the extreme degree."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." But I cannot see how unhealthy food would be considered "better". The problem here is that you outright lied (which is a fallacy: http://www.iep.utm.edu...) not that you're delusional. Though I am starting to wonder ... I kid, I kid. It's better than being 100% serious, is it not? "Since we have combined capitalism with freedom, reporters are free to report on fast food chains that destroy human health." This really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Particularly because, " 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." actually the government is in charge of food. They are the ones who specifically rate and review the nutritional value of all items that are considered consumable relating to the food industry. Local, State, and Federal government standards do have to be met (http://www.fsis.usda.gov...) so again whatever point was trying to be proven I cannot see how it worked. "Okay, My opponent has some leverage on how the car economy uses oil for their supply. But my opponent has not given an alternative.", I did not mention mag-lev trains in Japan for my health. Advanced technologies such as those on the chart that was in the source given relating to the energy consumption and "green"ness of transportation show pretty clearly that electric cars are far cleaner than oil burning anything and the same with mass transit with mag-lev trains having a very low footprint versus standard common Amtrak machinery."My opponent also attacks the idea of money, but he does not bring an alternative.", if one sees the sources one notes that because money is not the best driver but instead personal achievement is one would note that there doesn't need to be an alternative. Doing good and inventing out of the love of invention and doing good is sufficient; reward based systems fail time and time again and have consistently provided the same exact result no matter how many times one marks the changes in experimentation or group. Behavioral economics has smashed the argument of tradition relating to the value of coin."Capitalism is the best we have.", so far that has not only been dismantled but has been shown to be without a paddle. Stating it is so does not make it so, but oh only if it did, no?"My opponent says that socialistic countries take care of you. All my opponent is asking for is a secure future.", I do admit there must be something wrong with me to eliminate poverty, educate the populace, and grant access to healthcare to the common man. These are all, by the way, things the United States does not do well: (https://www.cia.gov...), (https://www.cia.gov...), (https://www.cia.gov...)Do not take note of countries with developing and strong Socialism. You may feel shame.