Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism

To start off I would like to start rebutting Pro's contention that "History has proven its past that socialism does not work. " The USSR is one of the worst case studies done on socialism. Socialism is one of those ideologies that is easily misunderstood, mostly because it has been associated throughout history with countries or governments that have not been able to effectively implement its best philosophical qualities. Specifically, Russia took socialism and made it what we understand to be communism. Because of the long-running (and very costly) Cold War between the United States and the USSR, we were mostly unable to appreciate anything about the governmental ideology of socialism. My opponent has 4 main contentions for the support of capitalism. 1. Capitalism means freedom 2. Private property is essential to the human race 3. Socialism is condescending, innefficient, and immoral 4. Worldwide success can be attributed to capitalism. REBUTTAL 1. Capitalism means freedom Sure capitalism means freedom for those that have money or are born with the most intelligence. However if you happen to be poor, or happen to be born with less intelligence, your amount of freedom decreases substantially. Want to get a college education to get ahead? Forget about it, you don't have the money. Born with a lower IQ, say hello to minimum wage. In socialism, no matter what you are born with, you will be taken care of. In capitalism, if you're unlucky, or you don't know the right people, or you are born without as much as intelligence you are thrown to the dogs. Sure you have the "freedom" to do whatever you want. Anyone can be the CEO of a company. .. except you have to have a father who knows the right people, except you need to go to the right college, which means you have to have the right SAT score and have a large pocketbook to pay the loans. In socialism, you are given a job you can handle and are all paid the same amount. If you're smart enough to be a doctor, you're a doctor. If society demands more doctors, more students are given the jobs as doctors. If you're smart enough to be a factory worker, you're a factory worker. In capitalism you're penalized for the qualities you are born with. In socialism, they use what you have to contribute to the common good. In Socialism, everyone has the freedom (money). In Capitalism, only the rich, naturally intelligent, and ruthless succeed. 2. Private property is essential to the human race "to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future. " My opponent is advocating that economic success depends upon borrowing money? Is my opponent advocating that the accumulation of debt is a positive quality and that it even furthers a countries success? Unfortunately, Africa is not a solid enough example to make such an audacious claim. I'm going to have to ask you to produce sources and provide logical reasoning. 3. Socialism is condescending, inefficient, and immoral Socialism is condescending - To begin, socialism is bad because it is condescending. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours, now it is the government's and it will provide for you what it thinks you need. " Really? According to my opponents definition of socialism, the government does not buy or deliver the goods it thinks a citizen needs to them. Socialism is where the government controls the means of production and the pay for work, not the distribution of goods. Socialism is inefficient - "Socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. This fact is really common sense (thanks to an economist named Ludwig von Mises). With a central government owning all (or any) means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter" My opponent has failed to show me in a logical manner or factual manner how a lack of profits, losses, market prices, market, or competition leads to inefficiency. I can point to many examples of nonprofit organizations that are extremely efficient. Socialism is immoral - "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. " This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude. " So by my opponent's logic, if the law allows one person to make profit at the expense of another individual, that this is immoral? In this instance my opponent has proven capitalism and not socialism be immoral. 4. Worldwide success can be attributed to capitalism. My opponent builds his argument on the entire theory that people will not invent anything if they are employed by the government. However he gives no reasoning as to why their capability of inventing new processes and things will be inhibited by being employed by a governmental agency. My opponent has failed to give any logical proof or examples that back up his numerous contentions. As the pro in this debate my opponent has the burden of proof and thus must proof why socialism is inferior rather than using quotations and illogical assumptions that have no factual backing to forward his affirmation.