Capitalism doesn't work.

First, I would like to say that I will continue using the term "Communism". If you didn't want me to use it, then you should have specified in the first round. I will not change my argument because you are afraid of being associated with the USSR. I thank my opponent for his arguments. I intend to prove them wrong on all accounts. "My opponent labelled this argument rather poorly. He states that "Capitalism helps reduce poverty in developing and poor countries" but does not explain how. What the argument is about is South Africa's rise in GDP ( Gross Domestic Product ) . He does not suggest, however, that GDP lowers poverty levels. Open the following graph, entitled 'Poverty And Unemployment':http://www.ihsglobalinsight.co.za...... alongside my opponent's: http://www.indexmundi.com...... and you will see that while the GDP has increased very slightly the rate of poverty and unemployment has stayed the same over the same period of time! This would suggest that GDP and poverty are not linked." You have got to be kidding me. GDP and poverty are greatly interconnected. 'The total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year'- GDP (1) http://www.google.ca...; "The most common way to measure a country's wealth or poverty is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. GDP measures the value of the goods and services that a country produces"(2) http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au... GDP refers to the value of goods that a country produces. Logic and common sense dictate that if GDP increases, production and output increase as well. As a result, the economy goes up and the people living under the poverty line decrease. "This is completely untrue. England, for instance, requires -and always will require- metals ( precious metals especially ) , minerals and wood, etc. from all over the world and exports manufactured products in return. Why are you suggesting that this would be any different in a non-capitalist society?" True Communism, which is what we are discussing, does not promote contact with other cultures. It is an isolationist worldview. Therefore, free trade, and communications are prohibited. It doesn't matter if England needs precious metal, no other communist country will give it to them. This would be very different in another non-capitalist society such as fascism, but since the second round, we have mutually picked communism as our "anti-capitalism" ideology. "Then why -and bare in mind that you are against the war on terrorism- did the USA invade two countries ( Iraq and Afghanistan ) in the last ten years and why, do you suppose, are there suggestions of invading Iran? Not only have they got no evidence for Iran possessing ( or planning to posse's ) nuclear weapons but the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war - http://www.icanw.org...... . In fact; the USA has the second highest number of nuclear missiles ( after Russia ) ." Please quote my entire argument or don't quote it at all. By doing this, you are manipulating the facts. Not all countries have a vested interest in each other. What did Iran and Afghanistan provide the U.S? Virtually nothing. There was a HUGE incentive to go to war. OIL. Oil makes money and money makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm. If the U.S had a serious vested interest in Iran, they would not have went to war. If they had a vested interest, the economy of the U.S would have dropped due to no goods being exported and imported from Iran and Afghanistan. Did it drop? No. "Incorrect once again. Children under 18 account for 27% of homeless people-- http://library.thinkquest.org...... . On the other hand; many children start their lives with millionaire parents. They are two very different spots to start out from." Yes, that is true but can they rise to the top? Yes. Due to Capitalism, they can take out loans, go to nice universities, and do other stuff that allows them to rise. This would not happen in a Communist society. Also, I hate to say it but it is the parents’ fault that they are homeless. They had an opportunity to make Capitalism work for them but they screwed it up. "Actually, according to this graph[1], almost 5% of people with a bachelors or higher are unemployed ( There's a similar chart for the Philippines[3] ) . That works out at 1.75 million people, according to the census of 2000[2], and that number is rising." I said and I quote "No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless." Apparently you and me have different definitions of genius. Today, any person can get a Bachelors degree. It is not a challenge. The smart people are the ones who make the system work for them. Not the ones who have a degree. Also, it's clear that Capitalism doesn't work for some people. No matter how hard they try. However, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, a 5% unemployment rate is amazing because 95% of the people are employed. "Because the worker knows that there are twenty children and twenty toys are required. They would have to be totally heartless to give only one of the children a toy. It is that sense of care and love that sets us apart from the rest of the animals on the planet, and it is that that has always motivated us and given us incentive." Emotions have no place in a debate other than LD. If you gave most people a choice of whether to make 20 toys or 1 toy and get the same pay, most people will choose to make less for the same amount of money. And your "love and care" comment is obsolete. Many if not all animals care for their young in the way that we care for our own children. Just because we believe that we are smarter and more advanced than them, doesn't mean that they don't have the same feelings and emotions as us. "As I stated in P2): for every-one to become a billionaire the current billionaires would have to lose money. Well; they're going to do their best to make sure that doesn't happen, aren't they? So no matter how much the poor want to become rich; they're almost certainly not going to." Incorrect once again. "According to an article published in the Post-Autistic Economics Review it amounted to $2 trillion dollars in 2009-10, with another £1 trillion coming this year." (3) $2 trillion dollars are produced each year. Therefore, the current billionaires do not need to lose money. New money is being printed. On a side note, the money doesn't have to come from the billionaires. It can come from middle-class people. Conclusion I have effectively proved my opponent wrong on all of his accounts. Capitalism does indeed demote war, reduce poverty, and give equal chances to everybody. The rich are the biggest incentive for the poor to rise to the top. Capitalism is indeed the best system for our modern and evolving world. (1)http://www.google.ca...; (2)http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au... (3)http://www.energybulletin.net...