Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism

So I understand that my opponent forfeited the last round. Because I myself did not forfeit the last round and had the willingness to continue the debate I would appreciated the voters handing conduct to me. I also want to provide responses to everything he talked about in his final rebuttal because I feel if I don't then I could have voters voting against me on arguments. So let me stall that now, and finish this debate. It deserves to be finished correctly. Let's begin with sources. I appreciate you providing the sources for your arguments. However, sources should be delivered when the facts are delivered. That should go against you in this debate. I want to also point something out about these sources. They in no way match the sources that I was giving in this debate. CNN is a biased news source, and Wikipedia is not credible by itself in academia. Also helpage. org does not seem very credible. But it might be. I on the other hand, provided definitions from a well known dictionary, actually provided a source my opponent did not include, and my source on it was not Wikipedia but the UN website itself. Also I had Columbia University as a source. All of these differences should give sources to me in this debate. Now let's address your lengthy argument on Democratic Socialism. I really appreciate the long quote that was sourced from the Socialist International. I do not appreciate that your affirmation of the way the countries are, has no real sources. In the beginning, after your first Socialist International quote, you have no sources to back up those facts. You bring in Forbes later, which I will accept, and Wikipedia which once again doesn't belong in academia.1. Human Rights is not the only criteria that makes a country Democratic Socialist. Your argument is large and obviously well thought out. But you are making a base assumption behind the entire argument. You are assuming that socio-economic principles are what makes a Democratic Socialist country. Let's revisit my definition in Round 1. It points out that to be Democratic Socialist, you have to distribute the wealth in such a way that the community at large has a say in it. In the countries you keep providing as examples, only the government, the central goverment, has any say in how the wealth is distributed. First here is a quote from the Guardian on the issue. "This provides a challenge for all of us, but particularly for global businesses who operate in diverse contexts around the globe. In the case of the Scandinavian countries, it’s the way in which the redistribution of tax and wealth from business works that makes a lot of their success possible. Their free market system underpinned by high levels of state welfare is one model of government-business cooperation. " . http://www.theguardian.com... I just want to point out that you agreed through silence that free market systems equal capitalism according to my definition in Round 1. So if the Nordic system has capitalistic elements to it, then it is impossible for it to be fully socialist. This point should suffice to prove that the Nordic system has much of its wealth distribution coming from the state, and not from the community. So I will stress this, the Nordic system is NOT Democratically Socialist in nature.2. The Nordic System matches some of the Socialist International criteria, but not all. Obviously because the wealth in the Nordic system has large restrictions, you would think capitalism doesn't exist there. But capitalism is really just a system where the wealth can move at will. If any section of an economy holds true to this principle, then that section is capitalism. So when news sources repeatedly stress that billionaires are able to hold vast amounts of wealth in Sweden, then we need to see that as proof of capitalism being the system, but socialism being the restrictor. According to Slate, "No single Swede comes close to the epic wealth of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett. But Stefan Persson, the chairman, main shareholder, and former longtime CEO of H&M, leads a roster of Swedish billionaires who outpace the U. S. (No. 14) on a per capita basis. In part this is just a bit of a funny coincidence—it’s a fairly small country, after all—but the fact that a famously left-wing country like Sweden can be so rich in billionaires is telling and important. That’s because a billionaire isn’t just a guy with a well-paying job. To reach that level of stratospheric riches, you probably either need to start a big, successful company or else inherit one from someone who did. And however much people care about inequality, almost every place on Earth would like to be the kind of place where successful new firms are born and raised. The good news about Sweden is that it’s exactly that kind of place. High taxes go to finance cheap health care and education, an excellent system of public transportation, and relatively generous subsidies to low-income households that keep the poverty rate and inequality low. But they haven’t stopped Swedish entrepreneurs from building giant firms like H&M, Ikea, and Tetra Pak. " . http://www.slate.com... I think this quote is self explanatory. It proves that the Nordic system while relying on some socialism is not actually a democratic socialist system. It is instead a mildly socialistic capitalism. Let's move on to other arguments. 1. Neturality of Specifics. I never actually said that socialism causes economic and political stagnation. Instead what I said, and you have failed to rebut statistically, is that when Capitalism is unimpeded, it works much better than socialism. That argument upholds my side of the resolution that Capitalism is better than Democratic Socialism. As for Canada, see above as to why following some of Socialist International's ideas does not label you democratic socialist.2. Keeping money you earn. You just conceded the argument! You cannot say that it makes sense until an emergency. That is the same thing as saying that Democratic Socialism is only good as a fail safe, and is not better 95% of the time. That argument alone should be considered concession by the voters.3. Logical fallacy. I did not make those observations on my own. They were made for me by a quote from a highly liberal source that was making an admittance that Democratic Socialism is almost non-existent in our world. If Capitalism is practiced by almost the entire world, that would indicate its popularity because that is common sense. Most of the world surprisingly disagrees with you on what makes a good economic system, and only Europe really agrees with your side. So you are fighting many large countries like China (which is capitalistic) and Russia (which also is) and claiming that they are not intelligent enough to like the system. Or something like that. It's more heavily tested because it has been around for ages. Adam Smith defined Capitalism in the 1700s, but it had been the system of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece, even Ancient China and Old Russia. All these older civilizations used a Capitalistic system. Socialism has only been around since Marx brought light to Communism and people found that too radical and difficult to achieve. Finally it is the only reason the global economy has existed, because it literally has been the economic system for centuries for the whole world. I'm running out of characters so I'll keep the rest short.4. The funny argumentYou think that I am being logically inconsistent? I fail to see that. Here is why. Providing an example from a certain time period of how Capitalism worked is called using past human experience to show how economically the system works. On the other hand, your example was a very limited example of minor scale abuse in the grand scheme of things. the Turing example is the equivalent of my hypothetical because both have very little power of persuasion in the larger reality of the whole world. So when I bring up China's economic system for a whole decade as an example, that holds far more power than the Turing example. Also China is a mix of Communism and Capitalism. It is Communistic because it regulates many aspects of the poorer country's economy, but it is capitalistic because it allows Hong Kong to exist, and it produces several million products for the world market and exchanges those for luxury items here in America. It does trade, something a truly communistic economy would not do on the scale that China has done it.5. Dynamically. Let's address something here. Socialism does provide a safety net that Capitalism does not have. But that is all that makes sense in this argument. When I said Capitalism grows an economy dynamically, for evidential proof look at the GDP of the US ever since the Industrial Revolution. You will see a constant growth upward, and some sagas of skyrocketing growth. Look at the GDP of the Nordic System, you see something that cannot compete. Economies actually grow under Capitalism because everyone is out to make a profit. Economies do not grow as fast under Socialism because most are out to do the bare minimum because they don't get to keep their profits. In conclusion. The resolution, voters, required the debaters to provide why their system was better. The only one who has provided significant reason that one system is superior to the other is me. My defense of Capitalism has shown that. The only one who has provided sources of significant weight is me. The only one who has kept to conduct is me. The only one who has not forfeited arguments, is me. I believe my spelling and grammar has also been reasonably consistent.