Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

I will talk about my opponents clear breach of conduct in R5. Clash for R3: "My opponent's argument is centered around the inequality that capitalism causes, yet Con fails to address the fact no matter the system, there will ALWAYS be inequality." Socialism at least tries to address problem, not dismiss it away as "it"s just part of the system." This effort is better than capitalism, where people don"t even try! How can you fix a problem if you don"t put any effort into it! My opponent also brought up the USSR and how they supposedly were greedy when it all fell down, and it lead to corruption, etc. Yet he fails to realize that a) The USSR was a communist, NOT socialist country. (I will adress his rebuttal to this is R5), and fails to realize that not every system is perfect. In capitalism there are MANY examples of corruption. Read up on the link provided, but it basically explains 10 ways that a capitalist society, the US-freaking-A is the most corrupt country (1) My opponent continued to now say that socialism couldn"t fix the wealth gap. Yet again, it"s whole fundamental part is giving everyone an equal income. And even if it doesn"t work to perfection, it will at least TRY. Trying will get you somewhere, not dismissing. He then says that priorities should be themselves and their families. The flaw with that is that it motivates people like Martin Shkreli to "help themselves" before helping others. And we all see how that turned out (2). After that he says that because of capitalism a cheaper drug was made. Let"s take a step back. If the whole greed thing never happened, the whole Martin Shkreli thing never happened, there would be no need to have a cheaper drug in the first place. "People will be greedy with socialism or without Socialism." As stated in my R3, this greed would be centered towards other things, not just money. It s the need for money that makes people greedy for it. If money wasn"t valuable, no one would use this "natural greed" with money. "Would you prefer to have a system with lots of good and some bad, or a system that only has bad?" My opponent clearly seems to support the latter. Argument 3: Capitalism is the more democratic system. In this argument my opponent starts off with a poor example of Alberta. A) He states that Alberta is socialist, but it is clearly not according to our definitions. Major industries are not owned by the gouvernement, it"s still owned by the people. Thus any problems with the people and the government is in a clearly capitalist province. B) It"s honestly the people"s fault. They elected who they wanted. They got what they elected. Afterwords, he named multiple examples of a bunch of socialist places with one party. Yet he doesn"t seem to understand that there are many Capitalist places that are also Authoritarian. Armenia, Belarus, and many more countries (3) are examples that Capitalism doesn"t fix this problem either "Argument 4: Socialist Economies cannot compete with Capitalist Economies." Reader, switch the word Socialist with the word Capitalist and the same could be said. In a world with all apples, the orange would not work. That"s a fact of life. So it"s not a problem with Socialism, it"s a problem with surroundings. Argument 5: Advertisements (part 2) As stated last round, Advertisements use the lust for money to manipulate emotions, with 3000 ads thrown at them a day. Advertisers know this, and abuse this for the money. But not only do they see this barrage, this attack, of ads, people are affected by them. 64.6% click on google ads (4). This goes to show just how effective these ads are. Especially emotional advertising. "broad emotional appeal will win out every time" "Surely advertising cuts through the system to the brain" These are quotes from Orlando Wood, an expert in marketing in advertising. He knows just how effective marketing with emotions really is. Now before my opponent says that ads inform, and do not force people to click on them, let me just say this. They may not FORCE, but they influence, again clearly shown with that 64.6% percent. Also, okay, informing people of stuff on the market is fine, but when you overwhelm a people with neon signs and cheesy actors, it"s too much. Alos this so called "info" is not just stating, it"s persuading. Let me frame this in a totally different way. Your brain is a puppet, movable, but with force. Advertisements are these fingers, slowly moving you away from your own opinions and towards a product. A product that you never needed until shoved in your face from these fingers. From these advertisements. So readers, after all of this, you and I want a solution, no? Socialism. The lack of greed for money would mean a blissful lack of ads. A blissful lack of "Only 9.99". A blissful lack of your emotions being manipulated by people who you don"t know, for personal gain. Argument 6: Cycle of poverty One of the biggest problems in today's society is poverty. One of the worst solution is the common Capitalist mantra is that "you work hard you do well". So they assume that the easy fix is just to work hard. This is totally impossible because of the dubbed "cycle of poverty". Now what does this mean? It is basically explained in these basic steps. 1: Low personal income 2: Lack of access to safe food and water. 3: Hunger and poor sanitation. 4: Disease and malnutrition 5: Depleted work force 6: Economic decline (6) Then back to stage one. This vicious cycle is exactly what happens today. Let"s look at Desiree Metcalf. (7) She"s been through a lot. As a kid, she grew up in a very poor state with little food and little happiness. She ran away, grew addictions, etc. She attended over TWENTY SIX schools. As she put it, "Seems I'd just get my bags unpacked and it was time to move again." She is now 24, with three kids, and is still having troubles with income. "Like many before her, she carried her poverty into adulthood, doing odd jobs with periods of homelessness and hunger. But more disturbing is that poverty is now starting to take its toll on her children, especially her eldest daughter." One of her children tried to run away at night. Now before you say there are programs to help, they haven"t helped enough. Even though she gets 3000 dollars from the government, she still can"t live out of poverty. In this example, it clearly shows how poverty can not only wreck your life, it can wreck generations of your family who simply can"t get out of this horrible cycle. As NPR elegantly puts it "Desiree Metcalf's story is heartbreaking, but among the 46 million Americans who are poor today, her story is not unique." Indeed it is not. Let"s look at Victoria Houser. (8) She has it better than some, but still not great. She is stuck in affordable housing with a baby son at only 22 years old. "It's kind of not a very safe place to live," "There've been quite a few drug busts here" Both quotes are from Victoria herself. "Her next-door neighbor was recently arrested for allegedly murdering someone and stuffing the body in a cupboard." Now how is this different from normal poverty? How is this a cycle? "Poor to me is the fact that I'm working my butt off. I'm trying to go to school. I'm trying to take care of my son, and that's just not enough," She feels like one small thing could send her whole life crumbling down. This is the cycle. The cycle of once you lose, you are never going to get back up and brush yourself off again. How does socialism fix this? Everyone will get the same income, thus no poverty. No poverty means no poverty cycle. -DDD References: 1(http://www.juancole.com...) 2(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) 3(https://www.google.ca...) 4(http://www.wordstream.com...) 5(http://www.businessinsider.com...) 6(https://emilychocolate.files.wordpress.com...) 7(http://www.npr.org...) 8(http://www.npr.org...)