Liberty is maximized through Socialism not Capitalism

"My opponent admits that capitalism creates monopolies, which causes economic oppression and loss of freedom. He argues that this is okay because monopolies will eventually be destroyed. This is very flawed logic; he is saying oppression is okay as long as it does not last long. So is it okay if Hitler killed six million Jews as long as the problem is eventually solved. You can see the problems with this logic." Strawman fallacy, appeal to Hitler fallacy. I never said that oppression is okay as long as it doesn't last long. I'm saying that oppression doesn't exist because monopolies are always transitory things. If a monopoly develops, the free market automatically works harder against the monopoly by the force of the invisible hand. (Such as alternate fuel if oil companies form a monopoly). As for your appeal to Hitler, it ties in with your deliberate misinterpretation of my argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debate and an appeal to Hitler is the best way to earn points with people because he is socially viewed as the prime evil. "Let me go on, the problem with capitalism is that it creates competition. This is an actual flaw with the theory of capitalism and not the practice of it. So no matter who practices capitalism it will never work because the very thing that drives it causes economic oppression." Wrong. You don't understand capitalism at all. Competition is not a bad thing nor does it lead to economic oppression. Competition leads to everyone getting the most out of what exists in the amount that they want it, divided among whoever deserves it the most. So no, the theory is not flawed. "To continue my opponent can only point at flaws in the practice of Socialism, he has yet to point out a flaw with actual theory. He says people take advantage of the system and have no reason to work that is a flaw with human nature not actually a flaw with the system of Socialism. He could say that the government has far too many rights and can take away your freedom and again this is a flaw of government and not the system of Socialism. Therefore he has yet to show me a flaw in the theory of Socialism he has only shown me flaws in the practice of it." No. The flaw in Socialist theory is that it is based on unrealistic assumptions. If I create an economy theory that says everyone can get everything they want at any time, there's a problem with the theory because infinite stuff doesn't exist. Same with socialism. People don't produce at peak capacity for no reason. There's no drive. I'm not poking at the practice. I'm poking at the theory as to how the practice of it will turn out. "My opponent says "It sounds good on paper but doesn't work anywhere, at any time, for any reason." Last time I checked this debate is on paper/in theory. To cite examples of socialism from the real world would skew the accuracy of the debate, because of economic systems of this type are run by the government, therefore, the quality Socialism depends on the quality of government that runs it. I can cite examples of capitalism because the idea behind capitalism is the government does not need to step in, therefore, my results will not be skewed by the system of government running it." Fine, I retract evidence of the massive failures of every nation that has tried to implement socialism. I replace it with the emphasis that good economic theories have to be both good on paper and applicable. Any country that strove for socialism messed up and is now striving for Capitalism. Every country that strove for Capitalism is now doing great in the world market. I now show generally that the PURSUIT of Capitalism is better than the PURSUIT of socialism. "My opponent also says "It is completely flawed in principle." He has yet to prove that is a fact. He has pointed out flaws in human nature and government not flaws in the actual theory." It is flawed in principle *because* it makes flawed assumptions about human nature. Socialism expects all humans to work their best for little to no reward. This is unrealistic. "I challenge my opponent to refute my argument and prove to me that capitalism is not flawed in principle and the socialism is. Until he can do that he cannot win the argument" On what basis are you challenging me to do anything? You haven't complied with any of the things I wanted you to do. ******* My opponent has not even defined Socialism like I asked him to. Nor has he offered any argument as to why Socialism WOULD work in principle. In fact, I explained more about the way Socialism works than he did. My opponent doesn't even address all the points I made about the free market, the way prices and products affect each other, he only repeats his points ad nauseum. My opponent's only argument was the monopoly. I have already argued several times that a monopoly would not be able to do any damage to a purely capitalist society because the free market would be able to strike back. My opponent ignored my example about oil monopolies easily being toppled over by solar energy or natural fuels. I have also emphasized how Capitalists can earn and profit off of whatever they create directly, giving them the urge to be even more productive, whereas Socialists cannot. This means that they get little to no rewards for any amount of output. This means demand to work goes down. It is inherently flawed. My opponent has absolutely failed to show that he even understands how either Capitalism OR Socialism works through his assumptions.