Socialism is better then Capitalism

I will now list my opponent's arguments and show where they fall short either logically or empirically. 20% of Americans believe Socialism is better than Capitalism. My opponent claims that based on this marginal statistic, the majority of Americans want a change to Capitalism. However my opponent's other statistic which says that 53% of Americans favor Capitalism over Socialism leads us to the exact opposite conclusion that my opponent makes. If we are to believe that we should make changes to the American economic system based on majority opinion(which I definitely do not support) the least my opponent could do is to bring some statistics that would uphold that point. Instead, if we are to follow my opponent's reasoning, capitalism should stay the economic system of the United States. 36% of Americans view Socialism positively. I would like for my opponent to elucidate on this point a little more. Namely what they mean by positively. In any case, even if this is true, this is not much of a reason to change economic systems, seeing as even if my opponent is to argue from the majority, it would still support my case and negate my opponent's. My opponent then shows statistics on world hunger and starving and shows how many people die every year of hunger in the United States. I truly do feel empathy for these unfortunate souls, though my opponent then goes on to take a quote of mine completely out of context. He writes: //"I quote my opponent "one can see from the evidence that capitalistic societies (United States) typically have higher standards of living" 14 million children going hungry, Thousands dying every day is a better standard of living?"// Here my opponent cuts out the part of the quote that would actually make it make sense. I actually wrote: //"Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's."// I wrote that the consequences of capitalistic systems are generally more humanitarian than the consequences of socialist systems that have been put into place(i.e.-Soviet Style Communism in which 20-66 million people died[1]) I was not saying that it is humanitarian for 14 million children to go hungry, I was saying that capitalism is more humanitarian when compared to historical examples of socialism. I then asked my opponent for evidence that socialism would be more humanitarian than capitalism. He replied with little more theoretical visions of a utopian and completely egalitarian society. Anyone can argue that establishing X as a system of economics would necessarily lead to Y, but that does not count as evidence for that claim. This is my opponent's reply to my question in full: //"Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, ending inequality and class divisions, democratic planning of the economy, establishing international peace and unity, and all the changes that socialism would bring describes the word humanitarian, [definition] /committed to improving the lives of other people."// I ask again, where is the evidence that socialism would do what my opponent claims it would, when all historical examples of socialism in practice point to the opposite conclusion? I then asked my opponent how charity as the building block of an economic system would be better than selfishness as the building block of an economic system. He responded, not with an answer, but with a made up scenario about how bad capitalism is. Again though, he did not show how socialism was any better. I will give him the last round to bring up some evidence. My opponent has certainly not upheld his BOP in this debate, I would go further into his arguments but I only have about 15 minutes before my time runs out. All my opponent has done so far in this debate is talk about how bad capitalism is, without showing in any way why socialism is better. Vote Con. [1]http://necrometrics.com...