Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

I love this format. I am able to refute R4 and R5 of my opponents. So let"s get right to it. " I will spend all of round four with rebuttals" According to the rules my OPPONENT himself brought up, R4 is for "2 New Arguments and Rebuttals." My opponent clearly breaks conduct by not posting ANY arguments R4. Conduct point, please. He continues on by repeating that greed will take many forms, and that socialism frowns upon it. Socialism frowns upon greed with MONEY, not greed itself. And yes, it will take many forms, as stated before. It will not shame these forms, it will stay with the oh-so "natural" greed and just use it it DIFFERENT WAYS. "My opponent provided no example of socialism working by eliminating materialistic greed. Why did he not provide an example? Because there isn"t any!" You are right. Thanks, Darth for actually stating my point. Socialism won"t get rid of all materialistic greed, just towards money. Thank you! "Thievery and robbery will still exist." But without this greed GEARED towards money, no it won"t! Who wants money when it"s not important! "Why could they not get back to the top? If this person instead works hard, and contributes to society, then they DESERVE to be at the top." Please look at my whole argument in R4. It clearly states how, with real life example, why not. And yes, that second statement is true. They DESERVE to. But can they? Absolutely not. (see R4). "Also, I did explain how socialism would make everyone do "less than mediocre." $7500 is not an amount that you can live life, and support a family on." Let me AGAIN state why this is false. In a socialist country, 7500 would be more than enough for everyone to live on, as stated in R3. For example, cuba IN REAL LIFE. (3) To compensate for "low salaries" they have "state-run economy, a national health-care program, government-paid (i.e. free) education at all levels, subsidized housing, utilities, entertainment and even subsidized food programs." "How?" IN regards to how they could be rewarded. Hmmm, let me quote YOU, Darth. "power, or land or money." Another thanks! "Hold on, are you saying that a lazy person has as much value as a hard working man?" My opponent took my words, twisted them into something that is NOT what I am saying and tried to appeal to you. It clearly stated that I think they deserve a second chance, not push them down and never give them another chance, like in the case of these two poor women that I stated in R4. (1) (2) "The world has no mercy." "Can you simply make every single person selfless?" What Darth seems to assume is that not trying will try to help. He thinks that with capitalism, just giving up on major problems with society will SOMEHOW help. At least socialism puts in the effort, takes a step in the right direction, to make the world a better world. My opponent continues to talk about North Korea, yet they have the resources, it"s just not managed properly. Also they are a communist country which is different than socialist, shown later in my rebuttal. He ask for examples continuously. Here"s one! (3) Cuba, a very successful SOCIALIST country. They are functioning perfectly, and have used 80% of businesses owned by gouvernement. This government is running just fine. "Furthermore, I feel like that simply saying that the government would give money to the people is an assumption." May I suggest reading article (3). No assumptions there, bud. "Prove it." Okay. Would a chair work in a world of tables. Would a man work in a world of all women. OF COURSE NOT. Plus, the USSR was not the only communist/socialist country in the world at the the time. I already pointed out in Round 3 the amount of socialist nations before. Only three "communist" countries still exist, and one of them is not even truly communist anymore!" Cool story bro. First, USSR was communist, not capitalist. That again will be addressed later. Keep reading! "I will also add that all communists are socialists, so my historical examples are perfectly valid. My opponent strawmanned what I said, yet fails to realize that all communists are socialists." Here are the differences: "It does not favor violent aggression or overthrowing of capitalists by workers. It does not advocate that all private property ownership be eliminated, rather that the gap should be narrowed down, preventing accumulation." (3) ALL OF MY OPPONENTS EXAMPLES THAT USE USSR OR NORTH KOREA ARE INVALID, since they are COMMUNIST, not SOCIALIST. "But banning advertising would violate freedom of speech. Plus, it is up to the people to choose their reactions to these products." Yet how come they become greatly influenced? Also, I"m not saying they would be banned. I'm just saying there would be no