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

There does seem to be some poor communication. Your resolution does indeed bring in "socialism" as a means to deal with what you deem as a shortfall of capitalism. You further defined socialism and we agreed to this definition in both PM and on this debate. Now I expect to use that definition as a means of disproving your argument. Socialism being the key word in your resolution as a means to solve the problems of capitalism. So let us be clear that the solution to your perceived problems of capitalism lies in the state controlling the means of production to satisfy the needs of the people. Or more precisely ""an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels". [1] This was the definition that my opponent cited. My opponent then brings to the argument "I AM SAYING THAT CAPITALISM HAS SOME FLAWS WHICH I BELIEVE CAN BE REMEDIED WITH SOME SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES(minimum wage, government regulation, child labor laws)." I ask those who are reading this debate, and indeed my opponent to apply the definition that he opened with for socialism to these problems and help me understand how they are solved by the state controlling production. My opponent complains that I am using the definition in its totality? He means only certain aspects of socialism should be applied, which particular part of the definition would solve the problems you cite? I believe my opponent is confusing socialism with some other sort of humanitarian version of governance that might make laws restricting business practices, but that is not socialism as he defined. Socialism =/= Big overreaching government. If that were the case fascism and socialism would be the same thing. Forgive me for drawing upon real life examples, but many socialist societies have far greater abuses in these areas than capitalist ones. The profit motive for the state can produce far more horrendous results to its people than private ones. My opponent then goes on to cite anti-trade laws as being socialist. Again, I draw upon the definition that my opponent provided. Anti-trust laws were put in place to prevent monopolies in a capitalist f societies. Socialism is actually a system of monopoly. Which particular aspect of the definition of socialism are you drawing upon to conclude that the anti-trust laws are socialist? By outlawing collusion as stipulated by the Sherman Act of 1890 [2] we have an example of the state controlling production? I am further confused when my opponent says " Without antitrust laws, there would be nothing to stop a healthcare monopoly." Which one would come to the conclusion and think a monopoly in health care is a bad thing, and yet, is not that the goal of socialism? Oh right, you're only talking about certain aspects of socialism which I really haven't seen yet. Then he says that the anti-trust laws are really a socialist concept. In 1890, there really wasn't much of a formalized socialist construct, and again the goal of anti trust legislation is to further promote competition and further enable the capitalist process. It was looking to keep the free market more free. The goal was to diminish anti competitive activity [3], not to have government control production. My opponent then accuses me of speculating. Well of course I am speculating, it's a fictitious scenario that I speak of, what else can I do but speculate. My opponent then asserts that "Full socialism always puts human needs in front of profit which makes it inefficient' - the inefficient thing is the only correct part of this statement. One is to assume that the profit motive for the state is less a factor than if it were private. That would be a different debate, but I would provide loads of examples of where the profit motive of the state is as avarice and corrupt as any private entity could be. My opponent also says "My resolution stated clearly is that there are some times in an unrestricted capitalist society where people are exploited for profit." Actually, I am trying to find in your resolution where it actually says this, particularly about "people are exploited for profit", your argument does at some point, but I don't see it in your resolution. I will conclude this round by my opponents hyperbolic assertion "We know that it is right in capitalist terms to financially exploit millions of people and let countless thousands die just to keep up revenue." Of all the private interests that may have perpetrated something along these scales, how many of my opponent's big government, socialist countries have waged, and continue to wage at levels that stagger the mind. We need only look at the entire continent of Asia and its history to see how well socialism served it's people. I fear my opponent doesn't fully understand the economic theory of socialism, but rather holds an idyllic notion of what it is. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...