Why socialism is bad

I realize now that even though I have 8000 characters to use, I probably won't need that much.My opponent tries to make a few claims about my refutations:"I didn't warrant my information"False, I provided clear and logical analysis as to why my refutations and arguments were true. Compare that to your lack of analysis and just asserting everything to be true without even providing a single reason or piece of evidence as to why, and your argument here falls."I wrongly label arguments as irrelevant"False and not even relevant (lol) since I never made the argument that any of my opponent's case was irrelevant. The only time I ever said to ignore something was after I finished addressing it and thuroughly refuting it. This argument fails as well."I leave out certain pieces of my opponent's argument intentionally"First that's a steep burden to prove that I intentionally dropped a piece of my opponent's case. But then secondly, I didn't drop any of my opponent's case. I literally went paragraph by paragraph and responded to every claim my opponent made in order that he made them. But then third, even if I did drop an argument accidentally, he makes no mention of what it was, which only leaves us to assume that I didn't, since he cannot even bring it up in round. This argument fails."He has evidence when I said he didn't"Great! Better than last round. Why don't you provide us a link to be able to look at it outselves so that we can know you're not bsing it.Oh wait, you didn't provide a link? Awkward...So you don't have any evidence? Sad day...Under all of that he makes reference to the number of countries that use capitalism, however he doesn't respond to the argument that just pointing a bunch of random countries that have capitalism and saying "I win" isn't sufficient to prove that capitalism is better than socialism. I could go specific and say that it would just be the argument from popularity fallacy, but since this is the last round I won't make a new argument. This argument fails.Not only that, but he never responds specifically to any of the arguments I made against his case. He tried to respond to the responses in general, but never actually attacks my refutations to try and defend his case. Thus, you can extend out my refutations to easily wipe out his case. This gives my opponent no offense left in the round, which means you default to the negative position as I'm better upholding my burden of proof.Also, as a side note, healthcare being a minor part of a country? LOL!My opponent's only attack against my case is that my source is biased and thus my arguments aren't true, however the bias of the source doesn't determine the validity of the argument. Are all theists who write arguments in favor of God's existence automatically wrong since they're biased to believing that he exists? Are all atheists who write arguments in favor of God not existing automatically wrong because they're biased to believing he doesn't exist? Bias alone is insufficient to refute an argument. My opponent needs to be actually responding to each of my points in order to refute them. Even if the source itself is bias, the validity of the argument doesn't change. I myself, who couldn't give a rat's a** about politics and economics, could repeat the same arguments for socialism that my "biased" source says. Would they still be biased arguments, if the person it's coming from (me) isn't biased one way or the other? Since my opponent's only attack was on my source and not on the arguments themselves, you can extend them all out and easily negate off of the fact that my case is the only case standing at the end of the debate, which means I'm fully and better upholding my burden of proof than my opponent. As such, the round breaks down very easily:1) My opponent is failing to respond to my arguments against his case.2) My opponent is failing to respond to my arguments in my case. The resolution is negated.