use for them anymore. No violations there! "As said, socialism brings everyone to the bottom, while at least with capitalism, people actually get to the top! Is the inequality sad? Yes, but would you be willing to give away money to strangers that you earned?" At least with capitalism, people who falter once can never get back up. At least with capitalism the top 62 people in the world have more money than 3.5 billion people! (4) Point made. "Capitalism is a system that tries not to destroy the problem and be unrealistic, but rather ease the problem. You can"t destroy greed." First, HOW does it help "ease the problem." Second, as stated before, Socialism doesn"t destroy greed, it channels it. "You can"t destroy poverty, but you can react to it." React to it by making sure innocent people can"t have a normal life EVER again, including children generations down the line? Wrong reaction my friend. THAT is capitalism. "ll communists are socialists! The ideal socialist state is also the ideal communist state! By definition, all communists are also socialist." Already addressed this previously. "I never called capitalism perfect. But, considering the historical proof and examples I have provided, history shows that capitalism has worked better than any other system, while socialism has NEVER worked." Examples? USSR and North Korea? Oh wait, those are invalid. Never worked? What about CUBA! "The USSR, China and North Korea" All invalid, including China. China is run by the COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA. (5) "I am sure that the people who"s money is redistributed will want their money back." Not if money ISN"T a valuable resource! "The Albertan government is run by the New Democratic Party, a SOCIALIST party." Yet all the major companies are run by private businesses. I live here, trust me, I know. Also everyone gets different wages. Again, capitalist, not socialist. "Kind of like how the German population elected Hitler. They must have also got what they elected." Never, ever compare Alberta to Hitler. They changed on the germans RIDICULOUSLY from their original point of view, the NDP barely. "But name ONE socialist society that is/was not authoritarian." Cuba! "why Capitalism is not a democratic system." Okay!, A plutocracy is defined as "the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy."(6) A democracy is defined as "a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges." (7) Seems like plutocracy is more the definition of capitalism. My opponent says that it"s the logical fallacy of false cause, yet it"s no correlation. It"s common sense. He goes on to say it"s their choice. It is, but he doesn"t deny the fact that it"s a great influenced, as I have proven with FACTS in R4. "the entire idea of Socialism is about influencing people." How? My opponent has not given a single example. "But the actual process of this redistribution has not been explained by opponent." Sure! Step 1: Collection of wealth from the rich until all is on equal level. Step 2: Distributed equally among people. Step 3: Ta-freakin"-Da. His first quote was very confusing. I feel bad for this guy though. Food stamps? Poverty? Okay I am so sorry. Oh wait, that"s an example of Poverty? Written by a man who runs the Radio show that"s hosted in TEXAS (8) (9), a clearly capitalist state. Your quote proves that poverty sucks, especially because it"s from a capitalist state. Next quote. It basically states how socialism gives a second chance to people who were lazy ONCE. Who messed up ONCE! How lovely of you Darth. Also, let me quote THAT EXACT QUOTE that my opponent brought up! "insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle." "I now call upon my opponent to explain to all of us how Socialism will be able to create a proper system that will get rid of economic inequality." Um, are you kidding me. That"s exactly what I"ve been doing this whole debate! Opposite of inequality is equality. Thus opposite of economic inequality is economic equality. Thus, economic equality IS Equal pay. IN CONCLUSION: I have refuted EVERY SINGLE refutation my opponent has brought up, INCLUDING his final remarks, thus upholding ALL of my points. -I have brought up examples when asked. -I have shown you how examples my opponent has brought up are INVALID. For the fact that all my point STILL stand, and all my opponents have fallen (including all rebuttals) VOTE CON. With literally 7 characters remaining, I thank Darth for a good debate. References: 1)http://www.npr.org... 2)http://www.npr.org... 3)http://www.investopedia.com... 4)http://www.theguardian.com... 5)https://en.wikipedia.org... 6)http://dictionary.reference.com... 7)http://dictionary.reference.com... 8)https://twitter.com... 9)http://www.redstate.com...