Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

Here is my final argument. Thank you for this amazing debate! Rebuttal #1: Communism and Socialism are separate and incomparable. While Russia and China may qualify as being Socialist, their actions against minority groups and generally inhumane policies were not policies of Socialism; they were policies of Communism. Socialism is an economic and social system. Communism is Socialism, but with a fascist or police state dictatorship for a political system. It was the dictatorial political system that enacts policies these inhumane or unrepresentative policies, not the Socialist economic and social system. Rebuttal #2: Political and economic systems are separate and do not necessarily go hand in hand. I brought up the under representation of minorities not as a direct political effect or policy of Capitalism, but rather as an indirect effect caused by the economic policies of Capitalism, thus making it still legitimate in the context of the topic. Pure political policies are not legitimate for this topic. An economic system does need a political system to back it, yes, but the variance in political and economic systems is so massive that you can not necessarily say that all Bureaucracies are Capitalist, for example. The only exceptions would be Fascism and Communism, since both imply an economy owned and run by the government. However, no other political systems imply a particular economic system. A few examples . . . Capitalist Monarchies, Capitalist or Socialist Confederations, Capitalist Oligarchies, Capitalist and Socialist Republics . . . The list continues on, as shown by ( https://www.cia.gov... ). Rebuttal #3: Socialism does give political bargaining power. A Democracy is meant to have majority rule. If minorities had the individual political bargaining power to make significant differences, majority rule would become void. Using my opponent's own analogy, blue collar workers do not have any connection or control to their bosses . . . In a Capitalist system. Under Socialism, where workers' rights and regulation are general policies, workers can strike or petition without fear and can influence their boss's decisions. Similarly, groups of citizens can come together to petition, or can withhold their vote. Thus, citizens still have political bargaining power, but it is vested in groups rather than individuals. Rebuttal #4: Socialism does not distribute wealth arbitrarily. Because wealth is distributed in regard to the current economic status of the nation in question, Socialism does not arbitrarily distribute wealth. Wealth is distributed equally and in regard to several factors, namely the government and economy. This is clearly not arbitrary. Rebuttal #5: Equality is necessary for Democracy, not equity. As I am short on space, I would like to remind my opponent that I proved that equality is an integral part of Democracy, and that equity does not suffice. To review my argument, please reread my argument block from Round 2. Contention #3: Socialism guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to citizens protected under a government more effectively than Capitalism. Life - When deprived of economic means by which to support himself, a citizen is being deprived of life. The greatest priority of a Democratic government is to ensure life to its citizens. In a Capitalist system where economy is driven by work done and is a competitive environment where not everyone is guaranteed a job, not everyone will have a means by which to support himself. If a citizen can not support himself, there must be a welfare program to ensure that he does not die of starvation or cold or some other similar harm. Any such welfare program would be social spending, an aspect of Socialism, not Capitalism. Liberty - Liberty is giving each and every citizen equal opportunity and treatment. In the case that one citizen can rise to a level of economic power and infringe upon the rights of another citizen, and do so legally at that, is a clear demonstration of how Capitalism fails to protect the Democratic right of a citizen to liberty. Socialism ensures the equal treatment of citizens and limits vertical socioeconomic movement, preventing such infringement upon the rights of others. The Pursuit of Happiness - How can a person pursue happiness if they cannot even afford to eat? Once again, one person taking from the economy for his own happiness but denying happiness to others is not Democracy. My opponent will probably argue that by limiting a person's ability to achieve wealth, you limit his or her ability to be happy. But this is not true. Numerous studies done by Princeton and Yale have found that once a person makes enough money to pay the bills, excess money does not make a person happier. In fact, suicide rates seem to increase with income. One such study can be found at ( http://www.princeton.edu... ). As this is the final round, I will conclude my arguments. Over the last few rounds, I have proven that the economic and social policies of Socialism more effectively uphold the five defined aspects of Democracy than the economic and social policies of Capitalism. They do this primarily through the regulation of economy, the equal treatment of citizens, the guarantee of life and safety through welfare programs, and preventing private interests from dominating government and politics. I have proven that equality is an integral aspect of Democracy, and that equity does not suffice. My opponent has provided rebuttals that rely on invalid comparisons and arguments that do not follow the topic. His counterarguments have not been sufficient, and thus I have carried my duty and satisfied the burden of proof. In conclusion, Socialism's economic and social policies do uphold the ideals of Democracy more effectively than Capitalism. Please give your vote