Capitalism is better than Socialism

Pro said that round three is for rebuttals, but did not specify which round I am rebutting. Therefore I will rebut both. Pro also made some citations at the bottom of the round, but did not connect them with anything. Therefore I will treat this round as if Pro had no sources."Capitalism works next to perfectly with human nature."Proof? Also, why is this a good thing? Humans go to war and laugh at other people's misery. We're not a benchmark for perfection."crucial for advancing the human race"I'm remembering a little thing called slavery. Slavery was used by capitalists to get what they wanted for a cheaper price. Slavery was definitely a step back, and it took thousands of years to overcome that step backwards. Slavery also really reached its end around the time that Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto [1][2], which as Pro should know, was a major part of the socialist/communism movement."Take America for example, it"s vast technological improvement and influence was not created by public sacrifices to the "common good" but it was through the productivity of the free men who were intent on making their own private fortunes"Well some of our technological advancements can be attributed to us shipping people from overseas to help us [3]. I doubt that the Nazis we used to enhance our space program were too concerned about getting rich. "Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."For all I know, Pro's name is Adam Smith. There's no source or anything for this quote. Who is Adam Smith? What did he do? Was he an economist, or a tavern owner. This information matters. "amass their personal wealth and at the same time improving the overall economy."I believe that my opening arguments effectively countered this by showing what wealth inequality did to countries during the industrial revolution. John Rockefeller became amazingly rich. He was worth more than 300 billion dollars in today's money [4]. If having people this rich benefitted the economy, we would not have had homeless children and men and women dying in the street due to starvation. "There can thus be no doubt that capitalism triumphs over socialism when it encourages people to make a better life and overall create a better economy."Pro has not shown that capitalism actually improves the economy. Pro has merely stated that it does. "According to Professor Niall Ferguson who wrote Civilization, even the most powerful socialist country the Soviet Union, did not reach to half the economic output of US at its peak."Not only is this information uncited, but it's also incredibly misleading. The most powerful socialist country never even reached half of the economic output of the most powerful capitalist country the world had ever seen. Keep in mind that capitalism had existed as an economic system for thousands of years longer. The Mauryan Empire's economy wasn't as strong as the Gupta Empire's economy because the Gupta had more time to figure out capitalism and trade routes. ---Moving on to round 3 rebuttals. Pro made numerous citations, without actually leaving any sources. I can't know if anything they said is actually true. "There will always be government intervention in the form of taxes."In an anarcho-capitalist paradise, there would be no government intervention. Allow me to repeat Pro's definition of capitalism: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."Using this definition that Pro provided for us, we can determine that government and capitalism do not necessarily go hand in hand. Just because investopedia.com allegedly stated (not cited) that countries will always have taxes, doesn't make it true.In fact, "always" is an absolute. This statement by Pro is that every single country in the history of ever has always had taxes, case closed, no matter what. Even alien countries are included in this. "Additionally Chron.com states..."There's no citation"according to money.howstuffworks..."Look above."[source: Heilbroner]"Look above"the services that Obama provide, e.g. Police, Welfare DO NOT fit under the description in which I have described socialism in round 1."First off, Obama does not provide these things. Congress allocates tax dollars for these things. Obama doesn't go door to door and hand people their welfare checks. Secondly, yes they do fit under Pro's definition: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."Maybe welfare and police don't explicitly fit the definition, but I made a long list that had things that fit in the definition. For example: 1)infrastructure (this fits the definition because the government uses tax dollars to distribute the service of building highways and bridges to the community as a whole. In this action the community as a whole is benefitting from this, and as they vote people into office to represent them, they technically control where the tax revenue is going)2) Court system (this fits the definition because judges are government workers and exist to benefit the community by giving them the right to a trial. They are paid for via community tax dollars. The goes under the production part fo the definition because thejudges are being paid by the community to produce a service. 3) Garbage Collection (this fits the definition because the service that "sanitation engineers" provided is paid for via community money and the benefits are evenly distributed. I believe I have made my point that just because the two Pro chose don't explicitly abide by the definition, that does not nullify the entire list."Socialism is the redistribution of wealth amongst everyone through mean such as taxes, however if everyone, is faring very poorly the government does not have any money in its pocket to provide services such as fire department, police force, etc. because the people that are preforming those services don"t get paid."Pro is taking a problem created by capitalism and stating that "oh well capitalism screwed up, but if socialism can't get us out of the problem then it's okay for capitalism to have done that." Socialism would have never allowed for this problem to have occured. Rockefeller was 300 billion times richer than someone starving in the streets that only had one dollar. He also accountedfor 1.5% of the entire US GDP at the time [4]. His wealth could have improved the lives of tens of millions of people. That's not even including Vanderbilt and Carnegie, two other extremely rich people at the time."Even if there was a super-rich businessman, that businessman would not exist ... without capitalism."That's true, but one should not base every decision they make off of money. Money is just a thing, and we should not let objects control us."Con stated that Capitalism cannot survive .... as stated before, by sources [1] and [2] capitalism DOES have government intervention abet few."There were no sources."In addition Con did not read round 1 of the debate"I read it, but after seeing some of the arguments put forth by Pro, I doubt that he even read it. "Con believed that capitalism had no taxes and therefore had no welfare."Taxes are not in Pro's definition of capitalism, so they do not exist in capitalism. [1]https://www.marxists.org...[2]http://www.civilwar.org...[3]http://www.globalresearch.ca...[4]http://www.forbes.com...