Capitalism cannot fullt accomodate human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies

In this debate my opponent asserts that there are socialist policies that must be combined with the capitalist system to prevent some sort of errors that he deems are inherent in the nature of capitalism. My opponent neglects to actually identify which part of socialist economic theory, as defined in the first round, would accomplish this until this fourth and final round where he asserts " The principle of socialism where there is absence of competitive economic activity" – Now I would agree that this is a characteristic of socialism, and let us stick to this principle that he has finally asserted within this debate. My opponent asserts that the component of "some" absence of competition is good for the capitalist model in providing for the needs of people, and use the anti-trust laws as an example of limiting competition for the good of the people. However the motive behind anti-trust legislation is to ensure more competition, and reduce the likelihood of monopolies [1]. "Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace"[2]. He also asserts that anti-trust legislation are based on socialist principles which is certainly incongruent with the intentions of anti-trust legislation if he believes that it is based on the intention of anti-competitive activity. In this there is contradiction and confusion. My opponent asserts also asserts that "I say this because the antitrust laws go against the profit motive(by the absence of competitive economic activity). Not fully but to a degree. " The anti-trust laws are not designed to work against the profit motive, not at all, but to further engage the profit motive with as many parties as possible, and I have already explained how the intentions of the anti-trust laws are the exact opposite of what my opponent asserts, i. e. "absence of competitive economic activity", but rather to preserve and promote further competition between private entities. My opponent believes that I have not read the resolution, but I have. Within his resolution he asserts that there are "certain" socialist policies that should be adopted within the capitalist system, however for clarity and coherence it is within his responsibility to explain which of these certain socialist policies are to be applied. When he makes vague references to abuses within society, and the remedy are socialist I question how they are socialist in nature. If we are to apply the socialist economic theory as agreed upon in the opening definitions, we can easily see that socialism isn't the answer. Indeed plenty of socialist countries are far more abusive of their workers than many capitalist based countries. Therefore con is somewhat confused with the assertions that pro makes, and the clarity of the resolution put forward. When pro has made efforts to provide clarity, greater obfuscation results. On the one hand he seems to value aspects of monopolies or limited competition, as a solution to problems and cites a fictitious example of a drug company where there is a fictitious problem of a lack of competition. He then cites anti-trust laws as an effort in limiting competition, and I have already explained why that doesn't make sense. My opponent has repeated that I haven't properly addressed his resolution, and I would counter that he has not properly addressed the resolution. ‘Capitalism cannot fully accommodate human needs' – Not only has he failed to demonstrate that capitalism doesn't, but he has also failed to demonstrate how aspects, any aspects of socialism as my opponent has defined, can remedy the problems that haven't even been proven yet. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this resolution Vote con. . http://economics.about.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...